QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

[Arturo Seis]

Mike M wrote:
> I never really liked the Victor but that picture makes it look good.

Yes. But it certainly was a performer, I believe it could do everything the
Vulcan could do - except, perhaps, the fly-like-a-fighter bit.

Isn't it ironic that of the three, the one that barely lasted two minutes
was the one made by the company that actually still has a product in service
today? I mean, apart from the fact A.V. Roe do have one Vulcan and one
Lancaster still wowing the show attendees? Those VC10s are a joy to see
going over every day! And hear.

Archie



>
> BTW I have had sitting here for ages another disk of videos, not
> Vulcan but rather various other UK post WWII aircraft including two
> my Dad worked on - the Gannet and the Airco 121 (cannot remember if
> the number was 121) later DH121 then HS121 better known as Trident. I even
> managed to find on YouTube a clip of another he worked on
> during the 50s, the Rotadyne, including shots of a demo it made of
> moving a bridge where I was standing close to the film crew.
>
>> I expect they figured (or Figged?) that would be virtually it's last
>> outing. They were mothballing them - then in '83 the Falklands
>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to drop
>> some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,
>> refuelled by several of that other outstanding nuclear bomber which
>> by then was solely a tanker, of which like the Vulcan until a few
>> months ago, there are none flying today (but like the Bruntingthorp
>> Lightning there is at least one doing take off rolls) the Handley
>> Page Victor: http://www.skomer.u-net.com/thunder/victor.jpg
>>
>> Amazing story. And thanks again Mike for sending me the vid! Think
>> I'll watch it again.
>>
>>
>> Arturo
>>
>>
>> Heather wrote:
>>> It is a beautiful plane. I remember when it came to Toronto in 1982
>>> with a slightly lecherous member of the military looking for young
>>> chicks, lol. I told him E. was off limits!!
>>>
>>> I ran the Cdn. International Air Show that year and E. was my
>>> secretary. What a blast that was!! Art Scholl doing his fabulous
>>> stunt flying.....our gorgeous Snowbirds.....sigh.
>>>
>>> Heather
>>>
>>> "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
>>> news:e7P7U1D7IHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> What a fantastic series of photos! It's so good that they've got
>>>> her flying again.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arturo Seis <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bugger!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1268913

 

[Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa]

> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to drop
> some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,

You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that requires -
that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now, wouldn't you?



Arch

 

[ctowers]

Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:
>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to drop
>> some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,
>
> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that
> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now, wouldn't
> you?

A real "Dr." would have known. -)

 

[Mart]

> A real "Dr." would have known. -)

Ah! but witch doctor or doctor who?

Mart


"ctowers" <ctowers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eohCQYY7IHA.3724@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:
>>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to drop
>>> some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,
>>
>> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that
>> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now, wouldn't
>> you?
>
> A real "Dr." would have known. -)
>
>

 

[Mrs Doyle]

Mike M wrote:
> I never really liked the Victor but that picture makes it look good.

I think they look much better without the refueling pods on the wings! It is
a very graceful aircraft and sometimes I think it looks better than the
Vulcan, while other times I think it looks ugly! It certainly was a
performer! Perhaps it is that from certain angles it looks good, and I'd
suggest those are the ones where it most resembles a Swallow. Or anyway
that's what *I* think it looks like.


>
> BTW I have had sitting here for ages another disk of videos, not
> Vulcan but rather various other UK post WWII aircraft including two
> my Dad worked on - the Gannet and the Airco 121 (cannot remember if

The Gannet I know, but not the Airco. The Gannet was quite remarkeable,
wasn't it (and as if to prove it, I just remarked upon it!).

> the number was 121) later DH121 then HS121 better known as Trident.

But I never realised how ahead of it's time the Trident was! I mean, I
(vaguely) remember it entering service how noisy it was and the Staines
crash. Amazing to think that we didn't have the black box requirement prior
to that.

Anyway, definate pilot error, not the aircraft, at fault. The aircraft was
yet another British aviation first and I wish I could go on one but...it
hardly needs saying, does it you can take it as a given, there are none
flying anywhere in the world today!

> I even managed to find on YouTube a clip of another he worked on
> during the 50s, the Rotadyne, including shots of a demo it made of
> moving a bridge where I was standing close to the film crew.

Right, I'll go take a look at that. I trust you're not actually in it, then,
since they probably didn't film themselves?

