Proctor VH-AHYIn war, total war? Right and wrong? Absolutes? No. But certainly better or worse.
Go on then, let’s say for the sake of argument that you play Germany.
OK, I think deliberately fire bombing cities with the deliberate intent to cause a firestorm and burn civilians (men, woman, children and babies) is wrong – NO MATTER WHAT WENT ON BEFORE.
Simply put IT IS WRONG. There is no moral right that can justify it under any circumstance.
Bit like that Pope back in the 11th Century that said the commandment “thou will not kill” really meant “Thou will not kill christans”
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYTaken in isolation the deliberate targeting of civilians by Bomber Command is unethical…..but only if taken in isolation.
The Nazis began murdering civilians in Poland as soon as the war began. Special units formed for the purpose (as well as regular troops), acting to plans drawn up before the war, were responsible so there can be no suggestion that these were collateral deaths.
German civilians, unconnected with the armaments industry, could have been evacuated to safety but this would have put an enormous strain on the German war effort. Effectively the German leadership was prepared to take these casualties (as was the British leadership with British casualties).
Most of the victims, most of whom were civilians, of a war that Germany started had no such luxury.
Ah…. Now its situational ethics, fair go – there is right and there is wrong. Either side can usually argue a case to prove they were right and the other side was wrong.
“Winners are grinners and the rest can please themselves” seems to be the logic in play here.
Proctor VH-AHYScoin
Of course you are right, but not for that reason. You can restrict who you take as passengers to eliminate that risk.
The problem is if you say “fly low over a turkey farm and there are stock losses as a result” – you could be liable for loss suffered by the owner. I don’t know if turkeys drop dead from fright, however that is the example I normally hear as a arguement to have 3rd party public liability insurance.
I have for some time severely restricted the list of who I take as passengers in my Tiger. I just don’t want to have any grief from law cases, either real or threatened. Life is too short to have to spend time defending one’s actions.
As for the HARS member that is threatened you, I suggest you adopt my policy – no passengers other than very very close friends and immediate family. Your situation no doubt will lead to many potential passengers NOT having the thrill of a “joy Ride” in your Dragon.
I have taken more than a hundred people for a joy ride in my Tiger – some I barely knew, but no more.
As I put up in my original posting, INSURANCE – A KILLER COST FOR HISTORIC AEROPLANES. When I posted it, I hadn’t thought that that also applied to grounding runnable aeroplanes, but it does.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYGooday All
Here in Australia, we have two fuels available 100LL and 100/130. I have been using 100LL in my Tiger for some time, however it comes at a price. The lead compounds erode the cylinder heads(bronze) and the also there is some burning of the exhaust valves.
The manuals for a lot of old aero engines state “a high grade of motor spirit, 72 octane or higher” from memory that is a quote from the Gipys Major engine manual of the 1930’s.
As you can deduce running an engine designed for low octane “straight” as opposed to high octane “cracked” fuel has caused some problems. It used to be that there was 87 octane avgas that was well suited to Gipsy Majors and a lot of other older aero engines but that became unavailable in the late 1980’s.
For a while people used “standard” MOGAS, however that too was eliminated as LL MOGAS became the norm (typically 93-94 octane). The problem with using MOGAS is that it’s blend changes winter to summer (more volitile components in winter to make cars easier to start) and its formula varies from country to country. Also scavenging agents are put in it to help keep the cylinders and pistons “clean”, some of these agents when burnt produce compounds that affect the alloys that older aero engines are made of.
AVGAS on the other hand is belnded to a specification and thus is constant in its composition.
Most aero engines have low compressions < 7:1, the problems come with turbo supercharging and engine driven supercharging when the cylinder pressures at compression are much higher (can elaborate if required). Won’ go further on the technical side, save to say a merlin has engine driven supercharging and that generates the requirement to prevent pre-detonation (which can destroy the engine) hence the need for higher octane fuel.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYMoggy
any civilian death is needless, really a case of ethics, think of the deliberate fire storms that they caused in some of the german cities.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYGooday all
I was just reading in “The Scotsman” a story and it compared Bomber Harris to the guy who designed the V1.
