Parts of the Tangmere Museum are off limits to photography too. Was told in no uncertain terms when I was there a couple of weeks ago. Able to take photos in the main hangars, but not of the section where the relics/uniforms etc are. It was an honest mistake as I never saw the notices, but was pretty miffed to be honest, as I was wanting to take some reference photos of the uniforms and flight gear. Found it all a little bit odd… :confused:

Again, people who think they can protect items by a photo ban, do not live in the real world.

Primarily because an actual thief would be able to take any photo he/she wanted. There is no way (outside secret service work) where a 100% photo ban can be enforced. Cameras are now so small, that they will fit perfectly into any object you can think of.

The only people such a ban hurts, are the normal paying visitor.

There are museums who own items, that are sensitive to flash photography and mostly this is listed. I have even heard about a complete ban in some of those places, due to the fact that people are too stupid to switch off the flash on their own camera.

No aircraft (not even fabric covered aircraft) are damaged by flash photography and certainly not by notebook sketching.

Well i found that the Ed Russell and the Flying Heritage Collection are two different aircraft (maybe many already knew this).

That makes the list:

Airworthy:

Peter Vacher’s Hurricane R4118.

BBMF’s Spitfire P7350.

Ed Russell’s Bf109E CF-EML (cn 3579).

Under restoration:

Possibly an Me 109 E being rebuild (Indian one?).

Flying Heritage Collection’s Bf109E-3.

Unknown:

P3351 may and may not have seen BoB action.

[QUOTE=’D-Day’;1227838]I remember speaking with the ‘owner’ once years ago, all he said about the whole ‘museum’ was,

” It’s all MINE!!!!”[/QUOTE]

My precioussss……………:diablo:

No photographs, no notebooks, no cameras, no mobile phones, no recording equipment of any kind. If you get found with any of these you will be ejected, apparently!

So they preserve not only the aircraft, but also the spirit for witch it fought.

Talk about capturing the moment.

I never really get these “superior aircraft” questions.

Surely its in the hands of the pilot. Good pilots have downed “superior” enemy aircraft.

Looking at kill-rate statistics would give more information on the level of pilot training, than the state of aircraft superiority. Of cause the actual pilots who flew back then, would have their favourite aircraft, but they might not agree between them.

A further snag on kill-rate statistics, is the case where (as in over Japan) the aircraft in question meet very few enemy fighters, or (as in Europe towards then end) meet enemy pilots with (mostly) a low standard of training.

Sidenote:
Didn’t the Russians have a fair amount of success with the P-39 and actually liked flying and fighting it, despite most other users considered it inferior even to their own inventory?

Maybe it just suited their training and flying style.

If the question is about performance, then its a simple question of research.

The F4U-4 outperforms the rest in max speed, service ceiling and rate of climb (it also had a high kill ratio 11:1, but F6F had an even higher kill-ratio 19:1 i think). Is it a better aircraft?

Was the cannons better, did it survive more hits, was it more agile, did the pilot have a better view?

In particular i find the choice between those four aircraft a very personal opinion. So for whats its worth, I vote for the P-51D :p