And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a bizarre
one!

Okay, so I'll just go and make a nice cup of tea now, Father!

 

[Mike M]

Airco was a 1950s state engineered co-operative between DeHavilland,
Hunting and Fairey. It may have even included Bristol but I'm not so sure
there. The Trident was the result. When the big mergers of the 60s came
along the various parts of Airco ended up in different groups, for example
Fairey was subsumed within Westland (together with Saunders Roe),
DeHavilland within Hawker Siddley and I think Hunting ended up with the
likes of Miles, Auster and Beagle.

> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a
> bizarre one!

Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What hair it
still has is a vivid orange!
--
Mike


Mrs Doyle <parochialhouse@craggyisland.com> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:
>> I never really liked the Victor but that picture makes it look good.
>
> I think they look much better without the refueling pods on the
> wings! It is a very graceful aircraft and sometimes I think it looks
> better than the Vulcan, while other times I think it looks ugly! It
> certainly was a performer! Perhaps it is that from certain angles it
> looks good, and I'd suggest those are the ones where it most
> resembles a Swallow. Or anyway that's what *I* think it looks like.
>
>
>>
>> BTW I have had sitting here for ages another disk of videos, not
>> Vulcan but rather various other UK post WWII aircraft including two
>> my Dad worked on - the Gannet and the Airco 121 (cannot remember if
>
> The Gannet I know, but not the Airco. The Gannet was quite
> remarkeable, wasn't it (and as if to prove it, I just remarked upon
> it!).
>> the number was 121) later DH121 then HS121 better known as Trident.
>
> But I never realised how ahead of it's time the Trident was! I mean, I
> (vaguely) remember it entering service how noisy it was and the
> Staines crash. Amazing to think that we didn't have the black box
> requirement prior to that.
>
> Anyway, definate pilot error, not the aircraft, at fault. The
> aircraft was yet another British aviation first and I wish I could go
> on one but...it hardly needs saying, does it you can take it as a
> given, there are none flying anywhere in the world today!
>
>> I even managed to find on YouTube a clip of another he worked on
>> during the 50s, the Rotadyne, including shots of a demo it made of
>> moving a bridge where I was standing close to the film crew.
>
> Right, I'll go take a look at that. I trust you're not actually in
> it, then, since they probably didn't film themselves?
>
> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a
> bizarre one!
>
> Okay, so I'll just go and make a nice cup of tea now, Father!

 

[Mike M]

>> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a
>> bizarre one!
>
> Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What
> hair it still has is a vivid orange!

PS I'm talking here about the real head which is kept under a dome in a
wooden box that until the mid 90s or so used to sit at his feet in his
glassfronted cabinet but is now kept under lock and key elsewhere
following a break-in when various of his personal artefacts were stolen
such as rings, pens and spectacles. The head on the autoicon that can be
seen by visitors is a wax model and looks almost respectable.

For a long time JB was brought in to meetings of UCL's Council where his
presence was recorded in the Minutes as "Present but not voting". I think
this stopped in the 1960s or 70s.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Mike M <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:

> Airco was a 1950s state engineered co-operative between DeHavilland,
> Hunting and Fairey. It may have even included Bristol but I'm not so
> sure there. The Trident was the result. When the big mergers of the
> 60s came along the various parts of Airco ended up in different
> groups, for example Fairey was subsumed within Westland (together
> with Saunders Roe), DeHavilland within Hawker Siddley and I think
> Hunting ended up with the likes of Miles, Auster and Beagle.
>
>> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a
>> bizarre one!
>
> Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What
> hair it still has is a vivid orange!

 

[Mrs Doyle]

ctowers wrote:
> Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:
>>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to
>>> drop some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,
>>
>> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that
>> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now, wouldn't
>> you?
>
> A real "Dr." would have known. -)

I am a doctor of Pseudology!

In fact, if you look ever so carefully out of your peripheral vision...and
then *suddenly* turn your head!...you might catch a glimpse of my diploma.
But as it is from the University of Brigadoon, you just might not see it!