The point was made that in the UK the first is looked on as a hero, the other a war criminal. Bit of double standards on display there.
Both caused the needless death of a lot of civilians.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYJoe
I am talking REAL money (that’s Australian Dollars and is there any real money left in the UK, I thought you guys are heading in the same way as Iceland).
Believe it or not, in Australia (with the good flying weather) the average is about 12 hours per year. in your real money (note lower case) an Australian litre of fuel would cost about 80 pence (is that you people still have), it is about A$1.60 a litre here (Australia).
here are the typical costs (in Australia for a year) say for a Tiger Moth, Austers sell for less than half that of a Tiger
Insurance – A$3000
Fuel 28l/hr – 12 hours A$537
Oil – A$50
Annual Inspection – A$1000
Hangarage – A$2160
Total A$6710
Cost/hr A$559
now that’s not cheap even in real money and only for a puddle jumper (DH82a)
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYWhat kind of money are we talking about here?. Say a Spit…is it thousands or tens of thousands? Any idea what the costs would be for Sally B or the Vulcan?.
Typically 3-4% of hull value sometimes a lot more in Australia, thus for a Tiger Moth that is about A$3000 approx.
The posting about paying 750 pounds I presume which in real money is about A$1,700 since the typical vintage aeroplane flys about 10-15 hours a year, that is about A$150 an hour – direct operating costs for the Auster are about $50 per hour and about A$1000 for annual inspection. Is that 750 pounts just for public liability insurance, if so what might the hull instrance be?
That makes the insurance the killer cost in my opinion.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYGooday All
It may come as a surprise to some forumites, but flying their aeroplanes at airshows is the least pleasurable and often a shunned aspect of owning/flying an historic aeroplane for many owners.
For many historic aircraft owners, it is the restoration project and then the pleasure of actually flying the aeroplane that gives the pleasure as well as the honour of having the responsibility of preserving the aeroplane.
It is usually air show organizers that demand “insurance company backed public liability” at least here in Australia, while it makes good sense it is not a legal requirement.
My original comments about insurance were in reference to hull insurance, that is where the real costs lie, ie 3-4% of hull value.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYYes you can – just need deep pockets in the case of a drama. Insurance is all about risks and the ability to pay. Going bankrupt could be the outcome if inadequate insurance/self insurance and the wheels fall off.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYAs I suggested previously, rather than relying on a fallible memory, the owner operated links provided are a good place to start, for quick, brief and essentially accurate data on the Vimy in question.
I formally interviewed Peter and Laing at Farnborough prior to their departure in 1994, and have had recent discussions with a current Vimy pilot regarding the current situation. I have recently reviewed my notes, and consulted the National Geographic companion book ‘The Greatest Flight’ and the 1994 press releases on the Smiths’ flight and the plans and achievement on the recreation. This was part of much more extensive research and fact checking for the Database feature on the Vickers Vimy type in the current issue of Aeroplane magazine. No ‘hearsay’.
Quite possibly, but that remains a hypothetical point. While I’d be the last to take anything from Laing’s achievements, he was not the designer or the builder of the Vimy replica. However it is certain without Peter’s financial effort and inspired dedication (along with Laing’s) there wouldn’t have been the recreation made, enabling these three recreated, historic flights.
I suspect some of the confusion comes from the lose way people refer to someone as the ‘builder’ of something, when they mean something more specific. Laing was certainly test-pilot and project manager. It was a team effort. Laing Kidby, as far as I’m aware, has no current connection with the Vimy replica.
Regards.
PS: Thanks Mark, I provided two links with that (and more) data for those who wish to check the information in my previous post.
