F-35 looking more like white elephant

[Colonel Sanders]

And so ended the lesson

The lesson might have ended, but it wasn't learned. Anyone want some slightly used British submarines?

[Tom H]

Meteor being flown from Edmonton to Trenton had a double engine fart and a very lucky F/L McKenzie ditched..YES Ditched...the Meteor in a lake in northern Ontario. He walked out after 27 days.

Now now finish the story...

The Meteor went down due to running out of fuel! It did indeed land in a lake.

It had been equipped with a jury rigged slipper tank to extend the range and the fuel pick up failed so the aircraft had a double flame out due to fuel exhaustion.

It had been undergoing Cold weather trials which were held at WEE flight them based in Edmonton.

So the lesson, if any, was test jury rigged ferry tanks and don't run out of fuel.

The vamp while a lovely aircraft didn't have enough range to fly North much less do an arctic patrol.

Also tested in Edmonton at WEE flight.

[Old Dog Flying]

Interestingly , the west coast flying club, 442 Sqn was restricted to the west coast because , a: they did not have the range to get to Calgary and b: the big guys in the crystal palace felt that it was too dangerous to fly these cute little kerosene convertors over the Rocks.

And the Vampires were purchaced because they were CHEAP! And they had an ADF that worked occasionaly . I had to do DF steers on many an occasion to get the little birds on the ground safely.

[Moose47]

G'day Tom and Barney

While with C.E.P.E., Gloster Meteor F. Mk. 3 s/n EE311 ditched in Helen Barr Lake in Northern Ontario on the 29th of June 1946 after becoming lost and running out of fuel during a ferry flight. The aircraft was subsequently written off. It is interesting to note that this was the first known jet aircraft to ditch.

Cheers...Chris

[trampbike]

This is not meant to be belittling so please don't take it as such, but you obviously haven't been there yet.

That's why I said I'd be willing to take the risk given :
-what I know so far of the track record of the PW F119
- ASSUMING the PW F135 is as good or better
- No new information regarding rate of failure comes up

When you have been and experienced what can happen I would be interested in hearing your opinion then.

I hope I'll have such an occasion
It's still a long road ahead though!

[Old Dog Flying]

Moose47: Hi Chris. Interestingly enough EE311 was recovered from the lake and photos show that the damage not all that bad when you consider where it landed.

Unfortunately this thread will go on adnausium.

[frosti]

So would I, but that wasn't what I was saying. No mechanical device is immune from failure, and up in the high arctic with one engine you have no redundancy. That engine quits for any reason and you are likely toast because where you land in your parachute will be over a thousand miles from the nearest rescue aircraft and it might not even be on land.

I think that every pilot that will climb into a CF35 will know the risks.

Stuff happens when and where you least expect it.

Yeah it does. Still though, you are statistically more likely to get killed driving to the squadron than you are punching out over the Arctic. I still don't get who got the notion that fighters do actual patrols. Unless they are temp. based in their respective FOB's they either intercept or do short, local training missions. Fighters don't loiter around the frozen north when there is nothing on NORAD's radar screen, that is just a waste of time and money.

[Mostly Harmless]

One went into the Hudson river not too long ago after losing both to birds.

You sir, are absolutely correct. It is time we rid ourselves of this dangerous two engine flying and have planes with three, or better yet, four engines. I like and support your idea.

[Rockie]

Canadians should have paid attention when these thieves were defeated for contempt of parliament last year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ittee.html

[frosti]

Canadians should have paid attention when these thieves were defeated for contempt of parliament last year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ittee.html

Then only to get a majority because Canadians saw past the Left Wing bullshit.

[Rockie]

So, you prefer getting lied to, cheated and stolen from by right wing politicians instead? Turns out the left wing bullshit wasn't bullshit after all was it?

[frosti]

So, you prefer getting lied to, cheated and stolen from by right wing politicians instead? Turns out the left wing bullshit wasn't bullshit after all was it?

Because the Liberals have never stolen any money. As far as I'm concerned, this F-35 thing in Canada is being handled just fine. The only downfall of the government is it's inability to sell the CF35 to the media. The public doesn't care.

