G-ADCS

Martin-Baker MB-1
http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac5/ROW%20Europe/G-ADCS.html

Wow … that’s great … made me think of them in the here and now rather than the past. Thanks James

Interior layout?

Ooops – it is a proper Lancastrian type conversion though, with full windows on the stbd side etc.

Nice to see this ol’ thread again. The fouth of Ric’s linked photos (see above) shows a starboard side photo of a Lancastrian and it looks to me like you can see right through it – windows on both sides. But other photos (nearly all port side – why?) show no, or only the original tiny Lancaster, windows on port side.

Anyone got an interior shot? I’d love to see how the seating was laid out. I assume single seat per row, offset to one side? Starboard?

blush

Thanks Skyraider … and maybe I should follow your link eh?

Crosses

OK, Easter is over and I have the book I’m referencing with me. It is Airfix magazine guide 10, Luftwaffe Camouflage of World War 2, by Bryan Philpott, published 1975 by Patrick Stevens Ltd.

There’s heaps of quality detail, including Condor Legion, the standard early war splinter camouflage pattern masks, positioning diagrams and measurements for aircraft markings, Gruppen guides, you name it.

This page (fairly average scan but trust it’s legible) addresses your question 109E.

Please bear in mind that as the war wore on, conformity with these guidelines decreased and unit/aircraft variances crept in, for all sorts of good reasons.

UPSIDE DOWN IMAGE REMOVED ~ SEE SKYRAIDER”S POST BELOW

Would like to see the info you have 🙂

Back from Melbourne (jeez it was HOT ~ hottest March days on record ~ and like a dust bowl) and back at work today. Will try to remember to bring the book into work tomorrow to scan some pages for you.

Do you not think that your points have been trotted out by the kan’t spel brigade, to justify their own inadequacies? This is actually how standards drop in the first place.
To ba5tardise Mr Burke…
“All that is necessary for the triumph of illiteracy is that good men do nothing”

You’re right, you’re absolutely right. Am I defending the kan’t spel brigade? No. I’m observing some of the contributing factors.

Kev’s original question is about (il)literacy. Is spelling the same thing? Does spelling need to be consistent/standardised to enable comprehension? Is literacy the capacity to communicate and have the other party comprehend what you are talking/writing about?

I favour degrees of similarity in spelling to facilitate clarity and hopefully certainty of communication. At some degree a lack of standardisation will lead to misunderstanding. But what are these degrees of standardisation? I have no difficulty understanding, clearly, both US and UK variants of English. And options like spelt and spelled.

So is it worthwhile to demand/require absolute consistency? I’m in favour of it; I feel it is easier to stay away from the the slippery slope of misunderstanding than to tack across that slope part-way down.