Hungover Boxing Day Cool Wall Live Stream 

yes

LOOL

Agreed, I was there for part of the stream and some of the other participants sounded familiar, but I didn’t know who they were. Thanks!

Oh yes :)

mfw there is a British battleship under my bed.

​@@crusaderiii477tfw it's HMS Revenge and it drunkenly thinks you're Cherbourg harbor full of E-boats.

Feck totally forgot about that!

On that note, we better be getting a whole album once this war's over.

GuP is at its best when it's just batshit insane and proud of it. Caveat though, the Fandom has a ton of Wheraboos and SovibooZ.

PBY my baby

Bah! Short Sunderland - the Hedgehog of the Atlantic!

@@gchampi2 Blasphemy! It was a PBY Catalina Flying Boat that enabled the Royal Navy to find and put the Bismarck out of its misery!

@@razgriz9146 While that is true, that was just one ship. The Sunderland did the spotting for the Taranto raid, where 3 battleships were sunk (okay, 2 were later returned to service, but hey...). The Sunderland was faster than the PBY, had a higher service ceiling, was much more heavily armed than the PBY, and perhaps most usefully, had a much higher capacity to carry weight - when used as air-sea rescue, the PBY was limited to around 10 rescued capacity, enough for a bomber crew, but not much else. The Sunderland was noted for rescuing entire crews of sinking merchantmen, and during the evacuation of Crete, one took off with 82 passengers..! I will say, the Catalina beats the Sunderland in two ways - range/endurance, and aesthetics. The PBY could stay in the air for a loooong time, 32+ hours, and cover a greater distance in that time from a single load of fuel, but then it needed to, because it was so slow. In the same 32 hours, you could cover over double the distance in a Sunderland, you just had to stop twice for fuel. As for aesthetics, yeah, the PBY wins. Even I have to admit that the Sunderland was a prime example of "purposeful, not pretty". The TL:DR takeaway is, while the PBY Catalina was a damn fine plane, the Sunderland was probably the better warplane, and when in a war, that matters...

It's a fair point

@@HardThrasher Its a crap point. The Aircraft wasn't that bad at the low level role!! The small wing area gave it a very good low level ride and the Starfighter holds the low level official Air Speed Record (The only reason that the Tornado F3 doesn't hold that record is that the FAI discontinued the class of record before BAe had a chance to break it). In West Germany, the SAM was the king of Air Defence between 1963 and the end of the Cold War. Had WWIII broken out, the whole of West Germany above 10,000 feet was a Nike Hercules (Then Patriot) Missile Engagement Zone . The 40km west of the Iron Curtin was a HAWK Missile Engagement Zone down to 200 feet and the primary mission of the NAT|O Strike aircraft was to lob tactical Nukes at the Soviets until 1968. The German's biggest issues with the aircraft were not training pilots to fly the thing in Europe, but in the clear skies of the USA. Using poorly trained conscripts to maintain the Aircraft and fitting it with a crap Ejection Seat. Yes there were design and Manufacturing flaws that did cause a few aircraft losses, but Pilots not being able to fly in bad weather (and crashing into hills) and poor maintenance were by far the biggest killers of Pilots and Aircraft and having a useless Ejection seat didn't at least keep the pilots alive. None of the Aircraft used in the low level strike role with 60's avionics had good safety records. RAF Harrier loss ratio was as bad as the Starfighter.

@richard good job you're not over thinking this ;)

@@HardThrasher The F-104 Should be Sub Zero for just the fact that the Aircraft had a Whole Pop Album written about its development and deployment. Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters by Robert Calvert is fooking Hilarious!!! Anyhow Big Picture is important, without it and by not using the context of the time, anything written that does not take those issues into account is B/S.

This should not have been missed Re the B-58 - “lets put as many engines on something as we can”

The fucking intro music off that show man

Hard agree

:Carrier has arrived: intensifies

A very good point

The Sea Vixen is in the Hushkit's worst 10 British Aircraft for a Reason. By the time they got it into service, it was woefully obsolete. It would have been a good aircraft had it entered service in 1953/54 and it should have been selected over the Javelin for the RAF Nightfighter design.

