I wasn’t aware I was ‘bleating’ but, rather, taking part in what I took to be a debate. My opinions stand and whilst I may not have been part of this forum for long, I have been around long enough in the preservation world to have an opinion. I suspected it may have been an error adding my thoughts. Lesson learned.

Russ,
Those of us who have been around for a similar period know that your practical contribution to the UK preservation scene has been considerable. Your views are as valid as any other and possibly better informed than most as a result of your background, so I for one would welcome your continued input.

The Somer Kendall SK1 was one off aircraft designed by a former Miles engineer specifically for air racing in the mid 1950’s. It looks a little like bit like a miniature He 162 but with a butterfly tail and two seats.

I’m trying to track down its wing, which was last reported to be at Cranfield in the mid 1960’s. Any photographs of the SK1 when it was at Cranfield would be of great interest. The aim is to get this attractive little sports jet back together so any information would be very much appreciated.

Also if anyone knows the whereabouts of a Blackburn Turbomecca Pallas that would also be useful.

When I visited the COA at Cranfield in the 60s it still had its wings and canopy but the tail planes were not fitted and this is verified in two photos in my collection. When I next saw it stored at Denham I don’t recall the wings being fitted. When I last photographed its fuselage at Breighton it was stored in a rather inaccessible position and I couldn’t verify if any flying surfaces survived.

I assume you mean Frecce Tricolori. See Airshow 2007 listing from the following website which may be of interest. Probably better for finer details to post on the military forum:

http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/sitoam/default.asp?idente=246

That sounds like a very ‘grey’ area. They haven’t ordered the closure of the airfield, so what do they class as ‘general flying’?:confused: You could argue that all pilots that fly from aircraft are ‘Captains’ and there is no ‘General’ flying?:rolleyes: Are planned take-offs and landings ‘general flying’ or just that, ‘take-offs and ‘landings’? Sounds like they are clutching at straws here!:mad:

You might find the following of interest (e.g. see para 4.2) :

http://www.cmis.cotswold.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=12616

See for surviving layout:
http://www.content-delivery.co.uk/aviation/airfields/Kenley.html

If the reporters at the arrival site have correctly confirmed it as ex T2B-275, then it is one of the cluster of CASAs that spent time at Blackbushe after demob from the SpAF. G-INFO states that G-BFHF was registered with T2B-275 quoted as its prior identity. If you search G-INFO (tick include de-registered) and you will also find a link to a photo of it when coded “721-16” and pictured when at Blackbushe. It was registered Nov 77 till de-registered Apr 90 and was shown as with the The Junkers Ju52/3m Flight Ltd when last registered, whose address in the mid 80s was in Kent.

I thought all the Blackbushe CASA 352s were ferried over but I just assumed that – was this airworthy the first time it entered the UK ex Spain?

well, I for 1 completely understand the initial remarks made by Moggy……………
to condemn a guy for commenting on what he thought was just a bad day at work, thats not fair.

I’ll put my own reaction to his remarks in context too if I may. The post I found objectionable included a link to the news story which already included such detail as:

“Two people were seriously injured and seven more treated at the scene …..
Kent Ambulance Service said the pilot suffered severe head injuries and one male skydiver had chest injuries…….
One female passenger was later transferred to hospital after suffering a severe asthma attack.”

It was clear at the outset this was not just a “bad day at the office”.
I too have been close to fatal accidents and have lost pilot a friend in such circumstances.

Given the reports already available at the time about the potential severity, I don’t think the cavalier wording and insensitivity of the original post was excusable. Some forethought for the relatives of those involved at such uncertain times is just good pastoral care and simple manners.

I think you’re trying to defend the indefensible. I fully accept Moggy wasn’t trying to deliberately offend anyone (I never believed he was) and he’s corrected the matter already – which is the honourable thing. If you don’t think my earlier criticism was fair then that’s your privilege.