Jump to content

Gary52

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gary52

  1. There are as many opinions as to what the best course is for the government to take, but only one government to take it and only one everyone holds responsible. Strangely, not the Chinese one! A lot of people feel that the rules are "not fair" in as much as they affect them and prevent them doing as they wish. This has led to a large number of "it doesn't apply to me" incidents that have set us back and we don't have to look far to see this happening around us. 

    The vaccine programme seems to be a great success and makes me grateful we are no longer subject to the dead hand of the EU.

    Personally, I am also of the opinion that I should and will continue to take the simple precautions used over the last year until I am happy that my immunity and that of others has reduced the virus to the level of influenza.

    Looking forward to the 29th March along with everybody in our splendid hobby.

    Keep well and stay safe.

     

    • Like 1
  2. Rather than follow the lead of the rabid media, perhaps we should look at things coolly and with a view to re-instating flying safely at club level.

    If we can go to a shop and socially distance, helped by the shop, we can surely put together a plan, as individual clubs, to recreate this on an open field. Sensible advise has been passed on by the BMFA and with a little bit of thought, I am sure that clubs can come up with something, as I am sure our club will. Common sense is something we use every time we go flying and doesn't need a government order for us to use it.

    It is easy for some people to use the forum for politically motivated (often ill informed and conspiracy based) rants, but this does little to move us forward.

    If we are to make comparisons, we would need to have 48,000 dead to get anywhere near the death rate of Belgium, the home of the EU. Trying to mislead with false comparisons is self-serving at the very least.

    Let's work on getting flying models, rather than off the handle.

  3. It would seem to me that if we are trying to substitute an electric version of a 2 ton SUV for an electric one, we are on to a loser.

    Real progress in range and efficiency, as well as cost, can only come when the need for an NCAP compliant metal bodied car can be substituted by a much lighter and affordable vehicle that does not need to protect it's occupants to the same extent. This would require a meaningful and close to 100% efficient collision avoidance systems or by a drastic reduction in vehicle speeds.

    Just imagine if BMW Mercedes and Audi drivers couldn't travel at 90 mph everywhere - I am sure there would be an outcry. (for the sensitive, this is merely sarcasm)

    Gary

  4. In reply to Simons remarks, the development and manufacturing costs look small in comparison to todays. As an exercise in using government money to envigorate an industry and carry it over to better times it could be argued that it was a success. The by-product of giving the Americans a European aviation product to marvel over (and probably worry about) also counts in my book.

    We probably won't see her like again, not in 1:1 scale anyway.

  5. It would be most fortuitous, should the random selection of the mechanism used so to do, alight upon the weary, down-trodden figure posting this reply. If every thing is for the best, in this best of all possible worlds, it could, perhaps, be true this time, for me. Here's hoping!  
×
×
  • Create New...