Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Peter Gristwood
#1827170
Rob P wrote:
Peter Gristwood wrote:Healey fired the gun, but it was doomed well before the election....Mountbatten, apparently, was a key voice in the anti-TSR2-party


As it turned out we had no need for the aircraft (or the F-111 that eventually didn't replace it).

The Labour Party decision to destroy the tooling so that development couldn't be reinstated by an incoming Conservative administration remains the most controversial part of this sad saga.

Rob P


We ended up using the Buccaneer instead and, the greatest surprise, as the TSR2 was to be a Canberra replacement, we used the Canberra until 2006.
kanga, Rob P liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1827180
Peter Gristwood wrote:..

We ended up using the Buccaneer instead and, the greatest surprise, as the TSR2 was to be a Canberra replacement, we used the Canberra until 2006.


As it turned out (partly because the Cold War never turned 'hot') of the 3 projects cancelled (TSR2, P1154, AW681), it was only the last which would definitely have been of great use in conflicts which subsequently arose .. if it had been technically as well as affordably deliverable, and had worked as intended. The original C130 was, in the event, usually 'good enough'; and the C130J (with lots of UK, notably Gloucestershire :thumright: , components and technology) has been a world-beater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong ... rth_AW.681
Nick liked this
By RipAndTear
#1827181
Interestingly, the whole debate about building and disposing of electrical vehicles and batteries makes the whole 'green' policy of saving the planet a tad hypocritical when it has been proven that the construction of an EV uses twice the energy to produce than that of a petrol vehicle. When you've seen images of time expired carbon fibre wind farm blades being buried in the US desert and Lithium batteries buried underground as they generally can't be re-used/or anywhere near fully recycled, it does make one think how the planet will cope with this next round of green 'efficiencies'. :shock:
ArthurG, FrankS, BoeingBoy and 5 others liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1827196
RipAndTear wrote: ... when it has been proven that the construction of an EV uses twice the energy to produce than that of a petrol vehicle.


Even were this true, and as it is a statement unsupported with any reference I doubt it, the manufacturing energy cost is irrelevant compared to whole life figures.

Vehicle ‘lifecycle analyses’ - which take account of all the emissions right the way from the mining of ores, the manufacture of vehicles and batteries, and in-use energy consumption of petrol, diesel or electricity - show large overall CO2 savings for EVs compared to conventional vehicles.


https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emis ... vironment/

Rob P

"It has been proven" One of life's great weasel phrases.
lobstaboy, nallen liked this
By RipAndTear
#1827247
"Rob P

"It has been proven" One of life's great weasel phrases."

Bit much Rob. You've taken what I said, out of context. I never did make a comparison with the entire life of the vehicle just this; "..it has been proven that the construction of an EV uses twice the energy to produce than that of a petrol vehicle..." I was merely getting that point across, now if you want the evidence:

The RAC have published an article (rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/are-electric-cars-actually-worse-for-the-environment/) " From the moment an electric car hits the street it emits no tailpipe emissions, but will still produce some degree of pollution from tyre and brake particles. The real environmental impact though, occurs before an electric car has left the factory floor." A report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) highlights that emissions from battery electric vehicle (BEV) production are generally higher than those from internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) production. One study (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217309049) suggests that CO2 emissions from electric car production are 59% higher than the level in production of traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs).

You can argue as much as you like, but what manufacturers do is, they don't mention that these BEV's are powered by the 'magic energy tree' and thus the energy used to provide a charge is not factored in to the environmental damage to make EV's look practically without flaw. Locally, there's little doubt electric cars make our urban areas cleaner and quieter too. Once on the road, they’re also responsible for much lower emissions than cars powered by fossil fuels. The challenge they face now is to further reduce the emissions produced through EV manufacturing and energy production. As electric cars become more widespread, cleaner energy generation, better recycling schemes and improvements to battery technology are all needed before we feel the full benefit of their green potential.

