WombatI had thought of a number of those raids.
It’s interesting though, that little reference so far has been made to axis (or Russian, for that matter) operations (apart from the Belgian Fort raid, which really involved paratroops rather than bombs alone). Harking back to my original post, did the axis or Russian forces engage in “precision” bombing?
Regards
Wombat
WombatLynn
I got the same impression about the pilots “admiring” this crappy little thing with fixed undercarriage and barely room to accommodate a water pistol, let alone eight Brownings. And an open cockpit? Fair go, the American audiences must REALLY have been out of touch with what was happening in Europe!
One thing that did come to mind though, was how attractive even the most ordinary looking aircraft looked in their pre-war colours. Bright yellow wings, broad, bright green stripes, tricolour rudders and even the early Star ‘n’ Meatball national insignia looked good – no doubt about it, the Yanks always went for the flashy presentation.
This movie perplexed me a bit. I found the story intriguing, and obviously based to a certain degree on fact, but little items like the dopey Brit “fighter” let it down a bit.
But it did make me wonder what the German Ju -87 crews did to avoid black out pulling out from dives. Obviously, they had some sort of cure, so what was it?
Regards
Wombat
WombatI don’t know what you blokes are whinging about – any thread that doesn’t rattle on about bl***y Spitfires, Mustangs and Lancs is alright by me. And all these aircraft, good or bad, are what make our hobby so intriguing – what a boring place this forum could be if there had never been any Firebrands, Brigands, Wyverns, Welkins etc. These are the aircraft that truly add the variety to aviation and this forum. Good or bad, I love them all.
Regards
Wombat
WombatWell, it sure didn’t look like a Gladiator – the top wing was missing!
It might have been an ST, but it still looked too small – hell, it was TINY! The camo looked half convincing, as it seemed reasonably close to Dark Earth and Green, which was correct for that period, I think, but for what was supposed to be a front-line fighter, it was hopelessly inadequate and obsolete. Still, next to those old Grummans or Curtisses, it looked very up to date.
Still, the movie was great for its quality and colour and the storyline was very interesting. Errol Flynn in one of his better roles, I think.
Regards
Wombat
WombatDid somebody mention 115 types? ?All bombers? In a period of just 20 years? Bloody hell, must have been a new one every couple of weeks. (bit like Jap car makers). Surely they didn’t all enter service? Imagine trying to do a book to cover that lot. A lifetime project, I would imagine.
Imagine, too, the effort wasted in producing so many different aircraft intended to basically do the same job. I don’t know the inter-war Brit bombers particularly well – if there’s 115 of them, I’m sure I don’t.
How about the Albemarle, Windsor (how many of them were built?),Botha, Buckmaster, …hmm, too many to mention.
Regards
Wombat
WombatNo Highway
“No Highway” was made into a movie during the 50’s called “No Highway in the Sky”, starring James Stewart in the lead role of the aero engineer who designs a new aircraft, then discovers that there is an inherent fault in the design which will lead to certain failure of the aircraft’s tail assembly in flight.
I saw the film many years ago and don’t remember much of it, except the end where Stewart, having failed to convince people of his discovery, retracts the undercarriage of the aircraft whilst it is on the tarmac. If my memory serves correctly, the aircraft falls to the ground and nothing happens for a while, everybody looks at Stewart as if he has left his calling card in the Queen’s lap, then the empennage cracks and falls away from the fuselage, just as his studies indicated.
I think my memory is good on this, so I wonder if anybody else has seen the film?
Regards
Wombat
WombatPlease pardon my ignorance, but….
OK, I’m intrigued.
How did members of the forum get to be nominated as moderators, anyway? What were their “qualifications” for such authority – popularity/forum vote? (In this I plead ignorance, as the moderators were appointed during a period when I didn’t visit this forum.)
I think it’s highly undesirable for individual members of a free speech medium such as this to be entrusted with the ability to wipe a thread because they personally disagree with sentiments expressed by others. I have no problem with the Webmaster mediating – after all, somebody has to do it, and who better than a representative of the organisation that provides the facility we all enjoy?
But how did members get to be moderators? (And no, I’m not volunteering – I have strong views I would like to place occasionally and would be compromised if I had to moderate.)
Regards
Wombat
WombatThis thread has raised the issue of the diversification of design and development that Rolls Royce was experiencing during the early 40’s.
The Merlin was being developed and refined over Lord-knows-how-many Marks, the Griffon development was underway, the Peregrines were being sorted out (well, sort of, anyway) as was the Vulture.
Given that the Merlin was highly successful and able to be extensively developed with reliability and serviceability of a high standard, and the Griffon would prove to be similarly successful, why did Rolls take on so many different projects simultaneously? The company’s capacity must have been stretched by wartime demands (witness the Packard production of the Merlin) and you would expect that to be developing four separate engines at the one time would be too much for any company, no matter how brilliant their engineers.
I realise that the four engines commenced their development at different times, and in the case of the Peregrine and Vulture, were probably being developed to meet Air Ministry requirements for specific aircraft, but I could never see the sense in the Vulture, when the Griffon was able to do the job so well.
So, why did Rolls persist with four engines (and possibly more) at the one time, when two (Merlin and Griffon) would have met all Air Ministry requirements in existence at that time (for in-line engines, at least)?
