planemad

Gonzo, you might like to check VASU, they are showing two slightly different rates for the British Pound and Three rates for the Euro. I dont see banks doing the same, maybe they just give the lowest rate across the board which does make VASU and Superich a more attractive proposition.

Just checked VASU (http://www.vasuexchange.com/index.php), They are closed Monday 13th to Wednesday 15th, open as usual on 16th. Hope that helps.

There is a Garmin shop in Fortune town,. It is on the first floor (amongst the phone shops), left hand side 20 metres before you go into Tesco. I also see that Garmin are selling some models for as little as 3000, 4000 baht with lifetime upgrades. To get to Fortune town, get off the MRt at Rama 9.

Chatu Chak Wednesdays and Thursdays, a gardners porn show!

Trexpat, if you use google chrome, the birdslover.com website is easily translated into English.

Good luck.

To try to answer an earlier question regarding the fatigue life of an aircraft (as opposed to the finite calendar life suggested in the OP). Military aircraft are fitted with fatigue meters or accelerometers which counts how many times certain "G" thresholds are reached on any flight. It is therefore possible to calculate the percentage of life consumed each sortie. Of course this is only a small number per trip, but over the years accumulates until a predetermined figure is reached.

Helicopters, whilst not subjected to cabin pressurisations, still experience "G"in the same manner as fixed wing aircraft, i.e. flying in turbulent conditions, aerobatic manoeuvrings and possibly the biggest fatigue eater is using the aircraft to lift heavy loads which can put huge stress on the rotor head, gearbox and surrounding structure and this "over torque" will significantly reduce the fatigue life.

I would also like to point out that military aircraft, unlike civilian aircraft, are not a source of revenue. Airliners on the ground are not earning their keep and unscrupulous airline operators might consider extending the life of critical components (against the advice of the manufacturer) either to save money or to quickly return the aircraft to paying service. Military operators are not under quite the same pressure so routine maintenance is carried out as a matter of course. No technician would knowingly sign an aircraft as serviceable knowing it to be otherwise. Technicians realise that military aircraft often fly very close to their safety envelopes and the pilot must have total faith in their workmanship. If anyone has actual knowledge that Thailand is any different, I would like hear about it, firsthand experiences would be good, I might be able to use examples in my own technician training program.

There is Homepro in Mega, also, when travelling towards Bang Na, you will find another Home Pro next to Tesco about 4 to 5 Km from Mega and Thai Watsadu is another 1 km closer to Bang Na, it is just as good (if not better) than homepro as it also caters for bulk building materials.

Good luck

KS

Muscat, highest I have see is 56C. Official records however stop at 49.9 (I believe) over 50C, too hot to work!

Excellent, 3 pages of what expats KNOW what is best for Thailand. Assuming many respondents are now retired, how many days off did you refuse when you were working? Consider that most Thais get maybe 5 days off in their first year of contract, whereas Europeans now are required to have 3 weeks (I believe from when I was an employer 15 years ago) paid holiday as law! Sort of balances out really.

Nothing to do with Thailand but, I work in an Arab gulf state, for a full month (Ramadan), working hours are only about 5 hours per day, the following Eid holidays (depending which days of the week they fall) could provide an extra 18 days off plus their regular breaks as well.

During our working lives, time off and wages are (mostly) our main goal, are the Thais any different? So why not let them run their country the way they want. Are we really doing so well in the West that we know all the answers and if so, why are there so many expats over here?

Flame away!

Smoked Salmond?

There is quite a long running thread in the Real Estate section which strongly advocates the Borax solution. I was about to try this method myself, however, whilst visiting the local market at Wat Sing, we met a seller who’s cart was filled with all sorts of potions and poisons. On his recomendation, we bought a small puffer type plastic container with a white powder inside. When we got home, our first application of the stuff was along a dual carriageway of ants circling the kitchen along the top of the tiles, a small squirt of the stuff at either end of the trail and 5 minutes later, no traffic at all and they have not returned! I also tried it on a quite large ants nest, with a slightly larger application and again, 10 minutes later, no activity at all.

What is this stuff called? SHANJIA BRAND INSECTICIDE POWDER, there are no ingredients detailed, so haven’t a clue as to its chemical make-up, but it works QUICKLY and of course from a Thai market, is very cheap as well.

No problem, just my response and recognising that other comments are equally valid. Of course it had its weaknesses.

Sent from my IQ 5.5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

TallGuy, interesting comments regarding the "birth"of the second generation Harrier. Whilst many of the problems we had in the early 70's were solved, the Harrier II re-introduced them to us. We all agreed that naming the reincarnat Harrier was a mistake and a new name would have differenciated it from it's predecessor.

