75ZT Community

raistlin wrote:Did you see the way the King Air on the right as you viewed was twitching and bucking? I guess that's the downside of flying so low over a city.

I guess its a lot more difficult than it looks. I thought the Lancaster was crabbing a lot as well.

stevemac wrote:

Duncan wrote:Likewise. Why lead the flypast was led by a DC3? I'm sure there's a reason, but it would be nice if it were explained.

I would guess from a practical reason. You would put the smaller aircraft (less turbulant) first so that the larger aircraft can fly closer behind.

Sorry, I meant a bit like Stevie Wonder, why lead the flypast with an American plane? Nothing wrong with it, and we used them a lot, but hardly the height of British.

Just a shame Concorde doesn't fly anymore.

stevemac wrote:

raistlin wrote:Did you see the way the King Air on the right as you viewed was twitching and bucking? I guess that's the downside of flying so low over a city.

I guess its a lot more difficult than it looks. I thought the Lancaster was crabbing a lot as well.

I remember being in a Nimrod which was flying much the same height of London many years ago for the investiture(?) of a new Lord Mayor and trying to take photos with a long telephoto lens was next to impossible the way the aircraft was being thrown around.

Jürgen wrote:He's from a colony, isn't he?

I thought he was born in Detroit, motor city yes but I don't think MG Rover came out of there.

zojosc wrote:

Jürgen wrote:He's from a colony, isn't he?

I thought he was born in Detroit, motor city yes but I don't think MG Rover came out of there.

Yep, he was born in a part of the British Empire.

Jürgen wrote:

zojosc wrote:

Jürgen wrote:He's from a colony, isn't he?

I thought he was born in Detroit, motor city yes but I don't think MG Rover came out of there.

Yep, he was born in a part of the British Empire.

Well goddam Jürgen I do declare!, you seem to be right and I stand corrected

Bernard wrote:I dropped in to the TV broadcast on BBC from time to time but I thought that they made a dog's breakfast of it. No continuity and frequent loss of sound and pictures. Lightweight presenters, with one or two exceptions, badly researched and no sense of occasion. It spoiled a grand event for me.

I thought a terrible part of the BBCs output was the description of the categories of boats involved in the pageant. The graphics with the categories was run so fast that the 'presenter' was unable to describe some - and what was the pageant featuring - boats.

A totally and utterly p*sspoor production by the BBC - suppose they had to cut back after all the money they have spent on The Voice.

PaulT wrote:

Bernard wrote:I dropped in to the TV broadcast on BBC from time to time but I thought that they made a dog's breakfast of it. No continuity and frequent loss of sound and pictures. Lightweight presenters, with one or two exceptions, badly researched and no sense of occasion. It spoiled a grand event for me.

I thought a terrible part of the BBCs output was the description of the categories of boats involved in the pageant. The graphics with the categories was run so fast that the 'presenter' was unable to describe some - and what was the pageant featuring - boats.

A totally and utterly p*sspoor production by the BBC - suppose they had to cut back after all the money they have spent on The Voice.

......and what about the boats being called ships, and one idiot also called the Royal barge a ship....

I see that Clare Balding has admitted that the BBC had got it wrong with the pageant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay- ... lding.html

I'd really appreciate a 1 hour programme of clips from the river pageant, with a knowledgable maritime historian describing it. I was to say the least, bored very rapidly with the beebs presentation on the day.

The BBC got a bit of a roasting on Have I Got News For You last night