Bill
It’s not a bad design – to simplfy the aim and the pour :-)
Which trainer is that? Is it the modern Texan?
The propellor episode was very bad. It turned out, after the fact, that we had
a less-than-ideal propellor on the Grob 115 for over 10 years. The engineering
company, Babcock, blamed a lightning strike for the first propellor incident,
but I think that a pilot might have notice such an event! Eventually even
Babcock had to accept that the propellor was a problem and agreed to replace
it. Now we have a much tauter prop-engine setup which works very well. I flew
4 hours yesterday (flying air cadets) and 1:30 today (weather prevented the
afternoon sorties) and it is a thoroughly decent setup.
Chris
> On 19 Feb 16, at 19:38, Bill Pearce <billcpearce@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Chris,Not to worry, that is a unique cement truck. Most in the US start as
> standard truck cabs and frame assemblies built be major
> manufacturers,purchased by small companies and fitted with the mixer stuff.
> Moat all squirt the cement out the back. The on shown is built in Oshkosh,
> Wisconson squirts the cement out the front, which relieves the driver of
> having to learn all those backing up skills. Remember, this is the USA, and
> that's a skill we have mostly lost, along with the ability to parallel park
> and shift a standard transmission. Just from looking at them, I must think
> they are expensive, moreso than others, as they seem unusually complex. But
> somebody likes them.
>
> But not all is lost, I understand that the RAF has just signed a contract to
> purchase trainers from the USA. They are reputed to be a lot of fun to fly,
> are built like a tank and are less expensive to maintain. But worry not,
> having a propellor doesn't make the pilot look less manly.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|