wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Recliner" wrote:

Viscounts, all of which appear to be long gone, alas.

The experience wasn't helped by the steady trickle of oil flowing out
of
the number 1 Dart engine

I moved to Luton in 1987.

Before then I took no interest in aircraft, never flown until then.
Luton was new job, international travel, flying. Started taking
interest in planes. Discovered Viscounts fron Luton airpirt to Dublin
and Maastricht, did some trips on both, incl. day trips to Dublin, and
one LHR-IOM return trip. IIRC almost every flight there was a oil
flowing out engines, a small thin brown trail in a neat air swept line
along the engine nacelle. I just thought it was a Dart characteristic.

Yes, you're probably right. I have little experience of studying Darts
in flight, so wondered if it was the symptom of a more serious problem.
It certainly wasn't reassuring in my hung-over condition after the boozy
red-eye flight from London.

Tony Polson wrote:
"Recliner" wrote:
I agree that cars do have a much shorter design life, but it's certainly
more than five years and 60k miles.


It might be longer now, but it certainly wasn't in the 1960s. Ford used
5 years and 60,000 miles as their yardstick; the Austin/Morris Mini was
designed for 5 years but only 45,000 miles. I got that information from
a lifelong friend who worked for British Leyland/Austin Rover and is
currently at Ford, and whose father worked at Ford in the 1950s and 60s
and helped design the Cortina Mk1 and Mk2.

Mercedes Benz and Volvo have always had longer design lives, though.


Airliners have a longer design life,
but still not as long as trains (typically, 20-30 years).


True; fatigue plays an enormous role in aircraft life, and with fuselage
skin thickness measured in fractions of a millimetre, there is a lot of
scope for terminal corrosion.

Fatigue is critical for aluminium alloy structures such as aircraft,
because aluminium has no fatigue limit, meaning that airframes have a
service life limited by fatigue (with a suitable safety margin).
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:18:46 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

I particularly liked the Fokker F27 "Friendship" because of the high
wing which meant great views from every window.

Same with the F50.

When I was regularly using them from LCY, I thought of the F50s as
flying as it probably used to be. Most civilised, if extremely
rough-riding (fun once I got used to it!).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Scott wrote:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:51:49 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:

I've just watched the latest Video 125 drivers eye view, of the Victoria
line. Included as a bonus was some archive film covering the construction
and opening of the line. It appears that, from the outset, there were CCTV
screens at platform end, giving operators a view of the platform. However,
no mention was made of the purpose served by this facility.

So, was the Victoria line one person operated from the outset, or did the
screens serve some other purpose, and if so, what?

I think the first train was driven by HM the Queen, if I recall I am
sure there were plenty of guards on board.

Well yes, the rules for Monarch Only Operation weren't brought it until
1987.

tom

--
DO NOT WANT!

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Personally, I'd rather ride in a 1967 stock train than the modern Jubilee
and Northern line trains that came from the same factory. I certainly
wouldn't prefer to ride in a 1967 car compared to almost any modern car.
It does seem that older model trains are more sturdy and run better, doesn't
it?

"Scott" wrote in message
...
I think the first train was driven by HM the Queen, if I recall I am
sure there were plenty of guards on board.

Didn't the Queen also drive a train in Glasgow?

In article ,
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Personally, I'd rather ride in a 1967 stock train than the modern Jubilee
and Northern line trains that came from the same factory. I certainly
wouldn't prefer to ride in a 1967 car compared to almost any modern
car[1].

I, OTOH, would take the '67 car (well, at least one model of '67 car,
provided it was fettled up well and I wasn't going to try and tow my boat
with it) over pretty near of the iterative bore-boxen being ground out
now. Handling matters to me, as does driving pleasure and I'm willing to
compromise on NVH supression. OTOH, I'd avoid any pre-Mk.3 train like the
plague, and off the IC routes would prefer to shun anything pre-158. If
I'm sitting in something as a passenger, then ride comfort comes very high
up the list, and I want seats that don't wreck my back (equally vital in a
car, of course, but then the '67 design wins there as well, with better
seats than anything else I've come across[2]. And if I'm a passenger,
then wind noise and suspension vibration matter more as well. Modern stock
really do win out there[1], as well as providing what's generall/y a nicer
passenger environment.

It does seem that older model trains are more sturdy and run better, doesn't
it?

No. Not in any way at all. When we had eaqrly Mk2s down here last summer
for the steam specials I had to stand most of the way from Dovey to
Portmadoc and back, the seats were so bad. And as for the noise and
vibration and poor ride (oh, and the water leaking into the vestibules..).
Horrible things, just horrible. Even the Purple Moose beer couldn't redeem
them.

[1] Clearly better in every way (bar towing capacity and the heater) to
the 1997 car I now own, for example, and cars in general have only
declined in appeal since '97 (I can't think of a single
marginally-appealing car in the mass market at the moment, aparet from
maybe the 1-series BMW - and you'd need to put a bag over your head when
walking out to it to avoid being horrified by just how ugly it is..
[2] Apart from that shame of the railways, the 185, of course.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article ,
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

Duh. Swap order of footnotes (1) and (2). I'm very, very tired.

[1] Clearly better in every way (bar towing capacity and the heater) to
the 1997 car I now own, for example, and cars in general have only
declined in appeal since '97 (I can't think of a single
marginally-appealing car in the mass market at the moment, aparet from
maybe the 1-series BMW - and you'd need to put a bag over your head when
walking out to it to avoid being horrified by just how ugly it is..
[2] Apart from that shame of the railways, the 185, of course.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

(Neil Williams) wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:18:46 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

I particularly liked the Fokker F27 "Friendship" because of the high
wing which meant great views from every window.

Same with the F50.

When I was regularly using them from LCY, I thought of the F50s as
flying as it probably used to be. Most civilised, if extremely
rough-riding (fun once I got used to it!).


As it used to be before my time, then! I took my first flight in 1959,
in a Douglas DC-3, and the seats consisted of canvas on an alloy frame.
The noise of the radial piston engines had to be heard to be believed.
It was both frightening and exhilarating to a five year old.

My trips in the early 1960s were in Viscounts, a Vanguard, an
Elizabethan, an Argosy and more DC-3s. The Viscounts and Vanguard were
smooth and comparatively quiet; the others were extremely noisy.

My worst flight of all time was in the 1980s in an RAF Hercules, 17.5
hours between Ascension Island and the Falklands. My best would have
been any of my several trips in VC-10s belonging variously to British
Airways, Gulf Air and the RAF.


..

On Apr 4, 9:39 pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Argosy


Idle curiosity, what route and when [or was it a military flight ?].

I assume you mean the 1950/1960s AW Argosy pass/cargo twin fuselage
4xDart device, not the 1920s AW Argosy biplane.

Dunno why airplane makers recycle names for very different products -
Lockheed Electra was another one.

--
Nick