Regards
Wombat
WombatSorry to digress
I’m a bit “off-thread” with this question and I apologise for digressing, but mention of the WWI cemetaries brought up a question I have often wondered.
Were those cemetaries and other WWI memorials damaged in any way during WWII?
Regards
Wombat
WombatYou forgot one
Hi Corsair
I think you have forgotten one other US fighter from the early years which is often overlooked – the P39.
Whilst its performance and range were mediocre (poor even!), it did a lot of hard yards early in the Pacific theatre and the Russki’s put them to very good use.
Regards
Wombat
WombatHi Stormbird
I didn’t stay up to watch, but recorded the film too. When I watched it the next day, I was absolutely amazed at the ancient aircraft still serving in 1935. Tried to identify them but apart from the Furies, couldn’t do so. The Virginias had me perplexed and the torpedo bombers – well, are they Sharks, Ripons, what?
I was fascinated too by the wing-drop parachuting, the torpedo drops and many other aspects of the film, but what really surprised me was the total (and I do mean TOTAL) lack of anything remotely modern (ie new for 1935) in the film. The Virginia looked like early to mid 20’s vintage, Furies dated from 30-31, the others all of similar vintage. Incidentally, what were the portly transports showns taking off?
This is definitely a piece of vintage aviation nostalgia worth keeping, and having been shown on the ABC, has the advantage of NO ADS! Also quite a good clear copy. Just wish my knowledge of pre-war aircraft was better. (and my home library isn’t much help either)
Regards
Wombat
WombatDave
I’m certainly glad I made no reference to “cliques”, as such a thing has never occurred to me. Certainly, I started the reference in this thread to being sick of reading about endless Spitfire (and other) issues, but that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy the forum. I DID say that I would like to be able to kick off more original threads, and have done so a number of times, but my subjects tend to run dry after 20-30 posts, unlike others which go for months. I have to accept that what interests me greatly is less interesting to many others.
I don’t have a problem at all with many members having a deep and lasting love affair with some of the most famous aircraft ever built. I did say that I have had such an affair with ALL WWII aircraft for over 40 years. I just enjoy reading about some of the more obscure aircraft, and there were plenty of them.
The point was made that one member asked for info. on the Boomerang and only received one reply. I missed that post, as I don’t come to this forum as often as I used to, now only about once a week or so, and it is easy for a post to be on about page 6 or 7 in that time, so I don’t go back that far. If I had seen it, I certainly might have had something to add to that post.
Regards
Wombat
WombatSetter
I know exactly what you mean regarding the lack of tolerance displayed by some members of the forum towards others with opposing views.
On two occasions, I have posted remarks which were never intended to invoke criticism or vitriol, but was amazed at the strength of the insults I received by two respected members. One called me a “prat” (which to an Aussie means abso-bloody-lutely bugger all – it only insults a pom!) and the other accused me of being a racist and said that I disgusted him.
On both occasions, all I had done was express an opinion, but it obviously got up a nose or two. Stiff!
Of course, there are always those who deliberately post provocative threads, or enter existing threads with outlandish comments (eg Hellaid, versions 1 to, oh about 100 at last count). Usually, the forum sorts them out pretty quickly, but I often find that their posts are the most interesting and entertaining, because they ARE provocative. (And I find myself wondering whether anybody could really be so totally idiotic/ignorant/parochial!)
Personally, at the risk of again offending many members, I also agree with your comment regarding the boredom level of many posts. I fully realise that the Flypast historic forum is UK dominated, and that’s fine, as the magazine itself is British. But I am sick to death of endless Spit/Lanc/Mossie/Hurri posts. I’d love to be more creative and establish more original threads myself, but there is so little regarding the Australian aviation industry to write about that it is difficult, and would be of limited interest to many overseas members.
Please bear in mind that my comments are not intended to upset fans of any of the mentioned aircraft – I love them all, and anything else that flew during WWII, and have done for over 40 years. I just like a little variety.
Regards
Wombat
WombatStormbird
There is at least one other air to air photo of the CA-15, taken from directly head on, and quite close up, that is reasonably well known. Unfortunately, whilst I have the photo, I don’t have a scanner, but the photo appears in Stuart Wilsons book on the Wirraway, Boomer and CA-15, along with numerous other shots.
Definitely one of my favourite aircraft.
Regards
Wombat
WombatChaps
According to my reference, British Warplanes of WWII, by Daniel March,
“The prototype Henley first flew on 10.3.37, fitted with a Merlin “F” engine. Subsequently, it was provided with light alloy stressed skin wings and a Merlin I, and testing confirmed the overall excellence of the design. It was at this time that the Air Ministry decided it no longer had a requirement for a light bomber, and the Henley was ordered into production as a target tug, with 200 to be built under sub-contract by Gloster Aircraft.”
Subsequently, Henleys were found to be unsuited to this role as they suffered abnormally high rates of engine failure, unless the tow was conducted at unrealistically low speeds. The Henley was finally replaced by the Defiant from mid 1942 onwards.
The Air Ministry decision might have been influenced by the fact that the Battle was already about to become available, and its shortcomings were not recognised as early as 1937. It’s probably fair to say that, under the same operating conditions in France as the Battle experienced, the Henley’s engine problems could have shortened its operational life (and those of its crews, I suspect!) somewhat, if it had been used in its original intended role.
Regards
Wombat
Sign In
