A military historic aviation forum?

I prefer the historic forum as it is, both military and civil, I think dividing them could divide input – ie people interested in civil avia not looking at military and vice versa.
I am interested in both, and have learnt about both through this one historic forum. Surely the lack of civil posts (if there is one) is due to lack of posting, this wouldn’t be solved be a seperate section.

www.atdb.org.

Er, have I missed something? Having clicked on that I ended up at the website of the Union of European Turkish Democrats and I regret to say that my turkish is not sufficiently good to locate the page which relates to French registered Miles aeroplanes!

Oops!

Try – http://www.aerotransport.org/

Odd one as the atdb.org address is displayed within the site!

Happy hunting,
Jon

Well, well, as a complete aside from this thread, that’s the same day my sister was born. There must be a connection:dev2:

Wasn’t destroyed in Essex was it?

John

She wasn’t given the name Blossom by any chance? :diablo: 😀 :diablo:

Roger Smith.

Taking this thread a little further, and possibly showing my novice status, as my main intrest is post war civil airliners etc. What is historic ? What would you put as a cut off date ? A lot of talk recently of saving a BAC 111, mention earlier in this thread of a 707, Are we talking 50’s, 60’s, 70’s ….
Confused of Norwich. haha.

www.atdb.org.

Er, have I missed something? Having clicked on that I ended up at the website of the Union of European Turkish Democrats and I regret to say that my turkish is not sufficiently good to locate the page which relates to French registered Miles aeroplanes!

But being a little more serious, was F-BBCN destroyed or just said to have been destroyed? The website of the French equivalent of the CAA provided the same information as appears in the post of Jon H but another website says that it was “last seen at Lognes in 1971”. As yet I have been unable to trace any record of the actual fate of this Miles Falcon. If it was destroyed, what were the circumstances of this? Does anyone out there know?

Paul,

The cryptic titles are all part of the fun, at best they will pull us into areas of aviation we have had no interest in before! Be it name that under-carriage leg or name that long forgotten aviation flick (movie for our younger readers), keep on writing!

WF

F-BBCN Cancelled MILES FALCON M 3A 269 Thu 27 Mar 1958 Association Club Aerien Les Gerfauts Wed 22 Sep 1971 Destroyed

Well, well, as a complete aside from this thread, that’s the same day my sister was born. There must be a connection:dev2:

Wasn’t destroyed in Essex was it?

John

Civil, Military – if it’s “historic” then it should be on here

I haven’t got time to look through any more web-fora than those we’ve got already!

I have to admit that when I posted shots of a B.707 a year or two back I wasn’t sure whether they should go here on Historic or on the Civil Forum, likewise, when I wanted info on a BAC 1-11 seen at Gatwick I wasn’t sure where to post – adding another forum might simplify those cases but it might also make my dilemna even worse. Maybe I should learn how to post thread links…

One thing I would ask is that new threads on all the Flypast fora are a little less “cryptic” than some of the more recent examples, so that their content is more obvious to forum browsers like me who often open a cryptically titled thread to find it doesn’t interest me.

When opening a new thread we should all remember that other viewers may not know what has triggerred our burning desire to post, so an explicit reference to the object content (e.g. aircraft type, airforce, airfield) might save other users some wasted time.

Okay, some people will still want to have a photo of an unknown aircraft, location, or component identified, but simply adding “component”, “type, “location” to the initial thread header would help.

Although I’ve always seen military historics as my main area of interest, time spent here has further improved my knowledge and love of the older airliners and light civils etc. “Choppers” and other whirly contraptions remain a bit of a closed book to me though 😮

What impresses me is that all levels of knowledge and expertise are here, and I have both helped others, and been helped in my interest myself.

I can understand why a split into historic civil and historic military might seem sensible, but personally I’m against it. If a thread doesn’t interest me (Civil or military 😮 ) I can simply to ignore it.

Paul F

I agree wholeheartedly with Kev35.
Pardon my ignorance, but I fail to see what benefit would be gained by a further partition in this Forum. What I expect to see when surfing this site is commentary and information on historic aircraft, regardless of whether they are military or civil – it’s all HISTORY, for heaven’s sake!
I am an active member of several Fora on the Web, and have enough jumping around from one to another already!

p.s. who knows whether F-BBCN was extant in 1971 and, if so, what became of her subsequently?

Thats an easy one 😉 Information for F-BBCN /G-AGZX courtesy of www.atdb.org.

F-BBCN Previous MILES FALCON M 3A 269 Mon 12 Jul 1954 Lecoq Lucien
F-BBCN Previous MILES FALCON M 3A 269 Fri 10 Sep 1954 Aero Club De St Maur
F-BBCN Previous MILES FALCON M 3A 269 Sat 15 Mar 1958 Lecoq Lucien
F-BBCN Cancelled MILES FALCON M 3A 269 Thu 27 Mar 1958 Association Club Aerien Les Gerfauts Wed 22 Sep 1971 Destroyed

Jon

Well, at least I appear to have generated some debate on the issue! Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic (he says, as he quickly ducks beneath the parapet!) as well as my interests being arcane. Maybe I too readily treat this forum and its members as some sort of aeronatical oracle, only to be disappointed when reality demonstrates otherwise!

