Inop brake lights

[P.S.]

Was unlikely to ever buy anything from ACC. I occasionally look at their website and realised that their pricing strategy seems to be "Take the US sale price in dollars, double that number and put a pound sign in front of it". If someone could make it cheap to buy and run a Dodge Ram SRT-10 or Cadillac EXT I will be sorely tempted!

Youd be surprised how "cheap" it is to run american cars - certainly the more modern ones... I have a 400bhp 5.7Litre, does 29mpg on a run, 20 round town, has classic fully comp insurance £600/year living in london !!!! . servicing is cheap, oil tells you when it needs changing, spark plugs last 100,000 miles and the coolant 150,000 miles. I have run american cars as everyday vehicles for the last 18 years with a big grin on my face

Hey, that Dodge Ram SRT-10

you can claim the VAT back on that as it's classed as commercial Go on, you know you want a 500bhp pick-up truck - who doesn't

mmmm...... 8litre V10........ mmmmmmmm

 

[masona]

I have run american cars as everyday vehicles for the last 18 years with a big grin on my face

Are parts easily available ?

 

[AdamW]

Of course, something that doesn't help the reputation of Yank tanks is that a US gallon is smaller than a UK gallon: 20mpg(US) = 24mpg(UK)... my dad gets about 25mpg out of his (3 litre) Mondeo.

Someone told me that one of the reasons the V8 became so popular in the US is thus: drive through a desert with a 4 cylinder engine, if one cylinder goes down you should be able to limp to the next town. If 2 cylinders go down, you are stuffed. But if you have an 8 cylinder engine, 3 can go down and you should be able to limp on. In the sparsely populated middle bits of the US, this is a definite advantage.

Like how you aren't allowed to fly a 2-engine airliner for transatlantic passenger flights.

If you get a US car, I think it is only worth doing if you get the high-end ones. The "economy" cars I have seen out there (e.g. Chevrolet Cavalier) have very poor build quality and styling. Reason being, they build them to sell at what is comparably a very low price. The aforementioned Cavalier starts at about $10K US for what is a Focus-sized car, with a 2.2l engine.

 

[mildmanneredjanitor]

Like how you aren't allowed to fly a 2-engine airliner for transatlantic passenger flights.

Are you sure about that?

If so, someone should point this out to American Airlines, think they fly Boeing 777's Heathrow-JFK quite regularly...

 

[AdamW]

You're right there, I've done some looking into it and found out the reason. ETOPS certification:

ETOPS is an acronym for Extended-Range Twin-Engine Operations. Without an ETOPS rating, an aircraft with only two engines must be able to get to an airport where it can safely land within 60 minutes if an engine fails in-flight. ETOPS extends this "rule time" to 90 minutes or more, up to a maximum of 180 minutes. Obtaining an ETOPS rating requires certification of the reliability of an airframe/engine combination as well as an airline's flight operations and maintenance. Usually extra equipment is required as well, such as additional backup systems for electrical power. ETOPS does not require over-water equipment (e.g., life rafts) or additional fuel tanks, though these are usually required for the typical missions of ETOPS-rated aircraft. Some pilots claim ETOPS really means "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim."

Boeing explain it here

 

[mildmanneredjanitor]

Bluddy hell Adam, you just have to go that one bit better...

 

[AdamW]

Since 1953, airliners with two engines have been restricted to operations within 60 minutes of an airport. However, starting in 1985, ETOPS standards have extended these times and until 2000, the limit has been up to 180 minutes.

So, until 1985 2-engined jets would not have been allowed to fly to the US from London. London to Iceland is no problem as between Iceland and Ireland is about 2 hours. However, Iceland to North America is a good 5 hours. A 777 with a 330 minute ETOPS is never more than about 4 hours from the nearest airport if it flies in a straight line from LHR to JFK.

In fact, a mate of mine was onboard a plane flying that very route on the 11th of September, 2001, and it turned back when it was almost exactly midway over the Atlantic.

 

[AdamW]

Bluddy hell Adam, you just have to go that one bit better...

C'mon man, I was telling you that you are right and I was wrong!

 

[pipme]

Remember '89 East Midlands 737 bi-engined debacle ? ...The two-pilot crew mistakenly identified which engine had suffered damage and shut down the number two engine which up until that time had been operating normally......
Then they had.......NONE !!

Also Volcanic ash can prove problematical ... twice the redundancy with 4 suck-squeeze-bang-blowers attached ?

Some chatter : - HERE

For your peace of mind ... in comparing travel safety try by number of journeys rather than distance travelled ie injuries per flight. ... We had better not go near by 'proximity' twixt conveyances.
Perhaps a car looks better then .. travelling just feet apart, one crew member, no radar (except !!), no specific maintenance required .. in danger area for a whole years worth of travel .. 10k miles at av spd say 40MPH = 250 hrs .... Aust in plane 300 peeps say 20 hrs !!

P

 

[AdamW]

I'm not sure I entirely understand you Pip, are you saying that per man flying (rather than per aeroplane), per hour (rather than per mile) an aeroplane is not as safe as a car?

The thing with planes is, if you properly stack one (not just a harsh landing) then there will ALWAYS be a LOT of fatalities. With a car accident you are usually limited to one or two: OK there can be more, but seldom hundreds like in a plane.

Of course, planes always fly with two flight crew: hopefully if one is flying in a silly fashion or just passes out at the control stick then the second one is there for some redundancy. You don't get that in a car!

 

[pipme]

Cannot imagine this .... to not have some semblance of control .. once it all goes pear shaped ...

I'll take my chances in the car thanks !

P

 

[planenut]

Jets or Propellers ? -
two good screws are better than four blow jobs anytime.

 

[mildmanneredjanitor]

Always remember to sit at the back, you're further from the crash then!

 

[AdamW]

Not necessarily...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,1371,979942,00.html

My grandad saw it happen, then drove one of the airport fire tenders to the scene. He reckons the tail hit the ground first, but seeing as there were no survivors it wouldn't have made any odds.

 

[pipme]

Singapore Airlines .. 747 ... incorrect, runway job.
Note the tip of the tail-fin .. did the rear end roll ? or was it debris strike ?

Note, also just aft of the massive damage, an emergency exit, good spot to sit in economy next row of seats aft of that exit ... huge legroom due to transverse gangway .... Not bad in emergency either.
Over wing looks like a no-no !!
I think this was SA first fatal incident (not counting subsidiaries).
Still at the top for comfort good service and ... no aircraft > 3 years old !! a massive plus. .... Have flown with them to far east .. will do again !! Brilliant. .... When on the correct runway etc !!