Angelsonefive I appreciate your input. I also admire your persistence in standing by your item. I repeat my offer:-

If you are so certain they are right then give me £200.00 for my Frantisek and I will donate it to ‘Help for Heroes’…

I think you are possibly being a little hard here. Angelsonefive has now posted four combat reports for scrutiny and all have been called into question; one even has a ‘rival’ combat report by the same pilot (John Kent) of the same engagement.

I can understand that you have bad feelings towards the person who sold you your fake combat report but the fact that you bought it is not the fault of Angelsonefive, and imagine how he may be feeling having four combat reports called into question (and I’m assuming that Angelsonefive didn’t post his entire collection).

I can understand how it may be difficult to accept that a prized collection is not what it was thought to be…..irrespective of the fact that the collector may now also be thousands of pounds out of pocket.

I repeat what I said before, volunteering oneself here as the vendor of the original combat report took some courage…

…there are many who would have ignored all criticism and continued with the eBay sale regardless!

If you genuinely feel they are right why don’t you buy another at a knock down price.

Well that just about sums-up the total of my expertise; how I would ‘feel’ about them, and as it happens my ‘feeling’ was that one of them at least was wrong and I posted some of the things that would have worried me about it. I could be well have been wrong but the doubt would be enough for me (if I were a collector of such things).

Sorry if taking your words out of context changed your intent (and I appreciate you were not blaming angelsonefive), no hard feelings, and I really do sympathise with you both in the ‘risky’ environment in which you collect.

I agree, this is very much a worst-case scenario but the total speed loss will remain the same whether it is fired in one long burst (of about 5 seconds) or multiple short bursts with time to accelerate in between.

I don’t think the power of the engine would manage to reduce the speed loss much during firing; acceleration would be poor near the top speed and firing durations are extremely short.

The whole exercise was really to demonstrate that firing these cannon wouldn’t ‘stop the Lysander dead’ but I must admit that I hadn’t realised until I just looked it up that the Lysander was quite so slow with a maximum speed of only 212mph.

It must have almost stopped it when they were fired.

Stopped and nosed dived…

Well, I think we can all now agree that a Lysander wouldn’t ‘stop dead’ if it fired two 20mm Hispano cannon! 😀

I would tend to agree that the cannons were probably positioned in the worst possible position when it came to pitch changes during firing…

…but for an emergency anti-invasion measure I doubt there was an alternative that could have been produced in time. The undercarriage legs certainly offer the fewest problems for the attachment and stressing point of view.

My Hispano has what I think are dampers.

Interesting.

I have also said that from a pitch point of view, the cannons would not have had a big effect on pitch attitude…

I’m not saying that the cannons would necessarily have affected the pitch of the Lysander to the point that it was unacceptable during firing…

…just that logically it would be better to have them closer to the centre-of-mass surely?

The problems of fitting them anywhere else (in the time available) would probably have outweighed any disadvantage (at that time) and there were advantages, such as being close to the position of the original guns and at a point stressed for bombs.

What was the “adaption” that was made to his Spitfire?

Not sure how the Spitfire in question was adapted but to counter high-flying Ju86R bombers operating over Britain in August 1942 the Special Service Flight operated out of Northolt using Spitfire IX which, according to Pilot Officer Emanuel Galitzine:

“…had been lightened in almost every possible way. A lighter wooden propeller…..all of the armour had been removed as had the four machine-guns, leaving an armament of only two 20mm Hispano cannons…..painted in a special lightweight finish…..all equipment not strictly necessary for high-altitude combat was removed.”

The aircraft was 450 pounds lighter than the standard Spitfire IX but no cabin pressurisation was fitted.

On 12th September 1942 Pilot Officer Emanuel Galitzine intercepted and damaged a Ju86R (with a single hit by a 20mm round) above the Solent at over 43,000 feet in the highest air-combat of World War Two.

From ‘Skies of Fire’ by Dr Alfred Price.

For all the vast amount of knowledge displayed on these pages, it’s suprising how the effect of light on Museum artifacts is continually underestimated, or indeed just not understood at all.

Maybe so, but are you suggesting that the B-of-B Hall aircraft are being given special treatment by the RAF Museum and are being kept deliberately in the dark to preserve them?

If that were the case are you prepared to criticize the way all the other aircraft are displayed at Hendon (and Cosford) because the light is so much better in the other halls (also full of unique exhibits) and particularly in the brand-new Milestones building and even in the 100 year old Graham White hangar?

Every time the Hendon Museum is mentioned, even when accompanied by a perfectly adequate shot of the Lancaster taken with a relatively simple camera, somebody has to start whining about the lighting. As if it mattered.

Where exactly did anybody mention photography? Or the lighting in the Bomber Hall for that matter?

The lighting in the B-of-B Hall at Hendon get mentioned a lot because it is bad, not because anybody has a fixation.