Neptunus Lex

28 responses so far ↓

• 1 SJBill // Aug 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm

  Z’long as I don’t get a close shave, just sayin.

• 2 Marianne Matthews // Aug 3, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Lex … would you call those lovely creatures swordswomen or swordspersons? And have you taught those beautiful daughters of yours how to fence?

  Just askin’.

  Marianne

• 3 GM Cassel AMH1(AW) Retired // Aug 3, 2008 at 2:55 pm

  I think Catherine Zeta-Jones should be Number 1. Curves, ya know.

• 4 Humble1390 // Aug 3, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  I second CZJ being #1. Also, I noticed a distinct bias in favor of Asian women in that list. I thought it might be a Skippy-san list.

  No real cool ‘dragger designs in a few years. But that seaplane satiated my appetite for “niche aircraft require finesse and skill to fly.”

• 5 Babs // Aug 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  Terribly OT BUT, all you Navy guys, could you please explain to me what the bugaboo is about recycling spent nuclear fuel? The French do it (it has to be good).

• 6 ManlyDad // Aug 3, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  Zeta-Jones for #1 on any and every list!

• 7 Joe // Aug 3, 2008 at 7:23 pm

  So cool (military babes), only some of the pictures are fake; still awesome though…

• 8 MajHarvey // Aug 3, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  I could be wrong, but it seemed that Ms. Keira finished at the #7 spot, not 4th.

  /just sayin’
  //shoulda been higher

• 9 PeterGunn // Aug 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm

  Hate to brake this to you, Lex, but Keira K. isn’t #4… she’s actually #7, 4th from the bottom. You’re right, though; I don’t get it either.

  #1? I have to go with Zeta-Jones, like so many others.

• 10 J.M. Heinrichs // Aug 3, 2008 at 8:17 pm

  Peter
  “I have to go with Zeta-Jones,”: it’s not compulsory, you can plead a headache.

  Cheers

• 11 FbL // Aug 3, 2008 at 8:34 pm

  MajHarvey and PeterGunn,

  Umm… guys? I think the beauties scrambled your brains. The list is in reverse (countdown) order.

• 12 MaxDamage // Aug 3, 2008 at 8:58 pm

  Babs, we’re signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As such the reprocessing of spent fuel is a touchy subject.

  When U-235 is burned in a reactor it creates a number of what are called daughter elements. Plutonium is one of them. So is tritium. During reprocessing these daughter elements are separated and removed, so we’ve a pile of Plutonium and Tritium and Thorium and Radium and Radon and Lead and such we can then use for other purposes.

  People get kind of touchy when you’ve said you won’t build more nukes or help others to build them and then extract plutonium and tritium from civilian power reactor fuel. Sort of makes you seem a little dishonest, plutonium and tritium being the raw materials for a hydrogen bomb (as opposed to the fission bomb that used U-235, a much more simple device).

  The French? They care more about keeping their reactors running, and during the days of the Cold War nobody expected France to build a nuclear arsenal equivalent to that of the USA or USSR, hence nobody really cared if they did reprocess.

  - Max

• 13 CWO4 KGP // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:35 am

  No disrespect Sir, but you may want to relook at the aircraft fotos. The Sbach 342 does not have a training wheel, unless my eyes fail me.

  Not much utility in an aerobatic plane, but it’s all about the flying anyway.

  VR
  CWO4

• 14 Paul // Aug 4, 2008 at 4:51 am

  FBL -
  Wait, you mean they were numbered…

  I had to go look at it again, sure enough, they are numbered and there is actual text, arranged in sentences, describing each person. Wow!

  I think CZJ is hot in all situations.

• 15 Liz // Aug 4, 2008 at 5:05 am

  I don’t think Keira could actually lift a sword. Unless it was made of styrofoam. Her arms are smaller than my six year old son’s.

• 16 Kris, in New England // Aug 4, 2008 at 5:15 am

  Liz - you say that like the men will actually - care.

• 17 lex // Aug 4, 2008 at 5:50 am

  Right you are, Chief! I guess I must have had something in my eye from the previous gallery. Tears, prolly.

• 18 Idaho Joe // Aug 4, 2008 at 5:54 am

  What? Jennifer Garner isn’t even in the top 10? (#11) Who made this list?

