"Vulcan in a roll"

I suspect it was a ‘c*ck-up’ rather than a ‘conspiracy’, as you suggest. As I recall, it was one of several photos as part of an article about the Vulcan (rather than a more general article) but I can’t recall any of the content. In other words, I don’t know if the photo was intended to illustrate any particular point made in the article.

By the way, I lived in Pattingham for a few years – but quite a long time ago.

Thank you Ian. I was curious about the gravity of the magazine. If it was aimed at schoolchildren, then that might explain a slightly cavalier attitude to, er, attitude. However, as it’s the respected Flying Review I assume it was shown in good faith.

It was probably C-82 45-57784 that was with the RAE 1950-51 for trails. This was just a loan machine in standard USAF silver. Have seen photos of it at Blackbushe clearing customs to/from Frankfurt for maintenance.

Probably standard USAF markings, in the same was as the two loaned F-86As wore USAF markings but no unit insignia etc.

Just wondering, how were the RAE C-82/C-119 Packets/Boxcars marked?

I’m curious whether the USAF just handed an aircraft over and let the RAF fly and service it or whether a USAF crewed ship was sent on temporary duty when the need arose?

For RedRedWine: FLYING REVIEW [December 1957 issue]

I have recently been weeding out my old aviation magazines, junking those with pages missing or bits cut out – the photo in question was in one of those. [Incidentally, magazines that are complete are to be donated to the local aviation museum in the hope that they can sell them to supplement their funds in a small way.]

Regarding the Boxcar doors, on pages 11 and 12 of Camera Above the Clouds Vol 1 featuring the photos of Charles E Brown, there are photos of a Boxcar being used by a number of aviation photographers and the doors have been completely removed for the purpose, thus giving not only a good view of the subject aircraft but the tail booms too.

I can claim to have seen a Vulcan roll. I was walking home from school Hollingwood just north of Manchester at the age of ten (1952 time) when I saw a large White or Silver triangular plane quite a way off, do a definite roll over in the Chadderton direction. My Dad had worked at Avro’s factory at Chadderton during the war. I seem to remember a coloured cutaway in Eagle about that time. and ten years latter I would be working on a Vulcan squadron.

John

Out of interest, what was the magazine the original picture was in?

Originally Posted by adrian_gray
Every time I see that thread title I think of chicken in a basket…

I worked on (Zimbabwe Air Force) 2 sqn Hawks as a civvy in 83/84 and the Bird emblem on the fin was known as ‘Chicken In a Basket’ 😀

[ATTACH=CONFIG]257572[/ATTACH]

Every time I see that thread title I think of chicken in a basket…

Adrian

Meddle

No, the large rear doors of C-82s and most C-119s can’t be opened in flight because they are swinging clamshell affairs…rather like a rear facing Bristol Freighter. For photos like this, the doors are removed.

There was a late modification to 67 C-119s with flat “beaver tail” doors that could be partially opened in flight. They were mainly used to snag reentry parachutes on early satellite payloads. Modified aircraft were C-119Js.

I fully accept that the image has been flipped and reversed. :eagerness: I still don’t understand where the photographer was located within a C-119 to be able to capture a length of one of the tail booms at that angle.

Well the C119 will not have been flying inverted – so that might give the viewer a clue.
Almost every day we see images that have been flipped by mistake,you know the sort where the RAF pilots wings are worn above the right pocket,I did it myself some years ago with a Biggin Hill display picture LOL.

Conversely – There is a lovely picture of Sqn Ldr George Ba5tard flying a canberra and pulling inverted away from the camera over a snowy background (B/W taken in the 50’s/60’s) which looks absolutely fantastic without any trickery involved.

One Italian Heineken later… surely you can only assume so much about the attitude of the Vulcan without knowing the attitude of the camera ship?

While the original image has been flipped to add a sense of drama (presumably), I rather like it! Roly Falk, Farnborough, bombers handling like fighters ‘n’ all that.

……then that original photo had to be ‘flipped’ not just vertically but also horizontally……….the background is sufficiently “ambiguous” not to arouse concern….

I don’t think there is any ambiguity at all; it is pretty obvious that the magazine image is a flipped version of the library image – all the features of both aircraft and the background sky are identical, and your flip of the library image confirms this 100%.

Even to an untrained eye, the attitude of the Vulcan in the magazine version of the image doesn’t appear ‘right’: I am not sure why some appear to be having doubts about it to be honest.

Originally posted by Meddle
Apologies but I’m sitting here with a Birra Moretti entirely failing to get my head around the logistics of the photo.

Moretti is just Heineken these days – perhaps if you tried some decent beer your brain cell might comprehend better 😀

Can the rear doors on either a C-119 or C-82 be opened in flight? I’ve seen photos of paratroops jumping from both via smaller side doors, and images of both on the ground with the rear end of the fuselage opened up. Presumably the part of the camera ship we can see in the photo is one of the tail booms? If so, from where was the photo taken? Apologies but I’m sitting here with a Birra Moretti entirely failing to get my head around the logistics of the photo. :very_drunk:

Ianwoodward9

On a C-119 the doors would have been removed.
Earlier, the USAF provided a C-82 to RAE as a photo platform.

Picture Library shot ‘flipped’ both vertically and horizontally: