What announcement? The one at the top seems more-or-less the same as it ever was “The image attachment system is suspended currently while we fix some additional issues with image attachments”

Happy birthday to our very own darling/silly/mad/lovable/loopy Anna :diablo: :rolleyes: 😎 🙂 :dev2: :p xxDxx
let me see, where’re the party guys – oh, left them behind on WIX, curses

As suspected, jump seats have been around for a while … this taken from the website of the “Carriage Museum of America”

[quote] Beginning with 1857 and coming down to September of 1897, three hundred and thirty five patents have been issued in this country for adjustable seat vehicles, some of which were taken out by citizens of other countries. It is more than probable that many designs and devices have been introduced that were not patented … The first patent of which we have a record was taken out by G. & D. Cook, of New Haven. Connecticut, on February 3, 1857 [shown in diagrams] first as fitted for four passengers and the second with the front seat, thrown back and the main seat moved forward to accommodate two passengers only. The Cooks built large numbers of these vehicles and shipped them to every part of the country where pleasure in carriages were in demand. One G. J. Locus obtained a patent, dated April 27, 1858 [20,127], for a jump seat, which has a resemblance to the Cook vehicle, but operated somewhat differently. This is shown in its two positions by Figs. 5 and 6 … [unquote]

Here’s the url, read on …
http://www.carriagemuseumlibrary.org/evolution-traps.htm

ps. I’m wondering quite what was meant by “pleasure in carriages” above

There’s an interesting point dhfan. Thing is of course Andy that what you have done is “put up” when others might/could have taken the easy path and sat on the sidelines taking pot shots. You volunteered to go back over your knowledge and see if you were right (passage of time and all that). Not a lot of people would necessarily have done that. dhfan is right. I’m impressed and I know a lot of others are too. When we meet (in 2088) it’ll be my shout. regards, Don

You’re right – I was trying to remember the term. We still have the buggies though 😉

Yeah, that’s more likely – googling hasn’t confirmed this one way or the other for me, but all the definitions of jump suggest you’re on the right track there Alex

Has to be mash – the posting that clarifies the best, creamiest, #1 mashing spud gets a nice pair of bangers to go.

Like everyone here I see this argument going backward and forward, and understand the feelings toward remembrance and education and therefore preference for WWII military coulourschemes on aircraft of that vintage. But I do support the perspective that the owner can do what he/she wants. Both Firebird and Locobuster have articulated it well, but even then Locobuster you have stepped into the same definitional trap many here have.

There is persistent tendency to define a military camouflage scheme as AUTHENTIC. But that’s simply not true. Think of what the word authentic means, and reflect on the fact that it certainly does not mean derivative. An authentic scheme for any aircaft is a colourscheme it has worn under one or more of its owners including the current owner. There’s nothing about any one particular owner (eg. some air force or other) that confers ongoing authenticity on that scheme alone.