Granted the RR Meteor is not technically a Merlin, but it’s as near as dammit, especially for the layman. Even “the Hurricane was made of wood” is more of an exaggeration/simplification than an outright myth.

Essentially the only common parts to both engines,were the cyl banks the crankshaft,the con rods and pistons; it was unsupercharged, with a different crankcase, camshafts- rocker assy,even the inlet manifolds were different as were the “rocker covers”

When I think about something”made from wood” I think in terms of its structure; the Hurricane had a tubular steel internal structure, with wooden formers/stringers at the rear of the fuselage, but not load bearing.

Can anyone point me in the direction of the “flypast ” forum? I believe they discuss aviation and other related subjects….

Is it me, or is UP-G not fited with a vokes filter (cowling) in MK12 ‘s b/w photo?

I’ll leave you to lock up on your way out; just put the key in the usual place…

To go way off topic for a moment and talk about the programme (from a week ago!) ; as a rule I don’t like revisionism, especially so late in the day that reliable eye witnesses are either no longer around ,or else their judgement has become impaired.

I looked forward to the programme intent on tearing it to bits, but in the event found little wrong with the idea itself (although as generally agreed the programme itself would have benefitted from a bit of “proof reading”).

The only thing that leaves me wondering, is the stores requisition for one 109 replacement, if this is somehow at odds with actual events for what ever reason i.e an A/C previously out of comission was repaired ,or else there were penalties for using up more A/C than allowed ,which caused the actual loss rate to be recorded less than it was; then there may have been two 109’s shot down that day (one which may have lost its tail).

On the other hand both Andy and Dilip have looked at the relevant paperwork, interviewed some of the protaganists, and generally spent a hell of a lot more time deliberating this than me, so who am I to argue the point.

I also think that airing personal differences in the manner that extends to 24 pages worth!!, may be more beneficial to the various parties than other less public forms of comunication, typically in face to face confrontations there is always something left unsaid, and in general , if you are prepared to say something in front of the masses ,then you must feel pretty strongly about it.

I don’t subscribe to the view that this would be damaging to the aviation (insert “ology” of choice)! movement in general and I think both Andy and Dilip have aquitted themselves well (always asuming that it doesn’t kick off again!).

Whilst the webbing on a sutton harness looks to be capable of lifting a ton weight , the anchorage points are 2 ba bolts, which in turn are located in either 20 gauge aluminium of else paxolin (seat); I think the harness was only there to stop you falling out of the seat when inverted ,and of course to absorb minor jolts on landing.

It is also possible that the pin itself could fail, and would only need to deform to allow the harness to ride over the pin as the brass eyelets are not a dead fit on the “post”

I’ve been giving some thought to who might play the lead roles, and my suggestions are; Johnny Dep as Guy Gibson, and Christopher? you know the “doc” from back to the future as Barnes Wallis (to effect a breach in the dam would take a force equal to “1.21 gigawatts”

I had two quotes for “experts” and the like, the first unfortunately has been done already ,but the second ; “they can work out the circumference of a fly’s ars*hole, but they can’t bang a nail in a piece of wood” I think sums up my view of experts, and self opinionated academics.