They are jack of all trades and masters of non.

…or none maybe?

But while we’re in ‘rant’ mode, I notice a great deal of Americanisations (” a whole nother thing” being a new one), and also the inevitable tide of beginning a conversation with “So” creeping into broadcasting, and not just the Beeb.

Or saying that someone was “pressurised” into doing something. Or sports commentators telling us that so-and-so “medalled”. The list goes on. One personal ‘favourite’ of mine is the use of ‘lead’ (pronounced as per the element/metallic substance) instead of ‘led’.

Or on an aviation-related theme, I read a Typhoon-related book (the original Typhoon that is), and every mention of Roland Beamont was spelt ‘Beaumont’!!! Someone even had the daft cheek to tell me once that you could spell it either way!!! I’m sure Bee thought differently.

And any pilot being called a Top Gun!!!

I do wonder if we should begin a very off-topic random ‘Rants’ thread?

P-51 tanks taper to a point in plan view: this one doesn’t. I’d say P-47 too.

It’s an interesting subject, which I am genuinely ambivalent over: on the one hand I’m always happy to see a new warbird in the air, but somehow all these replicas leave me a bit cold.

One thing’s for sure however: the engineering which goes into the re-creation of aircraft is impressive. The less they follow the original, the more interesting I find them – Clive duCros’ Spitfire replica being a good example. His book describes the manufacture of a bespoke RGB to fit the Jaguar V12 and for me it was of far more interest than hearing about what sort of banks have been fitted to the latest restored Merlin.

So I’m on the fence, but still intrigued. I hope Daniel and others continue to post these projects.

Just maybe don’t call them warbirds…;)

You’re a bit limited if you’re only looking at magazine articles. However Australian archives (naa.gov.au) hold a file on the aircraft:

Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation. CA Bomber, and Fighter/Interceptor (CA15)
Contents date range 1943 – 1945
Series number MP12/3
Click to see which government agency or person created this item.
Control symbol C/3/C
Citation NAA: MP12/3, C/3/C
Item barcode 318236
Location Melbourne

I think Air International ran a short resume of CAC types, but I can’t recall which issue. Nothing in-depth however.

Is the Marathon fuselage section still marked as ‘G-AMEW’?

Should be ‘MGW and needs the rest of an airframe! And some tlc.

🙂

Really showing your ignorance there, Rich. Work isn’t being held up at all. And how do you know just how original the parts are that are being used? Answer is you don’t.

Makes me laugh: Swordfish is nothing to do with FAAM. And it has brand new spars, not original ones.

So, please be informed before passing judgement.

If I can just jump in here: we knew how original the parts were because the Bluebird Group gave us very detailed, informative updates with which to judge.

So I (and others I’m sure) feel well informed.

…or we did.

“….those who are not as convinced as they seem to be by the products of their endeavours.”

Or lack of “…products of their endeavours.”

What started off as a harmless group trying to solve a mystery has become seemingly nasty. Now, if you don’t agree with them, they want to silence you.
Now that the organization has become someone’s livelihood, it seems to have the need to produce “findings”, generate headlines and keep the funds flowing in.

It seems now to be about ego and or money. If it was truly an academic endeavor, they’d welcome knowledgeable, if skeptical, input from others and not spend money to hire attorney’s to write threatening letters.

Well if I had come up with a scheme to send me off on free holidays every so often, I’d also be really annoyed when people started criticising it!

…or honest enough to not take people’s money in the first place.

I recall going to a PFA Rally there in September 1981 and wing sections of Canadair Sabre 23140 (tail now with MAM at Coventry) were still in evidence. Also a Buccaneer nose – XN979:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]238841[/ATTACH]