[Rockie]

That's quite the double standard you have there. The Liberals misappropriated $100 million in the sponsorship scandal and were justifiably turfed out of office for it. The Harper government misappropriates $50 million during the $1 billion dollar meeting they held one weekend and nobody bats an eye.

Harper lies about the cost of the F35's to parliament and the Canadian people who have to pay for it to the princely sum of $10 billion, and you think that's well handled. They attempt to sully the professional reputation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer who has been completely vindicated in his attempts to tell Canadians the truth and that's OK with you too.

Strange.

[wallypilot]

So, you prefer getting lied to, cheated and stolen from by right wing politicians instead? Turns out the left wing bullshit wasn't bullshit after all was it?

Because the Liberals have never stolen any money. As far as I'm concerned, this F-35 thing in Canada is being handled just fine. The only downfall of the government is it's inability to sell the CF35 to the media. The public doesn't care.

I assure you, the public does care.

[Colonel Sanders]

defeated for contempt of parliament last year

Weren't they re-elected with a majority in the ensuing election?

Didn't they have a minority until then?

That's a pretty strong endorsement of the public.

[cdnpilot77]

defeated for contempt of parliament last year

Weren't they re-elected with a majority in the ensuing election?

Didn't they have a minority until then?

That's a pretty strong endorsement of the public.

Yeah but that doesn't count, you weren't supposed to remember that.

[Rockie]

The conservative majority has much more to do with the complete disarray and division among the opposition than it does for them. What was the percentage of voters that voted for them again? Oh yeah, 39.6%. The rest voted for someone else. It is a quirk of our electoral system that got them the majority.

But essentially you're right, 39.6% of the active voters in Canada apparently do like getting lied to and stolen from.

[Moose47]

"But essentially you're right, 39.6% of the active voters in Canada apparently do like getting lied to and stolen from"

Hey Rockie, you have to admit, it worked twice for the Liberals under the Cretien dictatorship.

Cheers...Chris

[frosti]

What was the percentage of voters that voted for them again? Oh yeah, 39.6%. The rest voted for someone else.

No, it wasn't the rest. The electoral turnout was only 61%, the other 39% that didn't vote don't count as opposition to anyone. They just don't matter.

[trampbike]

@frosti: Rockie said 39,6% of the voters, not potential voters, voted for the Conservatives, And the 60,4% of the rest that voted chose another party. I don't think you can deny this, no matter how biased you might be.
Turnout was 61%, so 24,16% of the potential voters actually voted for the Conservatives, and 36,84% voted against it.

I think the point simply was to note that although they got their majority, the Conservative didn't gain that many more votes in comparison with the previous elections.

[cdnpilot77]

But did they gain? Rockie how about a history lesson, riddle me this, how many majority governments in Canadian history have also held the majority popular votes?

[Rockie]

But did they gain? Rockie how about a history lesson, riddle me this, how many majority governments in Canadian history have also held the majority popular votes?

I have no idea how many in total, but in 1958 Diefenbaker got 53.66% of the popular vote.

PC in 1984 with 50.03%
Liberal in 1953 (50%)
LIberal in 1949 (50.1%)
Liberal in 1940 (54.0%)
PC in 1917 (57%)

And prior to that there were many more with popular majorities equally split between PC and LIberal.

My point is in the last election over 60% of those who voted did not vote for the CPC. Are they a majority? Yes. Do the majority of Canadians who voted support them? No.

Since coming to power even as a minority the Harper government (their characterization) has proven to be incompetent, corrupt, and unrepentantly habitual liars who repeatedly show their contempt for the institution of parliament and the Canadian people.

They need to go.

[Moose47]

"Since coming to power even as a minority the Harper government (their characterization) has proven to be incompetent, corrupt, and unrepentantly habitual liars who repeatedly show their contempt for the institution of parliament and the Canadian people"

Hmmm Rockie, that is exactly how I would have summarized the Cretin's reign of error.

Cheers...Chris

[Rockie]

I agree, but it took them nine years to reach that state and even then they didn't show such disdain for parliament. Harper's government achieved all of that within a matter of months.

[2R]

http://www.dailypress.com/news/breaking ... 1631.story
They ain't your average tourists