Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

General aviation/airplane news and chat

Is it because of all that hot, humid air being pushed back by the Himalayas ?

I was in the foothills and around, north of the Bay of Bengal one time, it’s the wettest place on earth.

Skin was lovely and soft, mind :rolleyes:
Certainly to do with prevailing winds. Don't know how much of a role the Himalayays play though am sure its a factor. It is also an area where two separate trade winds meet, so it is very prone to turbulence. On another forum someone said he'd flown about fifty times over it, and he only remembers two occasions in which there was no turbulence.
 
Light aviation scares the shit out of me. When you consider how insubstantial most of the aircraft are and how little experience it takes for people to be allowed to fly them, I'm surprised that accidents aren't far more common.
A shit load more training and experience than needed to get in a 2 ton metal box and do 80 a foot away from some unsuspecting poor sod you are just about to plough into on the M4.
P.S. You fucking wuss
 
Light aviation scares the shit out of me. When you consider how insubstantial most of the aircraft are and how little experience it takes for people to be allowed to fly them, I'm surprised that accidents aren't far more common.

It’s a lot easier than driving (apart from the last two feet of landing) .

You could learn to fly in single engine aeroplane in about five hours. Most of the rest of the time is learning what to do if stuff goes wrong. And 95% of light aircraft are so simple there isn’t really that much to go mechanically wrong with them.
 
It’s a lot easier than driving (apart from the last two feet of landing) .

You could learn to fly in single engine aeroplane in about five hours. Most of the rest of the time is learning what to do if stuff goes wrong. And 95% of light aircraft are so simple there isn’t really that much to go mechanically wrong with them.
Just remember that there are old pilots. And there are bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots and you’ll be fine :thumbs:
 
The whole thing is fucking ridiculous, I don't why the RAF wastes so much energy and money flying vintage warbirds.
 
Because they're beautiful.
They should probably be resigned to museums at this stage, but like old cars, it's nice to see them being used.

I don't disagree on the aesthetic appeal but the RAF shouldn't be spending millions and killing crew to operate them. Let a charitable trust manage them and volunteers maintain and fly them.

There is no rational justification for 21st century air force to operate a squadron of 8 x WW2 fighters.
 
It's the same as the Red Arrows. Promotional material. Works way better than an advert on the telly.
 
The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is a very publicly visible part of a recruitment campaign as well as being a reminder of a very significant period in British history Would you rather that it was scrapped and replaced by some low cost offices in some selected city centres ?
 
The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is a very publicly visible part of a recruitment campaign as well as being a reminder of a very significant period in British history Would you rather that it was scrapped and replaced by some low cost offices in some selected city centres ?

Yes, because the problem isn't recruitment, it's retention.
 
The whole thing is fucking ridiculous, I don't why the RAF wastes so much energy and money flying vintage warbirds.

i have never, ever, seen the attraction of air shows. one of two things can happen:
1: the planes work as they should. big whoop.
2: someone dies spectacuarly. no thanks.
 
i have never, ever, seen the attraction of air shows. one of two things can happen:
1: the planes work as they should. big whoop.
2: someone dies spectacuarly. no thanks.
:confused: 3. People get fed and watered celebrating the announcement of deals they've spent the a year working on
 
Back
Top Bottom