Attached is a contemporary newspaper account of that 13 November 1919 crash.

As once before, I’ve split the single column report into three parts, the better to fit the screen.

Many thanks, once more, bazv.  I think it was the extent to which it stuck out from the fuselage on both sides that I found unusual.  Maybe, from your knowledge, it was not so unusual but, to me, it was, so I am grateful for your help. 

Graham, I have found nothing specific to indicate that AL614 was involved in any kind of  trial. However ………

……… It was “off the road” in Dorval for the whole of March 1945 and a few days either side. During this period, there are references to “mods” but nothing specific.  Perhaps there are archives in Canada that could provide an answer.

Meanwhile, there is apparently a photograph of AL614 in the Oughton book on Liberators, which I do not have. My note says it’s on Page 112. If anyone has the book and could post a scan, it would be interesting to see if it has the appendage in question.

Thank you, bazv. I’m sure you’re right.  I’m no expert on Liberators, as you can see, and have kept mostly to transport versions..

The ‘appendage’ on AL614 seems to stick out quite a way from the fuselage to me. 

I attach an image showing AL614 and the noses of a couple of other transport Liberators, for comparison purposes.

Maybe it is a trick of the light or the viewing angle that are fooling me.

Sorry about the layout – no idea how to amend it with this new format.

The essence of the small add is every customer can get a free copy of the much sought-after “I Want To Hold Your hand” single by The Beatles, simply by buying the “NEW MARK 12” from the American Aviation Company.

I have no idea what the “NEW MARK 12” is or might be and wondered if anyone reading this would be able to venture a suggestion.

Yup, seems to.

The new layout is NOT USER-FRIENDLY at all

[1] Waste of available space: The width of useful text is far too narrow. It should more resemble text on an A4 page, not a side-bar
Result :- unnecessarily excessive scrolling is required

[2] Ill-chosen font: The font is thin and faint (certainly for me, anyway)
Result:- the postings are more difficult to read [especially when using a blue light filter]

[3] No numbering of posts: Individual posts are no longer numbered.
Result:- following the twists and turns of a thread, cross-referring between posts, is more difficult.

[4] On-screen text-writing options are gone: The previously available and fairly simple-to-use on-screen option buttons to change font size, to italicise text, to make text bold and to put parts of the text in other colours have all gone. Even simple underlining seems to require some other process.

I don’t know about anybody else but the new “COMPOSE TIPS” advice just looks like gobbledygook to me.

[5] On-screen image-insertion option has gone: Again, the “COMPOSE TIPS” doesn’t help – me, anyway

[6] Finding old threads is too time-consuming

[7] Old postings are much less clear: The layout and presentation of old postings are all over the place

There’s more but enough already!

NOW SOME QUESTIONS:

[1] Why were these changes made at all?

[2] What were these changes intended to achieve?

[3]What brief was given beforehand to whoever designed the new layout?

[4]Were any users of this forum involved in specifying or designing the changes?

[5]Were any users of this forum consulted about the changes before they were implemented?

“FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION” is an old adage but it’s still relevant. Improve functionality first and only then change the form to achieve that improved functionality. ‘Function’ first and ‘form’ later.

There is no point in changing the shape or look of something if the new set-up does not do the job at least as well as, and preferably better than, what went before.