Flecc
We are talking about radio active, chemically poisonous shells here..not wether nutella is bad for your teeth..
The oxides produced on burning of DU shells are known to be lethal. Thing is people tend to keep well away...for a while..
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
We are talking about radio active, chemically poisonous shells here..not wether nutella is bad for your teeth..
The oxides produced on burning of DU shells are known to be lethal. Thing is people tend to keep well away...for a while..
I find the distance is about 3 miles one-way, as being a perfect distance for an ebike into town. Just long enough to gain the advantage, short enough not to get cold or hot and bothered ,will suit any ebike of whatever vintage, as most any battery is good for 6 to 8 miles.
For your information Guderian read and copied the tactics and theories of Basil Lidell Hart in the use of armour.
And far from not investing in the RAF Fighter command had the first fully integrated Radar directed air defence system in the world.
You have been reading the Wrong books.
These are the middle class you are describing, millions exist apparently unknown to you living on and with far less.
I know about the motors, that bit is dead easy by comparison to the supply of energy.
In the cruise, a typical twin turbofan engine airliner will burn about 5 tonnes of JET A1 / hour which by my rough calculation is about 60 Mega Watts. I'm going to guess at a thermal efficiency of a turbofan at 35% because I can't be bothered to look it up. That would mean that an electrically powered airliner would require a 20 Mega Watt power supply just to cruise for one hour. If you factor in high energy / drag manoeuvres such take off acceleration, use of flaps, turns etc, the power consumption increases dramatically. Add in a minimum contingency for a divert and the power soon becomes 30 Mega Watts for each our of flight. So for say a two hour flight from London to Italy, you are going to need a 60 Mega Watt hour battery. I don't think so.
The proposal to sit punters on a hydrogen (highly explosive at just 4% by volume in air) and oxygen cocktail isn't going to happen. The airliner would become as dangerous as a Saturn V rocket and no one other than the crew were allowed within 10 miles of that when fully fuelled. If you try to beef up the hydrogen & oxygen storage, the thing will be so heavy that it won't move.
Commercial electric flight, substituting what we think of as airline travel, is not going to happen, even if we use the most cutting edge technology that is available today. It is going to take something that human kind has not even begun to perceive yet, to come along. That may or may not happen many years into the future, so its paraffin all the way to Benidorm for the foreseeable.
Right, who's going to be the first to say fit solar panels to the wings?
Now he's even led to the total shutdown of US government.
I guess that's some form of brilliance, achieving that just as his first year ends.
I wonder what he'll manage in his second year?
.
Couldn't resist, Sorry tillson
From the Guardian
Solar Implulse 2 has completed the first flight round the world
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/solar-impulse-plane-makes-history-completing-round-the-world-trip.
Yes, I know what you are going to say, it was just an experiment.
But then so was the Wright Flier.
Our Government has been shutdown ever since the referendum.
There are alternatives to heavy bottles storing gases under pressure, the cyrogenic containers comprising light aluminium and polyurethane foam can store large amounts of liquidised and adsorbed hydrogen for the periods required. In the event of an adsorbed hydrogen container breaching,, the effect is a steady leak of the gas, not a fuel air bomb mixture. Whether there is the energy demand for trans continent flight, ask yourself why kerosene is not used as a rocket fuel any more.
There is design work yet to be completed, but never is a long time.
Last edited:
Yes, you are right. But cant see any point ?
The Germans also had Freya, as a radar system probably better than ours but we did have far superior control and command system put in place by Mallory...brother to chap who did or didn't climb Everest.
Germans also had 20 mm Canon on Me,109 and BF110. They also outnumbered us to tune of around 6 to 1 in fighters/ fighter bombers.
What became apparent was their Stuka could not compete with anything , even our Boolton Paul Defiant. The Stuka was withdrawn fairly quickly. The Bf 110 could not compete with Hurricane or Spitfire the latter of which was more than a match for 109, even tho that plane with its central mounted canon, firing through prop spinnner, could destroy any of our planes with a single strike and from further away than we could return fire.( Its engine was actually based in Merlin, the first Me109 used a RR kestrel engine, that's really prepared OG, send best engine we have at time, circa 36, for Germans to copy. The Merlin was still been developed in 36.)
Germans also had fuel injection, which they utilised. ( our planes beginning of war cut out on negative g)
What made all the difference was the fact Germans were attacking, which meant their fighters had about 20 mins over our airspace. Our control and command meant we could stop standing patrols and meet attackers but with 90 mins plus airtime ( but about 20 seconds ammunition)
It was common for our fighters to land, refuel, rearm and return to same fray. Germans could not. This meant we could match their fighting airtime with a force roughly a quarter the size of theirs.
The fact our planes were not shot down in droves by German canon is testament to our better aircraft design ; fact RAF were willing to change policy and first rate training of pilots. ( at start of war, not later) We copied what they had learnt killing Spaniards..( ie flying in 2s, not the Vic 3) It was nothing to do with our preparedness.
The Germans had invested around 5 fold in Luftwaffe our government had in RAF.
Didn't you watch Battle of Britain???
We were woefully prepared for war...and didn't lose it by skin of our teeth. Had individuals not taken initiative pre 1939 and privately developed much of that the country depended on during early stages the Germans would have walked into UK.( Spitfire / Hurricane/ Mosquito all developed/ designed by private concerns)
Its just like you to argue such a contrary opinion. Just read any history book OG.
Ps. None of this is from Google so yes might be errors here and there but its essentially accurate.
