Yet another aviation thread.

February 6th, 2016 at 8:59:25 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10274
Quote: Pacomartin
You are correct that the Hurricanes were a much simpler design, but the production numbers are correct.


I think they were made of wood...


Quote:
But at least it had given the pilots something else to argue about.


Cool.

Though pilots can argue about anything endlessly, from what I've been given to understand.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
February 12th, 2016 at 11:14:55 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10274
I forget where the most mention of Mexico's new presidential plane is, so I'll post this here.

The infamous 787 made it's inaugural flight yesterday. It was a joyride to nowhere, but carrying the president. There were some cabinet secretaries, the press, assorted others, and a group of high-achieving school kids for some reason.

A few shots of the interior make the thing look ugly inside. The livery doesn't quite manage to destroy the lines of the 787, but it tries. There's something about the shade of green in Mexico's flag that's off, though I admit to little liking for Alitalia's liveries, which are also red white and green.

the headlines had the president downplay the plane's luxury. A prominent note added this is not the president's plane <wink, wink>, but rather a government plane available to any federal officials who may need it to fulfill their duties <nudge, nudge, wink, wink>
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
February 12th, 2016 at 12:15:05 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 662
Posts: 7593
Quote: Nareed
A prominent note added this is not the president's plane <wink, wink>, but rather a government plane available to any federal officials who may need it to fulfill their duties <nudge, nudge, wink, wink>




Other countries have tried that PR trick. Britain gave the Queen a train for her 25th anniversary on the throne, partly to make up for the fact that they retired her giant yacht that they had given her when she was crowned monarch. So they declared that the train was the property of the government and was available to all government officials who need it.

Now, nobody NEEDS a royal train. But Cheri Blair (wife of then Prime Minister Tony Blair) decided to take a woman's day out on the train. I don't think that the Queen ever forgave her for that. Charles and Camilla use the train, but they have their own bedroom cars.


February 12th, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10274
Quote: Pacomartin
Now, nobody NEEDS a royal train. But Cheri Blair (wife of then Prime Minister Tony Blair) decided to take a woman's day out on the train. I don't think that the Queen ever forgave her for that.


Did the public forgiver her?

I can see two possible reactions to this:

1) She called the "any official" bluff, and good for her!
2) spoiled politician's wife jealous of the queen. Off with her head!

Really, governments should make it clear: the head of state needs a private plane which can be secured and protected. This costs money. Likewise for ground transportation, and helicopters as needed. A yacht or a private train go beyond reasonable needs.

BTW, when the British people resent the monarchs enough for their lifestyle perks paid for by the public purse, that's when Britain will finally become a republic.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
February 13th, 2016 at 9:09:03 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 662
Posts: 7593
Quote: Nareed
Really, governments should make it clear: the head of state needs a private plane which can be secured and protected. This costs money. Likewise for ground transportation, and helicopters as needed. A yacht or a private train go beyond reasonable needs.


It is kind of a big thing in British history, as over 80 ships have been designated as Royal Yachts in the past 400 years. Her Majesties Yacht, Brittania was ordered for her reign the day her father, King George VI, died. It had a Capacity of 250 guests and a crew of 21 officers and 250 Royal Yachtsmen. The year after the Brittania was ordered President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He retired the Preisdential Yacht, USS Williamsburg as a "symbol of needless luxury".

Britain has had a royal carriages since 1842. A "Royal Train" was formed in 1977 as a response to the demands of the Silver Jubilee. By and large the British public loves the train. Parliament has reviewed the need for the train several times, but sentimentality wins out. There is also the issue of the Queen and Phillip being of such an advanced age, that the train makes it easy to carry a doctor and a medical car. After Cherie Blair's outing on the train, parliament ordered that the train could only be used by the Queen, Prince Phillip or Prince Charles.

Although Prince Charles loves all the pomp of the train, it may not survive the death of the Queen.

Quote: Nareed
Did the public forgiver her?

Like everything political, people are divided issues like this.
February 14th, 2016 at 9:24:56 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10274
Quote: Pacomartin
It is kind of a big thing in British history, as over 80 ships have been designated as Royal Yachts in the past 400 years.


For an island nation with a powerful military and a tendency to meddle in the world and build empires, this made perfect sense when 1) there was no good alternative for long distance travel and 2) the king actually held practical power instead of being a figurehead of state.

Now, the ceremonial role has its usefulness, and the British royalty is only slightly less useless than the US Vice-president, for example. But a private yacht is at best a holdover from an earlier time and at worst a frivolous extravaganza. It's not like a current or future British figurehead will use it to travel to, say, Australia, leading a naval task force to reconquer the island.

So is a private train. If they need to travel by ground, it's cheaper to rent an engine and the required cars when the need arises.


Quote:
After Cherie Blair's outing on the train, parliament ordered that the train could only be used by the Queen, Prince Phillip or Prince Charles.


So much for PR... I think it was clever and astute to call the PR bluff. I hope some minor Mexican official calls the bluff on the Dreamliner, too.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
February 14th, 2016 at 10:22:39 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 662
Posts: 7593
Quote: Nareed
But a private yacht is at best a holdover from an earlier time and at worst a frivolous extravaganza. It's not like a current or future British figurehead will use it to travel to, say, Australia, leading a naval task force to reconquer the island. So is a private train. If they need to travel by ground, it's cheaper to rent an engine and the required cars when the need arises.


Britain was in almost complete poverty on 6 February 1952 when King George VI died. I read that the order was placed the day the King died, but she was finally launched from the John Brown & Company shipyard in Clydebank on 16 April, 1953. For over 44 years HMY Brittainia served the Royal Family, travelling over one million miles to become the most famous ship in the world (according to the website).

A royal bus probably made more practical sense in 1977 than a royal train. But it sort of defeats the purpose of royalty. Royalty is about grandeur.



The Royal Helicopter is really the only thing that makes sense, but the Queen will only ride in helicopters if she must.



Both helicopters are Sikorsky S-76s.
February 14th, 2016 at 10:43:27 AM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 3
Posts: 777
Nareed you are forgetting how long Elizabeth has been queen. The royal yacht was ordered in 1952. Air travel was not an established means of travel then. The yacht was used for the queen to visit the many countries she had to visit. These voyages were not a pleasure cruise but a duty. Royal visits are still a required part of her reign. If she ignores any of the Commonwealth countries for very long it is considered a slight to that country.
"There is no sin but ignorance" Christopher Marlow
February 14th, 2016 at 11:15:52 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10274
Quote: Pacomartin
Royalty is about grandeur.


Let them be grand with their on money.

Quote:


Both helicopters are Sikorsky S-76s.


Actually that's a STINGER BAIT model :)
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
February 14th, 2016 at 11:17:50 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10274
Quote: kenarman
Nareed you are forgetting how long Elizabeth has been queen. The royal yacht was ordered in 1952. Air travel was not an established means of travel then.


Maybe not in Britain, so i might give that a pass. Perhaps there was a period of transition between sea and air long distance travel. But the DC-7 was quite capable of transatlantic flight.

I suppose the royals never used a De Havilland Comet...
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.