Another New Member..

Hi guys...

I just got both box sets for crimbo... will enjoy watching them again
after all these years.
I have to say, UFO is my favourite program of all time, and never
missed an episode when it was first released back in 1969/70..
I would have been 9 at the time, and the excitement then was awesome,
and quite scary in parts..
I like all the Gerry Anderson programmes, but this was the cream of
the crop for me.. very advanced for it's time, and still holds a
futuristic feel, even though we are well past 1980..
I remember having a Dinky Interceptor back then, in the wierd Green
paint.. and a friend having the Shadomobile..

I think I'm going to buy the earlier film "Doppelganger" as well, I
remember seeing it years ago, and thought it was very "UFO" like, but
have only recently found out why !

Glad to see there are others who share my love of the series..

John

--- In [hidden email], "John" <compyshop@...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys...
>
> I just got both box sets for crimbo... will enjoy watching them
again
> after all these years.
> I have to say, UFO is my favourite program of all time, and never
> missed an episode when it was first released back in 1969/70..
> I would have been 9 at the time, and the excitement then was
awesome,
> and quite scary in parts..
> I like all the Gerry Anderson programmes, but this was the cream of
> the crop for me.. very advanced for it's time, and still holds a
> futuristic feel, even though we are well past 1980..
> I remember having a Dinky Interceptor back then, in the wierd Green
> paint.. and a friend having the Shadomobile..
>
> I think I'm going to buy the earlier film "Doppelganger" as well, I
> remember seeing it years ago, and thought it was very "UFO" like,
but
> have only recently found out why !
>
> Glad to see there are others who share my love of the series..
>
> John
>

Hey John,

Welcome! glad to see there are Lots of UFO Fans out there! What do
you think about Skydiver? would a Sub like that work in Today's World?

stay Cool.Dan

Hi Dan...
I think Skydiver is a great idea, but I don't think it would work
successfully for a few reasons..
Jet engines don't work underwater... Ok, maybe use rocket motors to
take off, then switch to jet, once the water has cleared..
But solid booster rocket engines are temperamental, and are not
controllable.. ie, once lit, they burn till finished...
The thrust could damage the diver section.
The transition coming out of the water, would be very unstable I
reckon... causing a crash
How does sky1 then get back onto diver?

As I said though, it's a great idea, looks good, and you can just
imagine it working just as in the programme..

John

--- In [hidden email], "John" <compyshop@...> wrote:
i agree. however,i'd like your Take on the SST used by SHADO, think
it would Work in today's Air Travel Market?

just asking.Dan

Well, lets see..

Concorde was designed in the early 60's, and first flew in March,
1969... The resemblence of the nosecone to the Shadair SST is obvious,
but from there onwards, it's a much different machine..
I would think by the size of the SST, it is more likely to be used as
a private transport, for the Uber rich.. rather than a commercial
aircraft..
I was very sad to see Concorde decommisioned, as I was very proud of
the fact that apart from France, We were the only other country to
have a supersonic airliner, and that made it special..
In the end, it all boiled down to costs.. and I think that would be
the deciding factor with the Shado SST... Whether it would be viable
or not..
It wouldn't be down to the aircraft, which I have no doubt would work
beautifully.. just the running costs..
If it was designed to be cost effective, then why not.. i'm sure
someone would take it on... "Are you listening Mr Branson" !


John

--- In [hidden email], "John" <compyshop@...> wrote:
> I think Skydiver is a great idea, but I don't think it would work
> successfully for a few reasons..
> Jet engines don't work underwater... Ok, maybe use rocket motors to
> take off, then switch to jet, once the water has cleared.. ...

And the shape of Sky 1 is very unaerodynamic. Compare the shapes of
real jet fighters.

--- In [hidden email], "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@...>
wrote: they would use the same propulsion as missiles fired from subs i guess
and as for the shape,look at the stealth bomber,it needs a computer to
keep it in the air because it is aerodynamically unsound.

--- In [hidden email], "mali_hay" <mali_hay@...> wrote: Just needs propulsion and lift from the wings.. I suppose anything
could be made to fly these days with computer control..
As for nature itself, a bumble bee should not be able to fly, yet it
does..