Had UK been anything like prepared for war, France; Belgium and all the Low countries would not have been invaded, Dunkerque would never have happened and likewise the Battle Of Britain. Our pre war intention was always to fight the war in France...the BEF was incapable of doing so; so the obvious question is how come Uk almost lost a war in around 6 months if it was so prepared for it ??
Had we been fully prepared for war chances are Chamberlain's bit of paper might have meant something.
Last edited:
None of this is news, to me, and the disparity with the Spitfire tending to stall out was solved by the introduction of a special float chamber bleed device that reduced the effect, designed by Miss Schilling and known as "Miss Schillings" orifice.
"
From flight NOVEMBER 7, 1940
A comparison of the take-off power of our Rolls-Royce
Merlin X with its capacity of 27 litres against that of the
DB 601A with the considerably larger capacity of 33.9
litres is revealing. The Merlin rating gives 1,065 h.p. for
three minutes at 5! lb. /sq. in. boost and 3,000 r.p.m. The
DB 601A rating is very similar, being 1,050 h.p. for one
minute with a boost of 5.2 lb./sq. in. at 2,400 r.p.m. The
difference in capacity is, of course, most marked.
So fuel injection was ruled out by our people as it didn't give a power advantage.
You may be interested in this
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/DB-601A-Flight-7Nov40.pdf
By the way the German 20mm cannon had a tendency to detonated on the aircraft skin rather than penetrate and wasn't as potents as later models, and although 20mm cannon had been tried on the Mk 1 Spitfire, they had a tendency to jam, so were not introduced widely.
Because of its complex design, only eight Freya stations were operational when the war started, resulting in large gaps between the covered areas. The British Chain Home radar, although less advanced and more prone to errors, was simpler, which meant that the complete Chain Home network was in place in time for the Battle of Britain.
It wasn't private enterprise that gave us the Hurricane and Spitfire they were produced in response to design directives from the RAF procurement department, and Dowding was on the committee that decided what the performance required was to be.
It wasn't "Better" aircraft design that saved many of our aircraft from German cannon fire
the German 20mm cannon had a tendency to detonate on the aircraft skin rather than penetrate, conversely much of the Hurricane had old fashioned fabric covering and the explosive shells just passed right through the aircraft without detonating. The early cannon shell also had a low velocity and were not as potents as later models, and although 20mm cannon had been tried on the Mk 1 Spitfire, they had a tendency to jam, so were not introduced widely.
This has nothing to do with the fact that your premise fails on the simple fact that the enemies of the Germans outnumbered and out gunned them in material terms and that didn't deter the Germans starting the war.
Our rearming would have made no difference.
Last edited:
From of all sources, the Daily Mail
"
Top Tories in Chinese 'cash for Brexit' furore: Three ex-Cabinet Ministers targeted by 'Miss Liu' in Mayfair consultancy sting
The senior politicians were lured to a luxury Mayfair office where they were secretly filmed discussing being paid for telling Chinese tycoons how to make money out of Britain leaving the European Union.
Those targeted were ex-Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell, and ex-Trade Secretary Peter Lilley. All three last night denied wrongdoing.
True or false? these days it is hard to tell, anyway here's the link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5292825/Cabinet-ministers-told-China-make-money-Brexit.html
What is odd is it appearing in the Daily Mail. Why? I wonder, what is their agenda here?
It sounds like a classic sting... whose?
"
Top Tories in Chinese 'cash for Brexit' furore: Three ex-Cabinet Ministers targeted by 'Miss Liu' in Mayfair consultancy sting
- Senior politicians were allegedly lured to Chinese company's luxury offices
- They were promised cash and all expenses paid trip to Hong Kong for their info
- Andrew Lansley, Andrew Mitchell and Peter Lilley have all denied wrongdoing
The senior politicians were lured to a luxury Mayfair office where they were secretly filmed discussing being paid for telling Chinese tycoons how to make money out of Britain leaving the European Union.
Those targeted were ex-Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell, and ex-Trade Secretary Peter Lilley. All three last night denied wrongdoing.
True or false? these days it is hard to tell, anyway here's the link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5292825/Cabinet-ministers-told-China-make-money-Brexit.html
What is odd is it appearing in the Daily Mail. Why? I wonder, what is their agenda here?
It sounds like a classic sting... whose?
they try to minimize the impact of another story about tory's sleaze.
Giving advice or 'consultancy' on something you can read everyday in the newspapers if you don't watch the news for £6,000 a day is another way of taking bungs.
Well done OG, you,ve modified your opinion from UK was prepared for war to no it wasn't...but made no difference anyway... Not many on here are capable of such " U" turns...credit to you.
But making your opinion of making no difference is very hypothetical and cant be proved either way..but sending troops to war in an unprepared state or poor equipment is not fair...is it OG..
But making your opinion of making no difference is very hypothetical and cant be proved either way..but sending troops to war in an unprepared state or poor equipment is not fair...is it OG..
Are you making this up as you go along? I said nothing about being prepared for war did I ? my remarks were entirely about our readiness to defend ourselves,which were in fact secret from the Germans so they could hardly put them off going to war, could they?
Do pay attention and actually read my posts.
And by the way Father went to France with the BEF as a Sergeant Major armed with no more than some toffees in his revolver case.
Most but by no means all of the rank and file were armed, but only the front line troops , not those in transit.
They were expected to either be equipped on arrival at the front (without actually knowing were that might be) or failing that to scavenge for weapons as best they could from casualties, indeed it wasn't fair.
Last edited:
The term "Donkeys led by Hyenas" springs to mind.
Altrnatively
"Never it the history of human politics has so much been owed to so many by so few."