@@richardvernon317 sure, but that has very little to do with how cool an aircraft it is. It is still a gorgeous aircraft regardless.

This I did not know!

You can own your very own copy, on a t-shirt here facebook.com/profile/100047571510908/search/?q=putin&locale=en_GB

I was just shocked it wasn't automatically Sub Zero

Amiot 142. That was abomination of another degree.

@@naksachaisaejane1982 There was more! Rex's Hangar made an entire topic about it... it's tremendously awfull!

I am quite tempted to just do French aircraft for one of these

I am quite tempted to just do French aircraft for one of these

@@HardThrasher The entire catalogue? Oh yeah!

I....I mean that's quite an ask given they're basically flying phone boxes and, you know, helicopters.

@@HardThrasher I know, I know - it's a radical idea, what with them wearing their propellors and lifting surfaces on their heads and all...they have perfectly useable turbine engines right there... Er, sorry, I digress - surely the accomplishments of both the pilots (and their long-suffering ground crews) have earned them the consideration!

It's just a PowerPoint slide :)

​@@HardThrasherthank you very much!

TSR2 has two major issues, one it never entered service and two, it was actually dog shit!!! The Aircraft would have never been able to do Mach 2, Meet its Range or Altitude specifications or actually be able to hit anything with even a Nuke!!! Nor could it meet a wide range of other operational requirements as regards time taken to change an engine or failure rates of equipment within it. The Aircraft was loaded with design flaws which were not fixable within the money or time available.

@@richardvernon317Eh, the test beds passed Mach 2 easily. It was significantly ahead of its nearest competitor that it was canned in favour of, that being the F-111, that we never got anyway. Which, incidentally, never met any of its spec either. It also wasn't variable geometry which is a definite bonus as that's utter crap even when it works.

@@MrGrimsmith Bullshit!!! The aircraft only flew Supersonic once on its 14th Flight from Boscombe Down to Warton in January 1965 and only reached a speed of Mach 1.03. The Aircraft was not capable of reaching Mach 2 for three reasons!! Firstly it needed an Auto Stabilisation system fitted to fly faster than Mach 1.5 to be able to fly in a straight line. That system was never fitted to the aircraft and development work on it was falling way behind schedule. Secondly the Intake design at Mach 1.8 heated the air going into the front of the Engine Compressor to its maximum inlet temperature limit. Try to take the Aircraft to Mach 2 and you will damage the engines. Thirdly it was found that the All Moving Tail fin was likely to suffer from Flutter Issues at Mach 1.7 which would rip the tail fin off. The Airframe had issues with the lightweight X2020 Alloy used on most of it. It was found to be brittle as hell and replacement with a more durable Light Alloy would have resulted in a butt more load of Weight which would resulted in the aircraft being even less capable of meeting the RAF Operational Requirement than the original design (which had fallen short on all metrics). The Nav Attack system didn't work due to the Digital Computers selected not being fast enough to process the data from the Navigation system and radars or hold all of the waypoints and attack profiles requested in the RAF's Operational Requirement and I'm not going into all of the issues with the Engines which were nowhere near being solved. F-111 Order was binned because the Aircraft also had major issues and the Price of the Aircraft had gone through the roof due to the Devaluation of the Pound in 1967. Everything that was wrong with the Aircraft and why it was cancelled was declassified in 1995. Anything written before that is Bullshit!!

