To me it appears that the serial is there on the rudder, just rather indistinct. As has been shown recently on another thread (regarding a Spitfire) there are those who have experience manipulating a good high quality scan of a photo to bring out ‘lost’ detail in highlights or shadows. I don’t count myself in that brigade, but someone might want to alert the experts that can – providing that the original is available for a high res scan.

Just a thought to keep this interesting thread running!

I agree with Chilton DW.1, Comper Swift and Cherokee Arrow, but I feel the ‘Cessna 172’ is actually a Bolkow Bo.208 Junior/MFI-17 due to wing position, undercarriage angles and nose cowling shape. I’ll add the Comet Racer G-ACSS and Westland Whirlwinds to the list.

While I can well see that they are some form of colour cover proofs or re-use of colour plates, why are the images of different sizes, rather than to a constant page size? They also appear to have captions, which a cover photo would have on an inside page.

Interesting thread thanks to the OP photo.

From Bruce Robinson’s ‘British Military Aircraft Serials 1912-1963’ (Ian Allan 1964) provides this:

S1373 is one of a batch of 39 Fairey IIIF, S1370-1408 ordered 1929. There are a number of batches of Fairey IIIFs before and after, some noted as all metal, which presumably means that this batch were not.

Was there ever an Air Britain Military S- Serials monograph, for a summary of her service and fate?

A quick ‘Google’ will bring up a great number of Fairey IIIF references, as a general introduction to a type the Wikipedia entry is a good start for general information.

The controlling body for Aerobatics in the UK is The British Aerobatic Association (BAeA). https://www.aerobatics.org.uk

They organise a number of events across Britain from training to (extremely occasionally) World Competition. Most events permit attendance by the public, at some public and competitors/judges are separated to a degree, at other they mix freely, although access to aircraft by invitation only. Note that competition aerobatics are flown to very different rules than airshow aerobatic routines eg minimum heights are much higher, display centre line much further from the public area, routines consist of a set of solo manoeuvers (not fancy team shows) etc – indeed as a spectator sport competition aerobatics are likely to disappoint.

For a list of BAeA events: https://www.aerobatics.org.uk/events?year=2017

I have been to the Golding-Barrett Aerobatic trophy competition a couple of times. At Sleap (near Wem, between Whitchurch and Shrewsbury) competitors, judges and public mix freely – pilots are frequently only too happy to chat – but only after they have flown their routine, before they are often to be seen walking through their routine in great concentration. While the judges are also in the public area, and again happy to chat when not judging a routine, the actual aerobatics are performed at a distance and height where you need to concentrate and use binoculars to appreciate the routines.

Training aerobatic manoeuvers is usually undertaken by student and instructor, or rehearsal of routines, in a suitable aircraft in quiet airspace at several thousand feet in good weather – safety demanding plenty of height, so well above casual observation from the ground. If you are interested in aerobatic training yourself, or wish to be flown through an aerobatic routine as an air experience then a number of flying clubs are able to help.

Ian, Cordless headphones are indeed the answer, but ignore wifi and bluetooth and go for a non-digital solution as it is still possible to (and less complex for an elderly mind and stiffened fingers to operate).

In the store (and even on the internet) it is not always easy at a glance to tell if a boxed headphones are wired, Bluetooth wireless or wireless. The majority of cordless headphones sold in the likes of Currys and Argos are ‘Bluetooth’ USB for mobile devices, however a few are not – cost is around £35-70 then up into ridiculous amounts. I’ve a Panasonic and a Sony, which we use so my wife can watch tv loud, I listen to tapes/CD player/radio loudish while on the PC, while the flat next door think we are out having an active social life!

They work using the ubiquitous standard small (or small into a large adapter) jack into the standard headphones output of the music player. This links by wire to a small base transmitter unit and battery charger, which in turn is connected to the household elec supply. This unit transmits wirelessly to the headset (with a choice of channel selection should there be interference), the listener can move around the house freely without loosing sound, can even go to the loo and wash their hands without interruption!. After use the headset is turned off and either connected by a short lead or placed onto the base station to recharge. The headsets have a little more bulk and weight due to using 2 x AAA rechargeable batteries (usually supplied nowadays) but in reality are not much larger or heavier than a wired set. New batteries last some 10 hours of use, then take around the same amount of time to recharge. Connection of the base station to the music player diverts all sound to the headphones. Volume control is both on the headphones (bit fiddly for older fingers) and on the music player (we usually adjust the headphones in a central position and adjust the sound volume on the tv or CD player).

I’ve had to replace both of ours in the past few weeks (due puppy damage!), so now use these models – but there are others:
Panasonic RP-WF950, sold by Argos, currently on offer at around £55, a £20 saving on their regular price
Sony RF811RK, sold by Currys/Dixons/PC World, currently £35.00
Supplying this detail as you can likely Goggle a description, or locate them easily on the store’s home shopping web site. Main user difference is that the Sony needs the headphones charged by a short wire connection from the base station, the Panasonic charges the headphone when they are placed onto the shaped base station (simpler).

It has taken a while to type this reply, drop me a PM and let me know how you got on. As you are buying them for someone else to use, unbox at home, sort out the leads and connections, translate the instructions into actions(!), install the batteries and charge them up (upto 16 hours), use it so you know how it all works – then take it in and set it up saying how easy and simple it all is!

A ‘Squawk’ is a four digit code fed into a transponder, so identifying individual aircraft on a Secondary Radar screen.

To save me time, have a read of wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics) or make a “Google” search using ‘Transponder code’ as your key words.

When using FR24 one code to be aware of is 7700 – the emergency distress code – which can cover all sorts of eventualities from a major technical issue to a seriously ill passenger. On FR24 an aircraft squawking 7700 is shown as a red icon.

While serious researchers can have all sorts of issues with wikipedia entries, for simple inquiries it can be a useful encyclopedia to explain technical terms.

You might want to try and obtain one of David J Smith’s books on Air Traffic Control – try Abe books for a cheap(er) second hand copy. Lots of interesting detail on procedures and technology.

To me the wide bulge of the fuselage (to house the side-by-side cockpit), coupled with the ‘bulky’ shape of the fuselage under the wing housing the central wheel is a give-away that this is the Slingsby motor-glider. The Fournier RF-3/4 and two seat RF-5 are much sleaker in the central fuselage being single-seat, or the two pilots being one behind the other.

Will be interested when ‘Larry 66’ next looks-in to find out where he was when he took the photos.