  And as for the airplanes you missed #8, the sback 342 which is a taildragger. Course, I wouldn’t want to go into any small dirt strips with it. And #9, the RV9A just needs the “A” knocked off and the third wheel switched to the other side. I like the Vans, especially the RV7, but not so much the nose wheel varieties.

• 19 Idaho Joe // Aug 4, 2008 at 6:01 am

  Oops, should have read closer, CWO4 KGP beat me to it on the Sbach. Who knew Germans could make airplanes?

• 20 blackeagle603 // Aug 4, 2008 at 7:19 am

  Keira? Kute for a 14 yr old but she’s about 100lbs shy of being a really fine looking woman.

• 21 MaxDamage // Aug 4, 2008 at 11:24 am

  I notice the minimum required to get into private aviation is six figures. Seems kind of, I dunno, steep. I wonder if there’s a market for an old-fashioned Piper Cub with steam gauges out there?

  There simply has to be a way to get an inexpensive, old-tech piston-engine twin-seat aircraft out to the masses, a kit for less than $50K including engine and avionics. Sure, it might look like a Boeing Stearman, or perhaps a Fokker Eindecker, but that has to be better than flying the couch for lack of funds.

  - Max

• 22 daveg // Aug 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  “a kit for less than $50K including engine and avionics. ”

  While the pricing isn’t complete on the new Van’s RV-12, you can kinda get an estimate:

  The fuse and wing kits top out at a little above $10k. Engine is a Rotax 912 burning about 5 gallons an hour, and I’m guessing you’d be looking at $20k for that. That leaves $20k for the tail kit, the finish kit, and the avionics. You’d probably want the S-LSA kit given the improvement you’d get in resale price over a pure experimental. That requires that it has to be built to spec. The current spec for avionics is a Dynon FlightDek 180, which is a combination EFIS and GEM. Add a Garmin GPS, transponder, and comm radio and you’re still below $10k.

  I’m guessing one can be built for around $50k depending on how much you do on the paint and interior, but far more accurate numbers will emerge as the first customer-built planes get completed later this year.

  http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm

• 23 Humble1390 // Aug 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  Eh. . .good used planes can be had for much less than six figures. With all the maintenance and mandatory overhauls, buying a used plane bears little resemblance to buying a used car.

  Wasn’t one of the big points of the LSA’s to be cheaper airplanes? I think some of them are under 100k. . .available in taildragger, too!!

• 24 geo6 // Aug 4, 2008 at 1:27 pm

  You can get a Standard Cert airplane that meets LSA criteria out there for under $30K and some even under $20K that are in good to excellent shape. And they are all tailwheel types except the Ercoupe. They are predominently the Luscombe 8A, Aeronca Champ 7AC, Taylorcraft BCs. They will never perform like the new composite types but nor do they cost close to $100k. A Piper J-3 Cub will run between $30K to $60K. as you are paying for the name. Also you can put them on skis or floats.

• 25 Wilko // Aug 4, 2008 at 4:10 pm

  Prices continue to drop. You can also get numerous “spam cans” -Cherokees; Tomahawks; C150’s, for around $35k in decent condition. Twins for twice that and even a functional jet for around $100k i.e. L-29. (Never mind that you’d pay as much for fuel in the first two years of flying).
  With soaring fuel costs, the conventional gear birds descibed by Geo keep looking better.

• 26 Navig8r // Aug 5, 2008 at 5:03 am

  Lex, Keira Knightley? A mere stick-person with makeup. I prefer a little more woman in my women.

• 27 geo6 // Aug 5, 2008 at 8:00 am

  My T-cart burns 3.5 gal/hr of autogas at cruise. Insurance per year: $900. Annual: $600. Tiedown: $0.00 only 1.5 miles from the house. Inspite of the annoying liftstrut and attaching point ADs that required inspections at a cost of an additional $500 (passed w/no issues) it has been a pretty inexpensive way to fly. God willing it will stay that way.
  (And it has the little wheel under the tail.)

• 28 CWO4 KGP // Aug 5, 2008 at 4:36 pm

  Although I like to look at women, they are too cantankerous and unpredictable to want more than a great airplane. And make no mistake, any one that flies is great. Personally, I’d like to have a Howard DGA, but will be content with a Wichita 172. With steam gauges and manual flaps, thank you……

  I was living in Roanoke, VA, but the airport commission closed down the only rental place in town, so it was time to leave….off to Texas!!!

Leave a Comment