John

Hi,
Sorry, but I get really annoyed when people roll out that old
"bumble-bee" cliché. Who said should not be able to fly? It is
perfectly aerodynamic, but just an odd shape that didn't conform to
man's scientific evaluation of flight at the time. Nobody seems to
know the origin of this quote, but it possibly goes back to a 1934
French book "Le vol des insectes" by M. Magnan. As for making anything
fly, try and get a steel block to stay in the air, with or without the
aid of a computer. Don't be so bloody stupid...

As for Sky One, I had a toy Thunderbird 2 many years ago, an aircraft
famous for having its wings on backwards; My father, a mechanical
engineer explained why this wouldn't work, along with the principles
of lift and drag etc. I found out later, the designer, Derek Meddings,
just put them on that way to be a bit controversial, and that "it just
looked good". That same guy also designed Skydiver, and much that he
was a brilliant special effects man, obviously hadn't got a clue about
real world physics and just wanted some cool-looking machines.

Rob




> Just needs propulsion and lift from the wings.. I suppose anything
> could be made to fly these days with computer control..
> As for nature itself, a bumble bee should not be able to fly, yet it
> does..
>
> John
>

Modern day:
   
Grumman X-29
Sukhoi Su-47
   
Both only experimental, but kinda cool.
   
Jeff

Rob Neal <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, but I get really annoyed when people roll out that old
"bumble-bee" cliché. Who said should not be able to fly? It is
perfectly aerodynamic, but just an odd shape that didn't conform to
man's scientific evaluation of flight at the time. Nobody seems to
know the origin of this quote, but it possibly goes back to a 1934
French book "Le vol des insectes" by M. Magnan. As for making anything
fly, try and get a steel block to stay in the air, with or without the
aid of a computer. Don't be so bloody stupid...

As for Sky One, I had a toy Thunderbird 2 many years ago, an aircraft
famous for having its wings on backwards; My father, a mechanical
engineer explained why this wouldn't work, along with the principles
of lift and drag etc. I found out later, the designer, Derek Meddings,
just put them on that way to be a bit controversial, and that "it just
looked good". That same guy also designed Skydiver, and much that he
was a brilliant special effects man, obviously hadn't got a clue about
real world physics and just wanted some cool-looking machines.

Rob

> Just needs propulsion and lift from the wings.. I suppose anything
> could be made to fly these days with computer control..
> As for nature itself, a bumble bee should not be able to fly, yet it
> does..
>
> John
>



                         


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Why worry so much about people that were dreamers? They dreamed, and Scientists worked to make it a reality.  

Jeffrey Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote: Modern day:

Grumman X-29
Sukhoi Su-47

Both only experimental, but kinda cool.

Jeff

Rob Neal <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, but I get really annoyed when people roll out that old
"bumble-bee" cliché. Who said should not be able to fly? It is
perfectly aerodynamic, but just an odd shape that didn't conform to
man's scientific evaluation of flight at the time. Nobody seems to
know the origin of this quote, but it possibly goes back to a 1934
French book "Le vol des insectes" by M. Magnan. As for making anything
fly, try and get a steel block to stay in the air, with or without the
aid of a computer. Don't be so bloody stupid...

As for Sky One, I had a toy Thunderbird 2 many years ago, an aircraft
famous for having its wings on backwards; My father, a mechanical
engineer explained why this wouldn't work, along with the principles
of lift and drag etc. I found out later, the designer, Derek Meddings,
just put them on that way to be a bit controversial, and that "it just
looked good". That same guy also designed Skydiver, and much that he
was a brilliant special effects man, obviously hadn't got a clue about
real world physics and just wanted some cool-looking machines.

Rob

> Just needs propulsion and lift from the wings.. I suppose anything
> could be made to fly these days with computer control..
> As for nature itself, a bumble bee should not be able to fly, yet it
> does..
>
> John
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                         


Scott Asbjornsen
1806 Redwood Street
Milton, Wa 98354
(253) 926-0960 H & F
[hidden email]
http://scottasbj.tripod.com/

(253) 678-0595 Cell
 
[hidden email]
   











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]