See these;
https://stopthesethings.com/2020/05/13/ ... landfills/
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/201 ... -copper-2/
https://www.dw.com/en/chiles-lithium-bl ... a-43721539

My comment was just to indicate the hypocritic nature of the concept of 'green' vehicles. Why would they tell you how your new EV is really not that green in all this?

IMHO - the jury is out for now.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1827253
RipAndTear wrote:
My comment was just to indicate the hypocritic nature of the concept of 'green' vehicles. Why would they tell you how your new EV is really not that green in all this?


Once more ...

Vehicle ‘lifecycle analyses’ - which take account of all the emissions right the way from the mining of ores, the manufacture of vehicles and batteries, and in-use energy consumption of petrol, diesel or electricity - show large overall CO2 savings for EVs compared to conventional vehicles


It's not greener than walking, but EVs are a lot greener than ICE alternatives.

RipAndTear wrote:IMHO - the jury is out for now.


You are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. But opinion is all that it is.

Rob P
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1827286
Ripper come for a ride in my leccy Pug. :thumleft:

Costs £1.50 to fill up 150 miles.

The battery cells are designed to go to domestic power storage after vehicular use.

You can’t reuse petrol it’s been proven.
By gregorp
#1827368
It's a shame that they couldn't build the Gigafactory on Honiley disused airfield and keep Coventry open. Honiley much closer to JLR site at Solihull where I assume the batteries will be going.
As to the suggestion that Coventry based aircraft could go to Wellesbourne or Halfpenny Green I guess not everybody reads the aviation press. (Both under threat).
By oldbiggincfi
#1827369
CloudHound wrote:The battery cells are designed to go to domestic power storage after vehicular use.


Good job too :pray:

As you get older, your feet get colder .


For that remark I might get sent to Coventry but not to the Airport 'cause it won't be there :(
By Freeflight
#1827406
gregorp wrote:It's a shame that they couldn't build the Gigafactory on Honiley disused airfield and keep Coventry open. Honiley much closer to JLR site at Solihull where I assume the batteries will be going.
As to the suggestion that Coventry based aircraft could go to Wellesbourne or Halfpenny Green I guess not everybody reads the aviation press. (Both under threat).


Don't think Honiley would work - wrong shape, wrong size (too small), JLR happy to keep the track there for current research, test, press purposes, not enough grid power in vicinity, too far from other infrastructure requirements etc. There again, when they already have Gaydon, why do they need two sites like this in close proximity?
By NigelC
#1827984
I think you will find that it was Anthony Wedgewood Benn's promise of government money to Beagle and its subsequent cancellation after it had already been largely spent on the factory at Shoreham that contributed to Beagle's bankruptcy.
Someone allegedly pointed out to old swivel eyes that Beagles were in a staunch Tory constituency. The production equipment was sent to Scottish Aviation Prestwick where it was left to rust away behind their hanger, where I was shown it on a visit in 1978, but at least in a then Labour constituency.
User avatar
By kanga
#1827987
NigelC wrote:I think you will find that it was Anthony Wedgewood Benn's promise of government money to Beagle and its subsequent cancellation after it had already been largely spent on the factory at Shoreham that contributed to Beagle's bankruptcy...


Actually, I think that rather makes my point. Benn, a junior Minister in a pertinent post, supported Beagle, as he generally did aviation. His senior colleagues in Cabinet then failed to back him up.

I have no knowledge of any partisan constituency considerations being in play.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1828013
CloudHound wrote:MRCA multi role combat aircraft, or
must refurbish Canberras again!


[Thread drift again, sorry]
It's ironic that the last user of the Canberra iteration was the USA; as was the Harrier 'AV8-B'[/drift]

CloudHound wrote:MRCA multi role combat aircraft
When I was a youngster at school in the '70s, we used to play "Top Trumps" and the MRCA was the best of the lot! A fellow school mate later flew one in the first Gulf War at silly low heights in a pink aeroplane. I've seen the videos, and they're low!

[/Thread drift]