It even says in the video description it's been hashed together from stills for a laugh.
Old Rigger wrote:It even says in the video description it's been hashed together from stills for a laugh.
Did not know that, if that's the case how come that the papers have still run with it and why would the CAA claim they are investigating and all the people who have stated that they saw it as well.
Can I respectfully ask that had Spitfire 'filled the forum' with sycophantic comments demonstrating blind faith and support for the Vulcan trust would you also request he takes it somewhere else as it would be a little boring, which that is for me, but would not ask them to take their thoughts somewhere else though.
Just a polite question, not wanting to start a flame war that drove a lot of us from the Vulcan forum to here for the same reasons in the first place.
Vulcan Bomber wrote:Spitfire, your filling the forum with anti Vulcan trust comments is getting a little boring now... Please feel free to dump it all on a different forum... Preferably one I don't partake in.
Vulcan Bomber wrote:I havnt a problem with his opinion or indeed anyone else's, but to read the same thing in all the current threads... Quite what funding has to do with a hoax barrel roll is beyond me.
Vulcan Bomber wrote:The trust and management of the project I'm not so impressed with but I don't find every opportunity possible to stick a knife in and twist.
Old Rigger wrote:Really Kermit, people are moving away from Iconic because a couple of people don't tow some newly invented rule and others have had their sensibilities upset because those people exercise their right to hold different views to them, if anything is going to drive people away it is going to be that, this thread is starting to go the way they used to on the Vulcan forum and that is what drives people away, its the perceived censorship conundrum all over again.
XH558 is gone and yet people are still getting in a tizzy when people still comment about the drivel that is is still published from the project and the 'we know something you don't about what happens next but not going to tell you yet', had enough of that over the 8 successful years of flying. Oh my how dare I, must go to the naughty corner.
Its like watching the tv and complaining that BBC1 is rubbish, but don't consider turning over to another channel, if people don't like someone's posts then don't read them, and certainly don't respond to them, anyway I will also make you happy as this will be my last post you will no doubt be pleased to read, I just could not be bothered anymore.
Vulcan Bomber wrote:The Olympus isn't bothered about being upside down.... It even has a hopper tank on the fuel system to make sure it's happy upside down...
Sooty655 wrote:Vulcan Bomber wrote:The Olympus isn't bothered about being upside down.... It even has a hopper tank on the fuel system to make sure it's happy upside down...
To clarify, the Olympus is VERY unhappy about being run under negative g conditions. There is no oil scavenge from the bearing housings, oil pickup from the engine tank can also be problematic, and it rapidly either runs out of oil or starts burning it in the internal air system.
If by a "hopper tank" you mean the fuel recuperators, they are there to cater for SHORT TERM fuel supply interruption due to negative g effects on the fuel pick-up, not because it is permitted but because it would make a bad situation worse if the engine(s) flamed out.
A barrel roll is fine if flown correctly, an aileron roll is not, and prolonged inverted flight is definitely not.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests