# nice ride



## pbfoot (Nov 18, 2005)

sultan of bruneis ride 120million of improvements for a total of 220million
gold fixtures and lalique crystal


----------



## jinjinweiwei (Nov 18, 2005)

dang!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 18, 2005)

Sweet stuff. If I could afford it, I wouldn't get it...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 18, 2005)

I can't wait to see the deluxe model.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 18, 2005)

i've got one in the back yard but the wheel fell off


----------



## Erich (Nov 18, 2005)

looks like the shit 60's to me man............

sorry but I think it's interior is butt ugly


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2005)

I got to go into King Hussein's L-1011. I had to wear a smock and footies as if I was going into a germ free environment.

I think it's too gaudy! To think, ruining a perfectly good airplane!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 18, 2005)

adnan kishogi (i used hooked phoemics to spell that) landed once in his 747 in cyyr the requirements on landing were normal except for 2 cases of scotch and vodka it also had gold plumbing fixtures and some of the finest looking stewardi i've ever seen


----------



## Erich (Nov 18, 2005)

I don't even want to think what the camode cost alone ........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 18, 2005)

Yeah, my scurvy arse wouldn't be worthy of a gold-plated crapper.


----------



## sunny91 (Nov 18, 2005)

Nice: i have already post this aircraft..

sunny


----------



## trackend (Nov 19, 2005)

I find it quite sick really specialy as the middle east countries keep calling the Western nations greedy capitalist infidels perhaps they should look a bit closer to home.
Apart from that gold taps and sinks are not practical anyway its just showing off and for myself I cant stand boasters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

wouldn't say no to a flight in one though


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> wouldn't say no to a flight in one though


Neither would I.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

although them seats don't actually look that comfy............


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> although them seats don't actually look that comfy............


They'd be more comfortable than being stuck at the back of commercial airliner...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

i wonder how much of it's bolted down too


----------



## Pisis (Nov 19, 2005)

trackend said:


> I find it quite sick really specialy as the middle east countries keep calling the Western nations greedy capitalist infidels perhaps they should look a bit closer to home.
> Apart from that gold taps and sinks are not practical anyway its just showing off and for myself I cant stand boasters.



The Sultan of Brunei is one of the richest perosns in the World... By the way, Brunei lays in South-East Asia... So no Middle East...

When I was like 10, we had an article about him in the _English Project_ (or what was the name...) school book...

His citizen are living in very comfort but their numbers are like 200,000 or something lie a very small number...

pbfoot, nice pictures. The one with the "café sofa" is posted twice...

http://www.sultanbrunei.com/aboutbrunei.asp


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2005)

Whats the point?! Hideous...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 19, 2005)

I'd rather have a Lightning has my own personal ride, with accompanying tankers of course.


----------



## Pisis (Nov 19, 2005)

He can have both!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 19, 2005)

No he couldn't because all the Lightnings left are all owned by someone, and they wouldn't sell them to him for all the money in the world. Plus the fact, he probably doesn't even know what a Lightning is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

While I think it looks nice on the inside I agree with FBJ. Its overkill and ruins a perfectly good plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2005)

you know i'm sure a flight in that thing could be simulated if you want


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Why would you want to do that?


----------



## Pisis (Nov 20, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No he couldn't because all the Lightnings left are all owned by someone, and they wouldn't sell them to him for all the money in the world. Plus the fact, he probably doesn't even know what a Lightning is.



He can build a replica...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Id just go with an old Huey or a Blackhawk as my ride. Im just a Rotorhead and I love being down in the trees.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

A replica isn't a Lightning though ...it's a replica.


----------



## trackend (Nov 21, 2005)

I'm not refuting what you are saying D, I totally agree, but I have a general question. when does an aircraft become a replica?
If you have say an E E Lighting but to make it airworthy a large percentage of it has to be replaced at what point is it no longer an original. If say more than 50% has been replaced with patent parts, Is it a replica or an original. Or if the airframe is original but it has a new skin and engines etc, is it original even though most of it has been replaced.
Most of the flying WW2 aircraft have had huge amounts of the original WW2 components replaced in order to make them fly, and indeed even static aircraft have many parts made to complete them for display purposes.
I feel there are very few truly original aircraft from WW2 in existence. One that springs to mind is the Corsair at FAA museum in Yeovilton even the paintwork is from the 40s and anything later has been removed, I'm not sure about the tyres though.
How do you guys feel about it ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

You're very correct Track. Many of the warbirds I've come across have had a great percentage of their original parts replaced for some reason or another. The biggest thing that's replaced from WW2 birds are the radios. You could yank out that 100 pound cathode tube beast (considering you could even get the thing to work) and replace it with an all-digital, "flip flop" 720 channel nav-com that also has a moving map GPS that weighs under 2 pounds and installs in an area 2" x 4" x 3". But to put this into a greater perspective; I had a conversation with my friend Doug Gilliss recently about warbirds. Doug owns the L-29 I get to fly and has also flown a T-6 and I believe he has time in a P-51. I asked him about owning something like a P-51 or a Corsair in lieu of a jet like an L-29 or T-33 and he came up with something very interesting. "The people who designed and built WW2 fighters did not envision them lasting but a few hundred hours. It doesn't make me very confident flying those types of aircraft, no matter how good they are restored 60 years later." Comments?!?


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

Good point there, Joe.


----------



## trackend (Nov 21, 2005)

Some very worth while comments Joe and your mate Doug certainly has a valid point.
I feel if it is a Spitfire then its a Spitfire the design is 60 odd years old but even if it was built yesterday it would still be a Spitfire it may not be a second world war one and as you say some of the gubbins inside may have been up dated for obvious reasons, but I bet if an old vet got in one he would call it a Spitfire.
So although a modern re-build I would class them as genuine items it would only be a different plane to me if the basic shape and design had been altered. It is only a replica in as much as it is replicating the era it was originally designed and used in not the actual machine which is the really thing.
Now Ive written that it does look like I disagree with you D  I must have changed my mind.


----------



## Pisis (Nov 21, 2005)

It depends on two factors:

1) If you're talking about WW2 combat experince, there's probably none left.
2) But if you talk about the structure (the machine itself, as seen on airshows), then I believe they could be called with their real names (spitfire, Messerschmit, Lighting...)

The "details" like radio, etc... is of course another thing...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 21, 2005)

I agree with you Lee. If an aircraft, for example the Spitfire, is built this year to the same specifications as one built say 65 years ago, it's still a Spitfire. Minor alterations like the type of radio set or compass wouldn't change that, they'd simply be minor updates. The same could be said of a Lightning. I think a replica would be a machine that bore an external resemblance, but had serious alterations made to the specs such as power-plant, major structural and material changes, and those sorts of things.


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 21, 2005)

hey pbfoot, this is one nice airplane your shoeing on here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "The people who designed and built WW2 fighters did not envision them lasting but a few hundred hours. It doesn't make me very confident flying those types of aircraft, no matter how good they are restored 60 years later." Comments?!?



Very good point. Kind of makes you wonder whether it really is safe or not. You know what though I would not trade the chance to fly in an old Spitfire, P-51D, Bf-109 or Fw-190 anyday. I would take my chances.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > "The people who designed and built WW2 fighters did not envision them lasting but a few hundred hours. It doesn't make me very confident flying those types of aircraft, no matter how good they are restored 60 years later." Comments?!?
> ...


So would I Alder. (As would most of us on here)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

I am sure that is the case for most of us.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 26, 2005)

If you were to build a new Lightning that was truely just an update of the Lightning, such as improved materials and improved engines etc. etc. then, yes, it's a Lightning. But it's not going to be built for personal use! And it's not going to be any kind of original Lightning - so it's not going to be the Lightning I love that served from 1960-1988. 

If you got an old Lightning that was built in the 1960s, and started changing everything on it ...then it's no longer a Lightning, even if it looks the same. The only way a Lightning that's been rebuilt stays a Lightning, is if you built it the same way, with only MINOR material changes solely for safety purposes and built it exactly the same. To keep it even more real, pay BAe to pull out the old drawings and have them rebuild it! Highly unlikely anyone could them to do that ...but still. And to be a REAL original it has to be old ...you wouldn't build a GT40 Mk.IV (1969) to the exact same specs and call it a GT40 Mk.IV 1969, would you? It's not built in 1969 - so you can't! A new Lightning would have to be a Lightning Mk.7...then it's not original.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

all the BBMF aircraft fly with totally original parts, nothing modern except modern radios but they still have the old radios installed anyway..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If you were to build a new Lightning that was truely just an update of the Lightning, such as improved materials and improved engines etc. etc. then, yes, it's a Lightning. But it's not going to be built for personal use! And it's not going to be any kind of original Lightning - so it's not going to be the Lightning I love that served from 1960-1988.
> 
> If you got an old Lightning that was built in the 1960s, and started changing everything on it ...then it's no longer a Lightning, even if it looks the same. The only way a Lightning that's been rebuilt stays a Lightning, is if you built it the same way, with only MINOR material changes solely for safety purposes and built it exactly the same. To keep it even more real, pay BAe to pull out the old drawings and have them rebuild it! Highly unlikely anyone could them to do that ...but still. And to be a REAL original it has to be old ...you wouldn't build a GT40 Mk.IV (1969) to the exact same specs and call it a GT40 Mk.IV 1969, would you? It's not built in 1969 - so you can't! A new Lightning would have to be a Lightning Mk.7...then it's not original.



I disagree. If you build a new Lightning and it has new avionix and engine and weapons systems it is still a Lightning just a different version. For example the F-14D had different engines than the F-14B. It had different avionix packages but it was still an F-14. Therefore the Lightning would still be a Lightning. Thats just the way I look at it.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 27, 2005)

That's what I said in the first paragraph and also in the last sentence. If it was a brand new Lightning with improved aspects but still had the basic principals of the Lightning - then it'd be a Lightning Mk.7 or something. It still wouldn't be an original 1960-1988 Lightning though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

I guess I misunderstood your post.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 14, 2005)

i hope no else has posted this israeli f15 minus wing


----------



## Pisis (Dec 14, 2005)

Wow, wonder that it could make it......... Do you have any related info?


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2005)

Quite remarkable..I have never seen anything like it before. No one would have blamed the crew if they had punched out as soon as they hit.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 15, 2005)

Pisis: This is all I could find. It was pretty amazing!

In the summer of 1983, an Israeli F-15 staged a mock dogfight with Skyhawks for training purposes, near Nahal Tzin in the Negev desert. During the exercise, one of the Skyhawks miscalculated and collided forcefully with the F-15's wing root. The F-15's pilot was aware that the wing had been seriously damaged, but decided to try and land in a nearby airbase. It was only after he had landed, when he climbed out of the cockpit and looked backward, that the pilot realized what had happened: the wing had been completely torn off the plane, and he had landed the plane with only one wing attached. A few months later, the damaged F-15 had been given a new wing, and returned to operational duty in the squadron. The engineers at McDonnell Douglas had a hard time believing the story of the one-winged landing: as far as their planning models were concerned, this was an impossibility. 
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-15/F-15.htm


In May of 1983, an Israeli F-15 was successfully landed after losing 
most of its starboard wing in an inflight collision. The plane was 
repaired and put back into service.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/airforce/f_series_fighters/f15.13


----------



## Pisis (Dec 15, 2005)

Thanks for the info, Gnomey!  
That's some interesting reading. Hell I don't understand how he could make it!


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2005)

power is how he did it but he sure must
of landed hot no flaps probably about 160 knots or more it doesn't even look like he used his arrestor hook


----------



## evangilder (Dec 15, 2005)

F-15s don't have arresting hooks.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2005)

evangilder said:


> F-15s don't have arresting hooks.


are you sure i can't find pis with enough detail but i did find this
adobe with instructions for barrier engagement
http:7.3. Takeoff Aborts.
7.3.1. If aborting the takeoff, clear to the appropriate side of the runway as expeditiously as possible based
on position within the element. If this is not feasible because of possible cable engagement, clear straight
ahead. As soon as practical, give callsign and state intentions. Call "Cable, Cable, Cable" to indicate a
departure-end arrestment. Following aircraft hold their position, abort or takeoff as appropriate to maintain
adequate clearance.
7.3.2. When applying the brakes above 120 KIAS during a takeoff abort, or hot brakes are suspected;
declare a ground emergency, taxi the aircraft to the designated hot brake area, and follow hot brake
procedures.
7.3.3. (ACC/ANG) If aborting a takeoff at or above 100 KIAS, lower the tailhook. If aborting below
100 KIAS, lower the tailhook if there is any doubt about the ability to stop on the runway.//www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/15V3.pdf


----------



## evangilder (Dec 16, 2005)

Mea culpa. You are correct. Funny, we had F-15s come into Lakenheath on a regular basis in my days there (We had f-111s at the time) and I had never seen one on them. I sent a note to one of my old buddies about it after your first post and got a reply:


> The hooks are generally spring loaded and retained by explosive bolt until deployed. They are not hydraulically controlled and once
> extended they must be re-cocked by maintenance.



I knew the F-111s had hooks and always believed they were legacy leftover from it's Navy trials days. But we had cables on the runway at Lakenheath that did get used on occasion as the F-111 did not have reverse thrust. So if the brakes got hot ob the pre-takeoff runup, which they often did, they would use to cables to come to a stop. It wasn't near as violent a stop as a carrier though.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 9, 2006)

i found this link on another site but haven't seen it posted here excellent lo flyimg vid
http://www.filecabi.net/video/lowalt.html


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 9, 2006)

Nice video pbfoot, great clips of low altitude flying (by the French I think)


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 9, 2006)

i kinda thought of the greeks or argentina


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Wow I never knew that they had arrestor hooks. I always thought that if they had a problem they would just net it.


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2006)

A superb video. I have been fortunate to be in a Hunter at 50ft of the sea but a lot of these guys were lower than that and the roll at the end, sent shivers through me


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 12, 2006)

all fighters That I'm aware of have arrestor hooks and most military runways have arrestor cables at either end of the runway and are usually about 1500-1000ft from threshold a flapless approach or brake failure would necessitate the use of cables especially if drag chutes don't deploy or if they have to abort on take off


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

Cool that I didn ot know.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 15, 2006)

here are some of the photos off the this link http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fahome.html


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2006)

Good stuff pbfoot, link too bookmarked it and had a browse and found this photo which I liked:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Good pics, all of them.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2006)

This video shows a unsuccessful suicide car bomber in Baghdad the first detonation was incomplete and you can see the live suicide guy being helped on his way by by an "explosive disruptor tool"


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2006)

ever wonder how good the concrete barriers you see are
truck is 65000lbs
speed 50mph or 80kph
kinetic energy 5.5 million ft lbs
stopping distance 24inches or .65metres


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

I know several people whos lives were saved by those barriers.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 11, 2006)

I wouldn't bet on that truck driver surviving though (if there was one) but rarely are you going to hit the barrier head on like that at 50mph.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2006)

Unless you are a suicide bomber.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 11, 2006)

check this flying model f14 out most impressive the most realistic flying model jet I've seen


----------



## MichaelHenley (Feb 11, 2006)

I know that there were some test done on concrete barriers by scientists here in australia, and they are really dangerous, they line our highways/dual carriageways if there isnt a gap of about 10 metres. anyhoo, a car doing 120 km/h can hit a wall at a 20 degree angle or such, and it will go literally, flying! Its because concrete can't absorb the energy as well as other barriers. for example, you can have plastic barriers filled with water or metal railings that will actually stop the car, instead of bouncing all the energy back...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

In Sweden I think it is, they have high tension energy absorbing wire thats supposed to be really effective.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Feb 14, 2006)

We have that in a couple of highways here too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2006)

yeah they have a lot of that on the A30 too.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 14, 2006)

No theres none on the A30...just shitty armco....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2006)

there's cable on some stretches.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 15, 2006)

Never seen it....


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 16, 2006)

pilots having a little fun in their tomcats some funny stuff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 16, 2006)

GREAT!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 16, 2006)

Great stuff!


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2006)

here are some guys that have perfected lo flying leaving little room for error if they drop much further they'll be picking a/c shrapnel


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 2, 2006)

Cool pics pbfoot, not much room for error there as you say.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2006)

Wow, pretty impressive!


----------



## MichaelHenley (Mar 5, 2006)

Amazing!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 5, 2006)

yes that'd be worth seeing......


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 5, 2006)

Those guys got balls of steel....


----------



## Pisis (Mar 5, 2006)

Great stuff man!


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 19, 2006)

Well these are some wild X wind landings I don't ever recall watching the undercarriage adjusting like these guys do


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 19, 2006)

Me neither, some really good flying there...


----------



## Glider (Mar 19, 2006)

Seriously Impressive landings. 
I once had a conversation with our Gliding Instructor about crosswinds. On that day we had winds of 30 knots gusting to 35-40 knots, 90 degrees to the grass strip. I knew that our local airport was closed to all but the largest aircraft due to crosswinds as I had a friend due to fly and she phoned to tell me they were grounded. However it was decided that we would fly but only with an instructor.
I admit I was more than a little nervous and as we waited to launch I told the instructor that I knew that Southend Airport was closed to most traffic due to crosswinds. Obviously I knew that aircraft had limitations on crosswind landings and takeoffs and asked what the limitations were on the K13 we were in. His words stuck in my mind. 'Son, Of course Gliders have limitations, we just haven't found them yet.' 

It was a wild ride and I can claim to have flown a Glider backwards. The landing was also fun with the nose close to 45 degrees to the strip until touchdown when we had to get the nose around at the last second without putting a wing down.


----------

