The Red Lion would be extremely convenient.
Sorry, a pair of occasional lurkers will be missing.
Have a nice time, chaps and chappesses and we’ll see most of you next year.
I’ve no idea whether the Lightning is considered complex or not. Given the age of the beast, intermediate would seem more likely, but the biggest problem is it’s considered unsafe.
I understand one of the major problems is all the flight controls are in the spine along the top of the fuselage. Given the types propensity for engine fires, much as I would love to see one fly, I can’t blame the CAA for not allowing it.
Some dubious fighters mentioned by various posters above…
F111
TSR2
Buccaneer
Canberra
I suppose they may have had other, limited, capabilities but as far as I know, they’re all basically bombers.
Did Keith Fordyce have an RAF background through National Service?
I’ve no idea how old he is/was. He looked old to me on the telly in the early sixties but as I was 11 or 12, everybody over 20 looked ancient.
There’s no reason why a “celebrity” shouldn’t be interested in old aeroplanes but it presumably soaked up a fair bit of his loot.
I shan’t join in here, having limited knowledge of paraffin burners, but I’m glad to see a good fight put up for Hatfield’s finest. (Chester, Christchurch, whatever).
P.S.
Vampire and Meteor should get points for longevity presumably. Discounting M-B’s use of Meteors as they’re ideal for their particular requirements, approaching 30 years for a first-generation jet is pretty impressive.
It used to owned and run by Keith Fordyce.
For those of a certain generation – a former TV presenter and one time compere of ‘Top of the Pops’.
Mark
The opposition actually – ‘Ready, Steady, Go’
I never visited the museum, it came and went in between family holidays with parents and the time I started heading that way myself.
From Mark12’s later comments, it seems museums could learn a thing or two from showbiz.
The Sunderland was severely damaged in a storm and I think it was that hurricane that caused it.
I lived just north of London then and only got the edge of the storm and that was terrifying enough. As I don’t remember hearing of problems at Duxford I guess it missed there.
the calendar quotes Friday, Oct 1 1939 as the day the Corsair became the first American fighter plane to break the 400 mile an hour mark…says nothing about seaplanes or being the first AIRPLANE, period, to do it…just first American fighter.
Mark
As the Corsair first flew on May 1st 1940 according to the above link, or May 29th 1940 according to British Naval Aircraft since 1912, that would be extremely difficult.
As I’ve already said, the link also says it was the first production aircraft to exceed 400mph etc. I’m convinced the calendar’s wrong about the date but I’ve no reason to doubt that statement.
The Mosquito is widely stated to have been the fastest aircraft for about 2.1/2 years but as the prototype didn’t fly until November 1940 it beats that.
Mark’s calendar’s got the year wrong, it was 1940. I knew it was delayed entering service but hadn’t realised it first flew that early.
The link I posted says it was the first production aircraft to top 400 mph in level flight. Sounds reasonable, I can’t think offhand of any other contenders in 1940. The “downhill” Hurricane had a hell of a tailwind. That could be considered cheating. 🙂
Anyone remember ‘Moonstrike’ about Lysander ops in France? I’m sure there was a real Lysander in it, can’t remember if it was flown or not though (this is 40 years ago 😀 ).
I remember that. My memory tells me there was a real Lizzie in it too but it’s so long ago I wouldn’t take bets on it.
I’ve no idea whether it was the first to exceed 400 mph or not (just thought – the S6b did it in 1931) but surely 65 years ago was before the first Corsair flew?
Edit
Found this
http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
64 years apparently.
Rotol prop blades were made of compressed wood until the end of the war when they changed to Dural.
DH made hollow steel blades postwar for the big airliner props but AFAIK Rotol never did. It was agreed Rotol would only make props up to and including Dart size and DH would make the bigger ones.
The only reference I have is the Putnam book. According to that, although not entirely accurate, there is some similarity to the above remarks.
The two aircraft were designed virtually simultaneously and intended to be complementary. The higher power engines for which the Warwick was designed included the Vulture, Sabre and Centaurus which suggests it was intended to be equivalent to the Manchester. By the time anything in that class was available, the four-engined bombers were already doing the job.
The Vickers type numbers are 284 for the Warwick and 285 for the Wellington. The book states that the prototype Wellington Mk 1 was effectively a cut down Warwick.
This proves that I hadn’t read as much of the book as I thought I had!
If you’ve got an SG at a jumble sale price I’d be interested. 🙂