Originally published bi-monthly the first issue was dated May/June 1981 (monthly from the November 1981 issue).

There is a ‘stub’ on Wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlyPast

Surely we can do better than that…anybody feel like expanding it?

Same date as my birthday… well in 1975 it would have been!

Come on…born 1975, that doesn’t even make you…

…’Middle-Aged Fart’! 😀

While we are on the subject, the other three statues are:

George IV

Sir Charles James Napier

Sir Henry Havelock

But how many of us know who these people were (without googling)…

…and should we replace these statues with something more appropriate?

This is the only drawing I can find showing the spoilers – marked (a):

http://www.zenza.se/vw/gh%20bilder/gh108a_b.gif

The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced these are in fact spoilers (from at least four V1s)…they are hinged, are about the right shape and size…and in your photo they seem to be painted ‘exterior’ colours (blue / green).

I remember looking at the spoilers on the V1 at the IWM Lambeth and do seem to remember that they also had the stiffening corrugations in them.

…blazing away with a Schmeisser with a 9,000 round magazine…

Yes, did anybody watch “Von Ryan’s Express” last night? Excellent seasonal fare! 😀

Was Ryan’s burning post-crash (post WW1 rotary engine ‘blip-switch’ sound effects) P-38 a real (ex-Italian) P-38?

Also at the end why didn’t the POWs just run through the tunnel into Switzerland instead of trying to take the train through…they had plenty of time…time enough to fix the track…time enough to run down the line, take up a piece of track in front of the German train, set an ambush, have a long firefight (without reloading once), run back to the train and then, in Ryan’s case, get killed just as he reached safety.

If they’d just run into the tunnel they’d have been miles away by the time the Germans arrived (at the abandoned train and broken track)…

…still…classic ending! 😉

‘Target Radar’ and ‘IFF’ (identification friend or foe)…

…just where are Qantas flying to these days? 😀

First of all, sorry to reawaken this thread.

No problem, I’m happy to ramble on this one but it’s not really my area except in reference to WW2 so apologies if my thoughts are a bit random.

My first thought is rather than concentrate on a single ‘target set’ why not concentrate on a ‘tactic set’?

Was it Rommel who said “the best form of defence is attack”? Well I tend to agree but only if you add that “the best form of attack is defence”!

In WW2 at one time Bomber Command accounted for 25% of all British production so for there to be any advantage it must have had to account for at least 25% of all German production (oversimplification since Allied/Axis etc.) but did it? Germany undoubtedly lost production to bombing plus devoted huge resources to producing AAA (plus ammunition), radar and fighters (and lost negligible amounts to enemy action) while the frontline strength of Bomber Command (1000 aircraft) was wiped out every few months (yes, oversimplification again, sorry). Was this a sensible ‘tactic set’ to employ against a ‘target set’, the U-Boat menace for example?

Very few WW1 targets differ significantly from WW2 targets, with the possible exception of ‘oil targets’ (fewer and WW1 forces less reliant on them anyway), but the WW1 bombers are hopeless in comparison, Germany is big, far away and the weather rarely on the side of the attacking bomber.

Also unless 1000 bombers are assembled in secret and employed at a stroke will Germany sit by and let “military logistical and tactical installations” be molested? What would your response be; AAA, defensive fighters? And so to protect the bombers, offensive fighters, fighter sweeps, close escorts? And for that how many fighters, 500, 1000?

Wouldn’t the maintenance of such a force in such circumstances possibly outweigh their benefit to the ground offensive and hand the ‘tactical initiative’ to the defender as in the ground war?