First hand information is a lot better than that read in books or on web sites, so here is some more to reinforce the recent Australian connection to the Vimy
Earlier today I had an email from Lang and I he tells me that:
“I flew it at Farnborough last year as there were no Vimy pilots available in UK (only one was checked out and he was not available. there is a second one checked now after my visit). It went OK for the first few shows during the week but you can look up You Tube “Vimy Farnborough” and see some excitement I had on the second public day.
I flew it a bit at Oxford for a film crew doing an Alcock and Brown movie a few weeks after Farnborough.”
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYDavid
To me, the significance is that an Aussie and a Yank had the ability to get such a project off the ground, built the replica and complete the flight. That was a huge undertaking in its own right, what else has happened since is just incidental to that original project.
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYAll
Here is an email I just received from Lang Kidby:
“Ross,
The aircraft was built in several workshops in Australia (engines and metal fuselage) the main construction was in our own shop in California. Peter McMillan, my American partner provided the initial funding and I ran the project. Bill Whitney ran the original 1918 Vickers plans through his CAD design computers to make sure it met stress specifications and changed a few things to use modern materials, fit radios etc, designed the engine mounts to fit the Chevrolet 454 truck engines – same horsepower as original Rolls Royce.
Lang “
Any one want to argue?
This discussion raises an important point, at least to my way of thinking. When does the “significance” of an aeroplane get established.
For instance, with my Tiger Moth, is it when it was owned by the RAAF (1941-1946) when it was used to train many pilots for WW2 or is it when I put it on the civil register in 1982 and its history of participating in numerous air shows and some significant aviation events like the re-enactment flight of the first mail run for QANTAS from Charlieville to Cloncurry in 1992 or when I flew it in the Great Paper Chase from Cairns to Brisbane in 1984, both involved very long formation flights with other Tiger Moths.
Is the “Southern Cross” aeroplane significant because of the first air crossing of the Pacific Ocean by Smithy or for later achievements flown in it.
Is the Vimy significant because it did the re-enactment flight from England to Australia flown by Lang, Peter, et al.
In my opinion with this particular aeroplane it was when it completed the mission for which the project was formulated, the England to Australia flight. The activities subsequent to that came about because the aeroplane was in existence and it would have been a shame to ground it. While they are significant achievements in their own right, they are not the “Most Significant”
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYHello All
It is not full scale. The technical aspects of the paint are interesting in that the airframe was covered by ceconite and instead of using the usual nitrate/butrate dope as the paint, instead a method of using water based plastic paint was used (house paint). Apparently the original finish was a non-gloss finish and Bruce strove to make the visual finish of his aeroplane as close to the original as possible.
The finish achieved did look particularly good. I estimate that using the usual dope finished would have cost A$3000 approx, using this method the cost was less than A$1000
cheers
Proctor VH-AHYJDK/Mark
Should have known better than to challenge your info sources (dangerous), however it was worthwhile in than it has bought to the surface many facts about the Vimy that would have otherwise unpresented.
I don’t think anything that has been presented in this discussion contradicts what I have been saying. In particular, the Australian origins of much of this project have been amplified, Bill Whitney is another Brisbane, Queensland boy and is quite well known in aviation circles for his designs was involved, I thought that but wasn’t sure.
As I have been saying the replica was built specifically for the England/Australia re-enactment flight and you have reinforced that claim. I wanted to make it known that the genesis of this particular lies with an Australian and a USA citizen.
I think that contemporaneous discussions with Lang (a friend) may have given me an understanding of some of the background than is apparent in published books. By this I mean some of the day-to-day problems they encountered during the project and the actual flight, little things that add a bit of colour to the story but things that wouldn’t have necessarily have been published.
Enough for now my Australian claim – for recognition with the Vimy replica has been well established.
I think Mark made a good point in that the true value lies with it being kept flying. Otherwise its just a replica and not all that true a replica if its construction techniques are considered.
cheers
Sign In
