Get to bed you bleeding drunk!

Hardy’s Shiraz – ooh la la. Even my Frog of a wife enjoys it!

Beer in a pub – Guinness or Kro 1664

Beer at home – for a treat, osmething Berlgian (hic?)

Gin – Bombay Sapphire, Queen Mum measure. Loverly. Equal top with Tequila (Jose Cuervo Gold).

Umm. Sober. Just a teeny – weeny Stella ta Dad’s tonight.

Eeh, you look a reet ravishing bird tonight Ashley. Where’s the boa?

Advantages:

Only goes through one stage – the slides are the film. Prints are made from negatives, and is where the whole thing often falls down. Colours are brighter, crisper. I use Velvia, but its slow – too slow really for aviation – ut there are many good ones out there. I reccomend Fuji (Provia F especially as an all-rounder). Easier storage, projection is cool.

Disadvantages. No latitude. Under and overexposure = Bin. Quick processing turnaround is only available in big towns.

Plenty of advantages and disadvantages. Mix both instead of being one or the other.

Or if you have the cash, get a Canon EOS 10D (he says, waving red rags)

The greenhouse idea is a pisstake. I just can’t be bothered learning smileys. Yes, a bank like the American museum, but with a purpose, and utilising trhe high ceiling better, through use of a floor.

We had this discussion before. Tara is filthy, and that beets suspension any day.

And Kev, I agree. Lets scrap the jets (and egg beaters for Moggy) and concentrate on proper stuff.

The Tempest V. The colour scheme. This is an opinion only.

On display, we now have a Tempest V. We also have a Tempest II and a Typhoon. I would say that that makes us pretty bloody lucky. Imagine the photo opportunity of all three together outside, perhaps with a Hurricane and Fury as well. The realms of fantasy I’m afraid. But a nice thought. We have Kermit’s Tempest coming on well, and may see or hear it one day in this country (another fantasy perhaps). Things are looking up. This really supersedes all argument of (as with the Red Bull Sea Vixen jet thing) what paint is on it. BUT that doesn’t make it any less valid to discuss it. And, unlike privately owned aircraft, we own the buggers, as our taxes pay for them. Thank God they don’t waste all our taxes!

My thoughts:

I looked in the pages of Flypast and saw a beautiful Tempest V airframe. I saw a paint scheme that, to me, is not what I think of when I imagine a Tempest V. I saw a paint scheme that I actually dislike. A bloody chipmunk has a more appealing paint job to me than that Tempest. It was (arguably) the best fighter of the war under 20,000 feet (Bee Beamonts words – not mine) and a Doodlebug killer / life saver. I think its a horrible scheme. BUT. On the other hand, it is what that particular airframe (unfortunately) wore. So – to widen the argument – is our taste to be seen as an authentic paint job for an airframe, or for an aircraft? I can’t comment on the Vixen because I ignore jets, but if you painted the Lanc like that, I would never bother taking a picture of it, or even watching it, again. (I’d listen to it I suppose). The Lancaster, NOT in an original scheme, and Sally B, NOT in an original scheme, represent something, as a testament to courage and sacrifice, to a hell of a lot of people – though they had totally different original liveries. And they look the better for that. A Mustang painted up, or chopped about, or a Spitfire, in some bizarre Reno-style scheme is sad to me. Spencer Flack owned his red fleet, and therefore had every right to paint it as he wished (far more right than I have to whine about it) but a red Spitfire? It looked absolutely dreadful. This is all by the by – they were neither original markings or indicative – but its an extreme.

I will look at the Tempest, and admire it, and photograph it. But it will not make me think of Bee and his contemporaries who died. And I don’t think commemorating target towing duty has the same ring for me. But there you go. More kindling for the fire.