What about the RP-63G ‘Pinball’.

This was a P-63 Kingcobra modified without armament and with armoured fuselage skin and armour of vulnerable areas such as radiators and air intake. The extra armour weighed a ton, literally!

Its job was to provide a live target to train the gunners of B-17, B-24 and B-29 bombers. It wasn’t as dangerous as it sounds the 50 calibre guns of the bombers were loaded with ‘frangible’ ammunition that shattered upon impact.

The RP-63G was fitted with sensors in the wings and fuselage that detected hits and caused bright lights to flash signalling to the successful gunners (and earning it the nickname ‘pinball’).

A very interesting thread.

There was a quote in one of Martin Middlebrook’s books (possibly The Nuremberg Raid) of an air-gunner reporting seeing upward slanting tracer being fired into a bomber that was shot down. The gunner was annoyed that the intelligence officer did not accept his account on the grounds that ‘he was only a simple air-gunner’.

I suppose the counter-argument to the RAF not recognising the method of attack from the bombers returning with Schräge Musik damage is that more bombers returned with damage inflicted by German nightfighters firing from the conventional ‘von unten hinten’ position because this attack was less effective.

By extrapolating this evidence the RAF may have minimized further the few lucky survivors of a Schräge Musik attack to the point of insignificance.

By the same measure I seem to remember that Bomber Command, in the early part of the war, clung to the theory that most RAF bombers were lost to flak, since most bombers that returned damaged, had flak damage. All this despite the knowledge that AA guns over Britain seldom brought down enemy bombers but that RAF nightfighters often did.

The coolant-filled engine mounting rails are interesting. Was this an early (desperate) measure to solve overheating? Was also used on Conqueror tanks I think.

I’d tend to agree with MerlinPete about the oil film separating crank and bearings; any increased bearing wear would occur during starting before oil pressure had built up and the number of engine starts wouldn’t be that great by modern engine standards.

Interesting about the holes drilled in Merlin con-rod webs in Meteor engines. Was this done to prevent a mix-up use in a Merlin?

Spitfire v Locomotive

‘The Hill’ has to be seen to be believed, superb cast, not your typical ‘war’ film but IMHO one of the best films ever made.

Another not-often-seen war film I’d recommend is John Frankenheimer’s “The Train”.

Absolutely outstanding special-effects footage of a Spitfire strafing a locomotive (shot, I’m sure, from a Spitfire with original gun-camera). Some good A-26 cockpit footage also.

As for the train crashes; no CGI here. To simulate one locomotive running into another at 60mph the filmmakers simply got a real working locomotive and ran it into another at 60mph!

(Edit – found them on ‘YouTube’ – judge for yourself.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUzTJCumuE&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmsxtErEVrw&mode=related&search=

…or Leuchars perhaps…

JagRigger said no HAS, so that’s out.

Boulmer seems to be long gone.

You can still see the runway outline (and the Sea King SAR flight).

Is that Phantom gate guard still there?

The engines are made (by Ford) in Cologne, Germany.

As I said, it’ll never happen in the UK.

But my question is why not.

As for insurance, how is it possible to fly Lightnings and Buccaneers in South Africa commercially? Are they uninsured?

And what exactly are the CAA protecting us from? Do they think an accident is more likely when carrying passengers or that the passengers will somehow contribute to more damage on the ground?

If they are worrying about the passengers, well thanks very much but it’s their life and not yours. I would have thought that overall air safety would be better served that by ensuring the safety (in the most heavy handed way) of the one or possibly two passengers the Vulcan could carry.