@@richardvernon317 My objection is the whole lost ‘Prince Across The Water’ for UK industry BS. RAF could afford 50, hardly a basis for industry with very limited export potential. Australia being one they lost to F-111 and really the only possibility. It seems questioning it is heresy, really had it like many other designs not get to fly, it would have been long forgotten. The best solution was right in front of the RAF Air Staff, the MK.2 Buccaneer with the overland avionics intended for the TSR.2, which were tested on a MK.1 testbed aircraft. Hawker Siddeley offered this as well with revised undercarriage for land operation. But the RAF, sore that they lost their super plane, which emerging from the wreckage of the 1957 Defence Review they loaded with the archetypal kitchen sink, gold plated, just had to have the nearest thing to it, mainly for the East of Suez role which they could not, or would not, see was coming to an end anyway. Certainly not a mere naval aircraft that wasn’t even supersonic at very low level. And yet, when they got unmodified Buccaneers via losing TSR.2, then F-111, they loved them! Had they taken up HS’s offer of an optimized version for them in the wake of TSR.2 presumably they would have loved them even more. Welcome to the RAF Air Staff of that era, it’s not always politicians who after all are mostly taking their advice.

Never mind I watched on 10 mins and someone said the same thing.

Regarding the bombs... I'd point out that we Canadians had the fabulous idea of strapping nukes to the thing, and flying it at treetop level to Russia, zoom climbing at the last minute to lob the nuke, then fucking off as quickly as possible to eject over friendly territory. This was actually the plan. Staggering brilliance.

@@zymuralchemy Weren't the Canadians the ones who invented creeping artillery barages in ww1? Or gas artillery? I can't recall.

Not entirely sure about that, but we definitely triggered a few specific points in the Geneva Convention. Our dear boys were... not good... at taking prisoners. At one point our lads threw food to the Germans in an apparent act of kindness, and when the Germans had gathered about and cheered for more, they followed up with frags. Not very nice no. @@themigratingcoconut562

@@zymuralchemy It was the NATO way of war between 1958 and 1968 (the period when the F-104 was procured). All of the Starfighter operators were going to do it using NATO Project E nukes supplied by the USA.

Criminy, I'm embarrassed at the key bashing spelling here....that's what happens when you try to respond on your phone...and without scotch even. The fact I just read Cobleigh's book inspired me.

One hell of an executive jet :)

Now are we quite sure it isn't called the GHOSTFAP?

I mean, personally I think they should have kept going and added jet engines. And maybe another pair of wings. And whar about grafting two of them together but with three engines 😉

@@HardThrasher How about, we just take the air frame, ad one v2 rocket engine for each wing and BAM. Space bomber

@@HardThrasher oh my god, i have an even grander idea. How about we also ad, instead of normal bombs, one Flak 88 canon and use the plane as a tank hunter.

Perfect! No notes

She's representing Sub Zero if you look carefully

@@HardThrasher so she is! I’d watched the full 2 and a half hours and didn’t see 😂 just out of interest, where would you put the Hood? My grandad served on her, luckily in the 30s though otherwise I wouldn’t be here!

We might have to wait until we do warships for that one - might need Drac's help :)

@@HardThrasher Ah yes, the fountain of all naval knowledge. Is there nothing afloat he doesn't know about?!

My nomination for a sub zero battleship, gangster lean itself, USS Texas

How about the 747 Aircraft Carrier?

Exactly. Just one detached wing stub edging past the left-hand border of the wall.

*think* I've fixed it now

*goes to google* - ooohhh boooyy well, you go over there and be wrong in your wrongness

I mean...sort of

Hopefully now trimmed

I blame the Australians

Exaggeration for effect; I'm aware the Cubans turned up with quite a lot of armour over the years, but AIUI mostly after the South African withdrawal

@@HardThrasher Thank you for your reply, and sorry if I came off as a bit belligerent, I was a tad drunk when I typed that. But yes, the South Africans encountered and knocked out multiple T54/55 tanks in service with both FAPLA and Cuba with what was essentially up-gunned armoured cars in the form of the Eland 90 and Ratel 90 during the 1970s/1980s. The Rooikat was developed later as a successor to these vehicles, and was specifically intended to give the SADF more options against Soviet MBTs deployed in the region. Look into Operation Savannah, Operation Protea, or Operation Askari for more detailed info on these armoured clashes.