As for the attrition rate of the early aircraft, it was a difficult aircraft to fly. Transition from vertial to conventional flight was a difficult lesson to learn and some fell (sadly) by the wayside. Coupled with that, the twin flight control systems and the vectored power nozzle system required to operate the aircraft in both flight modes were revolutionary and mistakes were made at the design stage by the technicians and of course by the aircrew who paid the ultimate price for their errors.

As to the operational needs of the aircraft, as a weapon of war, vertical take-off was never an option for the reasons stated above. VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing), should never have been used, STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) is more appropriate. Vertical take-off is strictly for the amusement of air display spectators.

Over the years, the Aircraft developed into a highly efficient machine and the American Marines were instrumental in its initial developement. The government who threw out the TSR2 came so close to abandoning the P1127 (subsequently Kestrel and lated Harrier), but the Marines were interested and in part, funded the developement.

Whatever you think about it, it was an incredible aircraft and I for one am proud to have been associated with it, but you might have guessed that!

PS, for an aircraft that was "not very good", maybe a chat to the Falkland Islanders or the Royal Navy personnel who were protected by it, or the soldier on the ground who, coming under fire sees a Harrier arrive moments after calling for support to eliminate the threat, they might have a differenty opinion!

In the evolution of a military jet, systems are constantly being upgraded. The differences between the first generation Harriers (GR mk1, GR Mk 2, T2 and T4), and the subsequent GR5, GR7 and GR9 plus the 2 seaters is quite extensive. The avionics were totaly upgraded and the GR7 and upwards gained a night vision capability. Structurally, the fuselage is similar, but the mainplane is now almost totally carbon fibre composite material. Flying controls are still pushrod but depending upon the leading edge root extensions ((LERX), the "D" shaped device between the wing root and fuselage), different flight characteristic software must be installed, so it is almost impossibe to change between the earlier 65% LERX and the later 100% LERX, and why would you want to? The Engine is upgraded, but no real different from the original Pegasus unit, the main difference is that the Fuel Control Unit (FCU) has been replaced with much smaller and far more efficient Digital Control Units. Apart from that, very many of the early components are still the same and maybe interchageable, although that is unlikely as critical components are lifed items.

I Hope that helps a little.

I would like to put straight some of the comments regarding moving this aircraft which is a British Aerospace Harrier GR mk 1. Firstly, unless the engine had been run (mothballed, so unlikely), the hydraulics for the nose wheel steering would not be charged and even if it was, a small red button at the top of the leg would soon discharge the pressure. The man in the cockpit is there to operate the brakes, so assuming the No. 1 hydraulic system was intact, it is a simple matter of ensuring nitrogen pressure in the accumulator and a few pumps on the handpump would provide sufficient pressure for the move.

The fuel tanks might be empty, but probably just enough to keep them "wetted" or they dry out and leak. The hyd system however, would almost certainly have fluid in them otherwise the seals dry out and leak as soon as you apply pressure. Remember, mothballed means the aircraft might be returned to service so must be retained in a recoverable condition. Finally, putting the aircraft on a low loader does sound like a good idea, but it would have to be wide enough to accomodate both of the outrigger on the tips of the mainplanes, so not quite so easy.

I spent 20 great years in the RAF working with the Harrier going from a very green technician to trade manager and later technical advisor. For all those who served with the Harrier force, they were a very special aircraft, still nothing to compete with them today and 15 Dec 2010 was a very sad day for all "Bona Jet" associated personell when it flew it's last sortie as a result of government shortsightedness.

Sorry if I went on a bit, but this aircraft is/was a huge part of my life.

Oh dear, some people just dont understand humour....Karen!

And you can provide evidence that it doesnt exist? Or is it just a belief?

Optmist, but try some of these:

The project manager says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

The realist says the glass contains half the required amount of liquid for it to overflow.

And the cynic... wonders who drank the other half.

The worrier frets that the remaining half will evaporate by next morning.

The entrepreneur sees the glass as undervalued by half its potential.

The engineer says the glass is over-designed for the quantity of water.

The computer programmer says the glass is full-empty.

OK, lazy day!

If you re-read my post I was refering to simple wheel rotation rather than a full tyre removal and reposition.

Never felt the need to change tyres before they were worn out or blown out. If they have lasted 58K with wear left on them, then you are not a particularly aggressive driver otherwis they would have been worn out already. You might wish to check the sidewalls for cracks which will develope with age, but even this is not a sure indication of time to change.

With regard to rotating wheels (isnt that what they do anyway ), I do not believe that it helps, in fact quite the oposite. You can only rotate wheels front to rear otherwise you will have the wrong direction of rotation. Rear wheels will usually have a neutral camber whereas front wheels will have a toe in/out camber which will require the tyres to be worn in again in their new positions which will certainly not extent the life of the tyre.

If however you ever feel that your safety is at risk, change them!

Be safe.

Has anyone considered that it just might be the ferang who is in the wrong? Of course not, silly me!