Do you really belive such nonsense, or just hnot have any books on UK aviation history?:D

Seriously, that was the case. The ban on high speed research flights is something that UK aviation enthuisasts have been bemoaning for years as it didn’t help UK high speed flight research.

Ask your elders if it’s true.

I don’t question there was a ban, but I’m happy to accept other ‘theories’ as to why that work was halted. I do like my conspiracy theories. 😉

To be honest this is something I have thought for some time. Was the first unofficial supersonic flight British, American or German?

I only say those countries because at that time I don’t think anybody else had sufficiant aviation knowledge to do this!

I personally don’t rate Yeagers achievement – surely anyone could have just strapped themselves to a V2 to achieve the same feat?

For what it’s worth this wikipedia page on the DH Swallow claims it was the first jet plane to make Mach 1. The chap apparently in charge of the page refuses to believe otherwise. I don’t have the cold hard facts to prove otherwise but the page for the F-86 states it officially made Mach 1 6 months earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH_108

Not sure I agree with you entirely there. There are films with huge effects budgets that still get it wrong. However, look at the low-budget stuff used in Dark Blue World, and you’d think they spent tons more on the making of the film than what they did. All a special effect really needs is to be done by someone who knows what the director wants and how to do it properly, and you’d be surprised what can be done on a smaller budget.

Films might have huge budgets, and large chunks of those budgets can go to visual effects but 9 times out of ten that money will be stretched as far as the Director and Producers can get out of the beleaguered effects teams.

Generally effects will look like effects if they are sign posted (ie. stuff that clearly can’t be real, dinosaurs, Transformers, kids on flying broomsticks etc), otherwise they are mostly invisible to the audience. Great examples of the latter can be seen in the latest 007 film going all the way back to Forrest Gump. Casino Royale is particularly good at hiding it has any effects in it at all due to the Director using restraint in how the effects are shown – no silly camera moves and OTT action that normally destroys the credibility.

Trust me when I say this, if some effects look bad you can blame the Director for lack of restraint, or the Producers for shallow pockets.

I think it’s a shame how they use the same explosions so many times…and during the scene were the Pole gets it, they show a scene with a Heinkel bursting into flames. And to me it seems like the explosions are basically taped off some sort of screen with a video camera. Now that’s rather poor. But it was 1988 and CGI and computers werent really that hot yet.

Imagine what they could have done with this series today.

Ironically you’d get a whole bunch of people on here complaining about the use of CGI.

the BOAC livery

I’m glad this thread has cropped up again. Can anyone confirm a few things for me:

– When G-ALUN was painted in the BOAC colours were the wings painted white or were they bare metal? I honestly can’t tell from the few photos I have.

– The one colour photo I have of G-ALUN and some film footage in the BOAC colours the gold stripe appears to be bright orange and not very gold at all. Can anyone confirm this for me? I’m not sure I can believe either source for colour accuracy.

thanks.

DH.91 Albatross

Probably the most perfect looking plane I’ve ever/never, seen.

The other is a Sunderland that was transferred to SARO in October 1945, presumably as a trials aircraft. But I’d love to know more of what she was used for. Later recorded as sold to Ministry of Supply in September 1948 so was in use for a while.

Allan

I know that Sunderland RN237 was used by SARO to trial their power assisted flight control systems (hydro-mechanical I believe) in preparation for the Princess development. Is that the one you’re referring to?