I am inclined to share the view concerning partition of this forum. The risk of that must be to create an historical civil aviation ghetto and run the risk of losing input from those whose interests are primarily military but who also can contribute valuably on matters civil (and vice versa). Maybe what is required is not partition but the creation of ‘special interest’ groups, catering for narrower interests within the field of historic aviation, which can exist within the present forum. Perhaps this would offer the best of both worlds!

It is quite clear to me that there is a wealth of knowledge and experience amongst the forum members that, sometimes, approaches an academic level (which I mean as a compliment). The Miles M.52/Bell X.1 thread is first class evidence of this. However I suspect that there are many members (and potential members) of this forum whose knowledge and experience is such that they could contribute valuably (or contribute beyond that which they do) but who choose not to do so. Perhaps that comment is most apposite to those most ‘senior’ members (says he, endeavouring to be very PC!) with personal knowledge and experience of aviation of years’ past, which knowledge and experience may, with the passage of the years, be lost if not disseminated now. So there’s my clarion call!

p.s. who knows whether F-BBCN was extant in 1971 and, if so, what became of her subsequently?

Am I alone in thinking that, in effect, this forum is (or maybe, put more properly, has become) an historic military aviation forum?

Or you could even say an historic military every aspect of Spitfire forum !:dev2:

Avion Ancien.

I think your perceived lack of interest in historic civil aviation is simply a result of your perceptions. In the 5 or 6 years I’ve hung around this particular forum I have learned a lot about civil aviation. I would imagine that for every poster here involved in restoration/research/maintenance/ownership/piloting a historic military aircraft there is one interested in the civil side and often they overlap.

For instance, Jon H et al in Liverpool are all very involved with the preservation of civil aircraft, others on here own a Viscount, a number of members are involved with the care and maintenance of airframes at Old Warden including several Moth types, Comper Swift, Desoutter and the incomparably beautiful Miles Falcon. Others here own and fly these types. There is the Trident cared for at Manchester, the civil types at Brooklands. The Classic Flight at Coventry. I suspect that little list is far from exhaustive.

Of course there is a greater interest in the military side, it was the aircraft of the military, and the people involved in building, maintaining, flying and fighting such aircraft, that ensured our deliverance from the oppression imposed by Germany and Japan upon so much of the world.

In essence, I feel as comfortable asking a question about civil aviation as I do about the operations of the RAF and USAAF.

Regards,

kev35

Hopefully stay here and intermingle with all else, or am I dreaming ?

Where would all the Spitfire threads go? 😮 😀

I like the civil aviation from the fifties and sixties still a lot of info out there and i like the detective work on WW11 types i.e. The Lancaster thread. You often find things out on this forum that are not in books and official records.

Keep the forum going and the good humour and manners of the contributors.

Get stuck in on JD mate! The more the merrier. I’ll have any airliner so long as I can get a full interior for it….. oh and something that will fit in my hangar (smaller than an A300 please…!)

Very sporting of you LL but fairs fair… 😉

Jon

Just to add my two-pennorth, I feel there are enough sub-forums already and would not personally like to see yet another. My interests cover both civil and military (and there are quite a few aircraft that have “crossed the boundary”, e.g. Constellation) so I am against that idea.
It is true that many of the Forum members who were here a couple of years ago have decamped elsewhere, but I hope that newer members will eventually show their mettle. One thing that I am very glad to see disappear is the venom (and I don’t mean de Havilland’s) that used to occasionally pop up.

All of the above well and truly seconded.

Going back to the initial question, you have to bear in mind that alot of the threads on this forum relate to museums, projects and the like. I think it’s fair to say that most of what is kept in museums and private collections etc pertains to the military side of historic aviation, and that if this forum does lean towards the military side then it is perhaps more a reflection of that than of the views of forum members. Just a theory.

Just to add my two-pennorth, I feel there are enough sub-forums already and would not personally like to see yet another. My interests cover both civil and military (and there are quite a few aircraft that have “crossed the boundary”, e.g. Constellation) so I am against that idea.
It is true that many of the Forum members who were here a couple of years ago have decamped elsewhere, but I hope that newer members will eventually show their mettle. One thing that I am very glad to see disappear is the venom (and I don’t mean de Havilland’s) that used to occasionally pop up.

historic aircraft

Although this is the “Historic” forum, there is no reason that historic civil aircraft cannot be discussed here so post away!
If there is enough interest in civil historic aircraft then a new sub forum may be the answer?
Peter,
Moderator