My recollection of the report a few years ago is that it was arguing that later events lead us to believe that the RN was more vulnerable than it acutally was to LW in 1940.

PoW and Repulse show vulnerability of large ships to air launched torpedoes, but in 1940 LW torpedo bombers limited to float planes like He115 so not a great threat really.

Mediterranean shows vulnerability to bombing. The report argued as I remember that with the bombs LW had in 1940, they would only penetrate decks of battleships by bombing from great height, which apart from the problems of actually hitting anything, needs reasonably clear skies, which might be OK for the Mediterranean, but a bit of a gamble for the Channel.

No idea whether any of this is right!!

Paul

I have the same problem. This is the system I use – mathematical rather than musical so don’t mention it to your teacher!

First count three notes up, including black notes, that gives you your key signature. A, count three notes bring you to C, A minor has the same key signature as C major, no sharps or flats. C, count three notes, E flat, C minor has the same key signature as E flat major, three flats.

Then

Harmonic – play it as the key signature, but sharpen the leading note (seventh) on the way up and down. C minor, three flats, but B flat is the leading note so gets sharpened to B natural.

Melodic – play it as a major scale on the way up, but flatten the third because that is what minor scale are all about. C minor, as C major but with an E flat. On the way down just play it as the minor key signature.

As I say, the musical explanation is rather different but that has worked for me.

Good luck

Paul

I asked the very same question on this forum about three years ago!

The answer I got then was to reduce weight but not so much in terms of overall airframe weight but in terms of the weight the pilot had to shift when moving the control surfaces.

Paul

To sort of bring the thread back on track, Swordfish and Vildebeest were both of course designed to attack with torpedos. Now, this is surmise on my part so shoot me down if I am talking the proverbial, but my vague recollection is that the standard attack profile for torpedo attacks at the time was basically fly along at a decent altitude to find your target, when in attack range dive as fast as poss to sea level, both to get in attack position as quickly as possible and to present the defenders with a difficult target, fly in a straight line for a while and if you survived that bit, drop torpedo and break as hard as poss to avoid flying over defences and present a hard target again.

If that is right then maybe both the Vildebeest and the Swordfish would have made good dive bombers, being designed to dive fast and manoeuvreable. As I say, pure surmise on my part, but Dave do you have any views from the people you have spoken to on how it performed as a dive bomber, anybody got any views or facts on Swordfish dive bombing?

Paul

James

Well, I did qualify by “there may have been another action” as I could not imagine that you would get it wrong!

Vildebeests – first they typify everything about between the wars RAF. Sod aesthetics, performance, let’s just build something which is completely functional, meets the requirements and as cheap as possible. Of course the Bison and the Blackburn probably win the prize for that but still a strong contender.

Second, from my post you will see that I agree with your comment that the opening stages of the war with Japan is relatively unknown and tends to be glossed over. That however does not detract from the fact that many men fought and died bravely in appalling conditions with obsolete equipment against overhwelming odds. The action by Vildebeests at Endau (and your example of the Swordfish) typifies that. In many ways it is comparable to the Swordfish in the Channel dash, an attack on shipping by obsolete aircraft against overwhelming odds with consequent very large casualties. Yet of the people who know of the Channel dash, how many know of these other actions? 1 in 10, 1 in 50? And then there’s the issue of gongs..

So in a way Vildebeests for me also stand for the bravery shown in the first dark days of the Pacific war.

Paul

A question I too have pondered, Dave, given as you say the close similarities between the Vildebeest and the Swordfish and come to much the same conclusion as XN923 – that Swordfish continued in operation for so long because their particular strengths, the ability to take of at high weight from short decks, was still useful and could be employed in an environment where there was little threat from the enemy.

I am not sure however, Dave, tha I agree with your statement that Vildebeest were taken off torpedo duty. At the very start of the Malaya campaign, Vildebeests did fly one operation armed with torpedoes, though abortive as the weather prevented them finding the Jap shipping. After that, it is true they did not operate in the torpedo role, but that is largely because until the action at Endau, operations were – sensibly -largely limited to night operations. Before Endau, it is reported that there was discussion as to whether it shoudl be a torpedo or a bomb attack. but torpedos were rejected because it was believed the shipping was to close in shore.

I always find it fascinating the types of obsolete equipment that saw actice service in far flung bits of the Empire where there was considered to be minimal threat. In addition to Vildebeests and Vincent at various times Gordons, Wapitis, Sharks (possibly), Furies were used. Feel free to add to the list!

I have managed to restrain myself so far, but have finally cracked – Vildebeest does not have an e on the end. At least nobody has used Vildebeast yet….

Paul

It was my first visit to an air show at East Fortune, been to the Museum before but not for some years. Impressions?

Well, I think the key thing is that I was taking my two sons, aged 10 and 5. There were plenty of activities laid on children/families, and not just the ubiquitous bouncy castle! Plus of course the museum was open. So, whilst they were both interested in the aviation side – I am doing my best to make sure they follow in the family tradition – there was also enough there to keep them being bored in the gaps. So as an family aviation-related day out, it was excellent. £41 for the three of us, which is quite a bit, but I guess what you pay for days out nowadays.

As an airshow for aviation enthusiasts, I can see it could be a bit disappointing, especially if you have been round the museum several times before. Partly, although there was a decent display in difficult conditions, most of the no shows were the ones which posters on this forum would particularly want to see I suspect (BBMF, Sea Hawk, Vampire – I still do not quite understand when BBMF did not come, it was I understand based in Newcastle for the Sunderland airshow, it was misty at Sunderland, but Newcastle airport which is only about three miles from where I live was in clear sunshine – was it just being held in case it could fly at Sunderland?) Partly because as Mauld pointed out, a short display line, no runway, therefore no “live” static, no take offs, landings. I am not suggesting the organisers can do anything about that, just pointing out that the lack of it does make it less interesting for the enthusiast .

Paul