Funny/Strange News Stories

Take a long, long look at the first picture and think of the energy required.

Then scroll down to look at the third. Link's in the smiley...

:eek:
Mother of god :eek:
I wouldn't be surprised if the owner went and bought a lottery ticket after that. :lol:
 
We need more instructors like him, bigger classes too...
You have to wonder how the lesson would have gone if it DIDN'T work.

"Okay well if it does work, you won't be here, so that's how you know you did it right."

Darwinism took a great instructor too soon from us. Before we could truly see his full self-inflicting work.
 
I can't help but think of "Four Lions" when reading that story. :lol:
 
I can't imagine it being airtight enough to fly at 21000ft, either.
 
DK
I can't imagine it being airtight enough to fly at 21000ft, either.
I don't see why not. The crew/passenger spaces would be pressurized to a 10,000 foot pressure altitude, not sea level. Just a few PSI. The seals don't have to be perfect, just enough to keep air from leaking out faster than it's pumped in.
 
In cold areas yes.
The mosquito had some problems when they tried it in southern Asia and the Pacific where the wood would moisten and lose strength.
 
I visited it when docked at Long Beach next to the QEII years ago. I can't imagine flying it 21k feet in the air!:scared:

The Spruce Goose was conceived and designed to fly heavy cargoes long distances at very little above wave-top altitude. Early in the war, submarines were thought to be a great threat to surface shipping, and Howard Hughes built his huge plywood prototype airplane to circumvent the submarine threat to intercontinental transport of war materiel, and at the same time to conserve precious aluminum.

By the time the Spruce Goose flew, transport by conventional ships was not a big issue. So the Hughes' flying boat was obsolete before it flew.
 
What exactly are the building regulations which forced the construction of such a hideous chicane?
 
What exactly are the building regulations which forced the construction of such a hideous chicane?
I'm no expert, but it looks like the council has a legal limit on how angled a slope can be and if it was built straight down it would be by their own terms illegal. I can only imagine the dilemma if the whole thing was froze over with ice. :scared: And the taxpayers are 40k out of pocket too. :rolleyes:
 
Yep - maximum permitted slope angle.

Of course, had they built it straight down, it'd be a nightmarish push up to the door and - more importantly - a literal flume to eject their daughter onto a main road at high speed in any moments of carelessness.
 
Why house a family with a disabled daughter in a house with a 1-in-1 front garden to start with? Bungalow springs to mind perhaps.
 
Downright bizarre. Of course, they can't, by law, install anything with a steeper angle.

Score one for accessibility laws!
 
Why house a family with a disabled daughter in a house with a 1-in-1 front garden to start with? Bungalow springs to mind perhaps.
According to the article, they indicated when they moved in that they could cope with the steps.

Last 5 lines of the article
A spokesman for West Dunbartonshire Council said that the family had indicated they could manage the steps at the property.

He said: "This proved not to be the case. As they were existing tenants, it was the council's duty to make the necessary adaptations.

"This led to the installation of the wheelchair ramp as requested by the family."
 
Back