Dr Mrs Doyle

 

[Heather]

"Mrs Doyle" <parochialhouse@craggyisland.com> wrote in message
news:enfSbyf7IHA.5596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> ctowers wrote:
>> Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:
>>>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to
>>>> drop some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,
>>>
>>> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that
>>> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now, wouldn't
>>> you?
>>
>> A real "Dr." would have known. -)
>
> I am a doctor of Pseudology!
>
> In fact, if you look ever so carefully out of your peripheral
> vision...and then *suddenly* turn your head!...you might catch a
> glimpse of my diploma. But as it is from the University of Brigadoon,
> you just might not see it!
>
> Dr Mrs Doyle

And this is the mother of Dr. Mrs. Doyle.......

GET TO BED!!!! IT IS LIKE 5 AM OVER THERE!!!
>
>

 

[Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

Heather wrote:
> "Mrs Doyle" <parochialhouse@craggyisland.com> wrote in message
> news:enfSbyf7IHA.5596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> ctowers wrote:
>>> Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:
>>>>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to
>>>>> drop some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port
>>>>> Stanley,
>>>>
>>>> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that
>>>> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now,
>>>> wouldn't you?
>>>
>>> A real "Dr." would have known. -)
>>
>> I am a doctor of Pseudology!
>>
>> In fact, if you look ever so carefully out of your peripheral
>> vision...and then *suddenly* turn your head!...you might catch a
>> glimpse of my diploma. But as it is from the University of Brigadoon,
>> you just might not see it!
>>
>> Dr Mrs Doyle
>
> And this is the mother of Dr. Mrs. Doyle.......
>
> GET TO BED!!!! IT IS LIKE 5 AM OVER THERE!!!

Jeez Louise! Je n'avais aucune idée!

 

[Arturo Seis]

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:eKfv1Ae7IHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a
>>> bizarre one!
>>
>> Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What
>> hair it still has is a vivid orange!
>

That is strange, isn't it? I presume it isn't the consequence of an
deliberate act or an accident?

> PS I'm talking here about the real head which is kept under a dome in a
> wooden box that until the mid 90s or so used to sit at his feet in his
> glassfronted cabinet but is now kept under lock and key elsewhere
> following a break-in when various of his personal artefacts were stolen
> such as rings, pens and spectacles. The head on the autoicon that can be
> seen by visitors is a wax model and looks almost respectable.
>
> For a long time JB was brought in to meetings of UCL's Council where his
> presence was recorded in the Minutes as "Present but not voting". I think
> this stopped in the 1960s or 70s.

Ha ha!

Mind you, you'll probably find that he was down the road, in the Commons, a
few weeks back "Voting but not present" when they got 42 days through!

Presumably when they hold the innocent incommunicado for 42 days, they'll be
hoping to find the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.


Arturo

 

[Mike M]

Arturo Seis <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote:

> That is strange, isn't it? I presume it isn't the consequence of an
> deliberate act or an accident?

I think that is more a consequence of his pickling instructions not having
quite the effect he had hoped for or expected.

> Ha ha!
>
> Mind you, you'll probably find that he was down the road, in the
> Commons, a few weeks back "Voting but not present" when they got 42
> days through!

You're getting on dangerous ground here. There are quite a few that I
would like to see locked up for 42 days without charge, all known to
occasionally frequent the Commons including GB and several in his Cabinet.

> Presumably when they hold the innocent incommunicado for 42 days,
> they'll be hoping to find the answer to Life, the Universe, and
> Everything.

It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit to any
error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

And to think I didn't used to be a fan of Liar!
--
Mike M

 

[Arturo Seis]

> It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit
> to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.
>

Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by talking war
route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get away
with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing that.
Well, I would.

Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent facsimile!

 

[webster72n]

Arturo:

The more you reveal, the better I like it.
I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it and the
USA, especially right now. Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,
including Social Security?
Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?

Harry.


"Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit
> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.
> >
>
> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by talking war
> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get away
> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing that.
> Well, I would.
>
> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent facsimile!
>
>

 

[Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

> It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit
> to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

Do you watch 'Mock the Week' Mike? Apart from 'Have I Got News For You' with
Kirsty Young, Marcus Brigstocke or Daisy Sampson (I'd marry two of them!) I
think it's the most intelligent thing on the box these days. I thought I
could die laughing tonight when Frankie Boyle described Brown as looking
like a sad face painted on a scrotum! I wasn't expecting to think about it
(once I'd recovered) and think "well, actually, that's fairly accurate!".

Almost coughed up my FairTrade Chenin Blanc (£3.99 in the Co-op and
definately passable)!

