Edit: after checking the squadron history I was even more alarmed to see they’ve been flying Pumas for 42 years
….and I’m sure they’ll reach their half-century, with the Mk 2 upgrade. I’m sure there will come a point when RAF Pumas are being flown by pilots whose fathers were born after the helicopters were built!
Whatever gives you that idea Bruce? :confused:
I think you’re all confusing the issue with the Hispano-built Ha-1109, which had a Hispano-Suiza engine which turned the opposite way to the DB. Apparently Hispano modified the airframe (fin profile) to counter this, and it was these modified airframes which were used for the hideously ugly abortion of a bodged lash-up known as the Buchon. Therefore, when fitted with Rolls-Royce’s sublime Merlin (which turned the propeller the same way as the DB) but with the offset fin, the result was the well-known unpleasant handling characteristics of the Buchon. Ugly is as ugly does, as they say!
I’m trying to understand the implications? There is so much literature out there already about the Dambusters… what is the competitive reasoning?
Oh for heaven’s sake. At least TRY to understand what Trademarking is all about.
It has nothing to do with preventing publication of literature on the subject.
It has everything to do with preventing the commercial exploitation of the trademarked name or term through the sale of plates, clocks, garments etc.
It’s really very simple.
The crest as a whole is the entity that is copyrighted.
Not the emblem in the centre by itself, but the whole design, including the motto and the royal crown.
Why is so much nonsense spouted here every time the terms ‘copyright’ and ‘trademark’ come up? Does anyone take the trouble to do even thirty seconds research using Google as to what they actually mean, and what they affect, before spouting off? :rolleyes:
Ask Bruce, I think he knows a little about this particular airframe.
In this case, I would take the Royal Air Force (in the form of the official name of one of their own squadrons) as a more reliable arbiter of correctness. And that does seem to be the word that has been trademarked (along with the squadron number), so I would assume that anyone else is still free to make commercial use of the term “Dam Busters” as they please.
I’ve only ever read it as ‘Dam Busters’
Most of the books published on the topic use the single word “Dambusters” in the title. The squadron has been known as “The Dambusters”. I’d suggest that the single-word usage is by far the most common.
All-metal, reliable, fast.
Unlike the equivalent British types of the era.
And it would hardly have been appropriate for him to have turned up in a Junkers!
On my first trip to the US, to OSH in 1988, one of our party brought a T-6 prop hub back as a carry-on. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaxqUDd4fiw
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist. 🙂
For those of us with long memories, wasn’t this one of Setter’s fantasies?
Along with photos of the Syrian Spitfires from the Italian Air Attaché (which I’m sure Mark12 remembers well), P-61s in transit to Paul Allen in a haulage yard near Manchester, and many other little gems to brighten up our days a few years back.