POW reports are available at The National Archives: AVIA 7 files.

I don’t really see the problem: I go to a lot of events which are “advanced ticket only” – I am happy with this because I know (irrespective of whether the weather is cruddy or not), they will still be great events.

In fact one could argue that this kind of arrangement puts the onus back on to the operator to make sure that it remains great value.

In my experience it’s a win-win, and also keeps me from crying off if the weather forecast looks dodgy (which in most cases proves incorrect anyway).

Don’t see anything to fuss about here either: nothing new and all look to be ripped from other publications.

Sadly typical of most ‘research’ that’s on the internet.

I haven’t looked at Pampa’s posts in the past and shan’t again.

Time for TIGHAR to move on to another lost cause…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35104117

I managed to get to the National Archives today (for the first time in 30 years!) and accessed 1690 BDTF’s ORB. It contains very few references to the aircraft used, except for the following interesting paragraph

“In accordance with instructions received from Headquarters Bomber Command, consequent upon the reduction of the establishment of the aircraft of the Flight, disposal instructions were asked for 8 Spitfire aircraft, 6 Martinet aircraft and 1 Tiger Moth. By the end of the month disposal instructions had been received in respect of 8 Spitfire aircraft, 2 Martinet aircraft and 1 Tiger Moth. The number of aircraft held on charge at the end of the month was 12 Hurricanes, 3 Spitfires, 1 Tiger Moth, 8 Martinets.”

Can anyone make any suggestions as to the likely identity of any of these aircraft please? Any suggestions, including further avenues of research would be very welcome. Thanks in advance. Andrew

Tiger Moth was most likely R5245, ex-1485 Flight and as an instructional airframe (4934M) it was assigned to 1690 BDTF on 2nd December 1944.

I’d make a fair guess that its disposal resulted in scrapping locally at Metheringham.

Another DH.82 was assigned to ‘RAF Metheringham’ (but most likely to Station Flight?) – DE147 from Bottesford Station Flight (no date), and on to RAF North Creake 10th May 1944.

The latter one probably not 1690 BDTF, but might be worth getting the record card from Hendon.

It is. And what’s wrong with the cover? A superb piece of dramatic art…

I don’t get it. Presumably if it was a Roy Cross watercolour you’d be happy?
This has a lot more to do with not liking change than anything to do with bad art.

‘The Aeroplane’ frequently used the art of the day on its front cover – Usually an advert too! Why was that OK then, but not now?

First version: classy and understated; second version: cluttered and fussy. I’m not just talking about the CGI box top rendition either.

Not sure what your obsession with Roy Cross is, but I think the difference is plain to see.

And I didn’t have a problem with photos on the cover by the way.

I shall await some sort of “times change/we can’t afford it/whatever” response, still in the knowledge that somehow others are still doing better things very nicely, despite it apparently being impossible for Aeroplane and Flypast to do it.

Publishers engaged in an ‘issue race’ for many years. If your magazine was on the bookstalls with a December date, and the competitors cover said January they outsold you by a margin. So each publisher moved their cover dates back as far as possible resulting in the stupid stalemate we see today.

Much like the one guy who stands up in an airshow enclosure, leading to everyone else having to stand, and none of them being any better off.

Moggy

Yes and yes! I see and fully agree.