 

[Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

Mike M wrote:
> Airco was a 1950s state engineered co-operative between DeHavilland,
> Hunting and Fairey. It may have even included Bristol but I'm not so
> sure there. The Trident was the result. When the big mergers of the
> 60s came along the various parts of Airco ended up in different
> groups, for example Fairey was subsumed within Westland (together
> with Saunders Roe), DeHavilland within Hawker Siddley and I think
> Hunting ended up with the likes of Miles, Auster and Beagle.
>

I've seen the YouTube video now. Very interesting! The Rotodyne could
perhaps have been revolutionary but choppers annoy the hell out of me -
particularly Chinooks going back and forth, so I don't quite know how I feel
about that one.

 

[Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

Mike M wrote:
> Arturo Seis <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is strange, isn't it? I presume it isn't the consequence of an
>> deliberate act or an accident?
>
> I think that is more a consequence of his pickling instructions not
> having quite the effect he had hoped for or expected.
>

His philosophising knew no bounds, did it.


Arturo

 

[Heather]

"webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0lvBz17IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Arturo:
>
> The more you reveal, the better I like it.
> I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it and
> the
> USA, especially right now.

No bloody way, Harry!! We have a Queen......you have a total, bumbling
fool for President. Mind you, that will change if and when Obama
*ascends the US throne*.

> Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,
> including Social Security?

Wot in hell are you talking about?? *ownership* of what.

> Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?

No......you were probably fantasizing after drinking some cooking
sherry.

)
>
> Harry.
>
>
> "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit
>> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.
>> >
>>
>> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by
>> talking war
>> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get
>> away
>> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing
>> that.
>> Well, I would.
>>
>> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent
>> facsimile!
>>
>>
>
>

 

[webster72n]

Where I am concerned, you can have your Queen all to yourself.
In order to know what I'm talking about, you'ld have to read up on target
specific information and which of course you also wouldn't find in your
day-to-day history books. Once you have done that, you may be able to
discuss this issue.
Right now you can't. <H>.


"Heather" <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23%23xvNJ47IHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u0lvBz17IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Arturo:
> >
> > The more you reveal, the better I like it.
> > I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it and
> > the
> > USA, especially right now.
>
> No bloody way, Harry!! We have a Queen......you have a total, bumbling
> fool for President. Mind you, that will change if and when Obama
> *ascends the US throne*.
>
> > Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,
> > including Social Security?
>
> Wot in hell are you talking about?? *ownership* of what.
>
> > Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?
>
> No......you were probably fantasizing after drinking some cooking
> sherry.
>
> )
> >
> > Harry.
> >
> >
> > "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit
> >> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by
> >> talking war
> >> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get
> >> away
> >> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing
> >> that.
> >> Well, I would.
> >>
> >> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent
> >> facsimile!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Heather]

Have you gone off your meds?? You make absolutely no sense (as usual).

Do tell us......what is this *issue* that only you seem to know
about....ROFL!!

About the only thing I can't *get* is your incomprehensible off the wall
ramblings which appear to hit you late at night. On second thought,
they also hit at noon. Give your head a shake!!

"webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OKQdqw57IHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Where I am concerned, you can have your Queen all to yourself.
> In order to know what I'm talking about, you'ld have to read up on
> target
> specific information and which of course you also wouldn't find in
> your
> day-to-day history books. Once you have done that, you may be able to
> discuss this issue.
> Right now you can't. <H>.
>
>
> "Heather" <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23%23xvNJ47IHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u0lvBz17IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Arturo:
>> >
>> > The more you reveal, the better I like it.
>> > I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it
>> > and
>> > the
>> > USA, especially right now.
>>
>> No bloody way, Harry!! We have a Queen......you have a total,
>> bumbling
>> fool for President. Mind you, that will change if and when Obama
>> *ascends the US throne*.
>>
>> > Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,
>> > including Social Security?
>>
>> Wot in hell are you talking about?? *ownership* of what.
>>
>> > Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?
>>
>> No......you were probably fantasizing after drinking some cooking
>> sherry.
>>
>> )
>> >
>> > Harry.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to
>> >> > admit
>> >> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by
>> >> talking war
>> >> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get
>> >> away
>> >> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for
>> >> doing
>> >> that.
>> >> Well, I would.
>> >>
>> >> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent
>> >> facsimile!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>