I wouldn’t expect that for one minute Baz!:D
The misconception is that hanger is a spelling mistake of hangar, not what the term is for what you have worked in might be.;)
I’m just enjoying the discussion really.:)

That’s the problem with this sort of discussion Allen, I didn’t notice it!:D

Everyone makes mistakes, but the basics are not to keep making them and to try and post as best you can.:)
I definitely agree with Spitfireman, if people are to point out errors by others, do it properly and and not with some sort of odd remark. Lack of manners is one thing that is worse than a lack of posting skills!

Tony, Baz, slight misconception creeping in there that needs nipping in the bud, calling an aircraft shed (the official AM parlance incidently) a hanger is not a spelling mistake, it’s using the wrong word.

For me it’s the aircraft names. The Blenheim and the Stirling are perhaps the most common victims, and maybe the Hampden.

That’s the other one I was trying to remember, the Short Sterling! A thread was started with that title a week or so ago, but it disapeared.:confused:

Circus, I meant what I said, hate, as in I hate lack of emotion.

Pagen – I have worked on most marks of RAF Harrier and the GR Tornados. None of these will likely get in warbird owners hands . Similarily in the helicopter world been on Wessex -Apache -Black Hawk and Chinook -most will never get in the hands of private operators .

So this aircraft shalt not fly again after service rule only applies to aircraft that you have worked on?
I know people that worked on Vulcans and Hunters, examples of which are still flying.
You come up with a good argument (ie the dangers of flying a one off aircraft) but then seem to knock it back down again.

Regards combat aircraft -we use them in the role they were designed for . We maintain them and use them. When they have served their purpose they will be grounded -thats a part of aviation.

You present an interesting argument and have made me think about things a a bit differently, but doesn’t some of your argument fall on it’s face?
Combat aircraft are built to fight, defensively or offensively, they are then grounded by the services, but thankfully many do go on to be maintained and fly again in the ‘warbird’ world.

I’m sure that JDK has posted pics of that event somewhere on here before, a fine sight!

Wow, a thread for me!:)

My pet hate is the hangar/hanger thing and I will almost always make a point of pointing it out if I see the wrong word used in a thread or post!

My issue is this; I don’t mind the odd spelling mistake, or even grammatical error, I realise that some people may have to post quickly, or aren’t that good at spelling and grammar (myself definitely included on both counts), and that this is only a forum where the subject matter comes first.
However, I hate the wrong word being used for the wrong subject, particularly if it’s aviation related on an aviation forum, hangar seems to be one of the most frequent offenders of this – a large shed containing aeroplanes is not a hanger, anymore than I hang my clothes from a hangar.
Aircraft and airfield names can also occasionally fall foul of this.

I agree with Dave4OTU, poor punctuation can lead to misunderstandings on a forum.

Another thing that I really hate, which is a recent and increasing problem, are posts which make no sense to the reader, they are full of misspellings*, awful grammar, capital letters in all the wrong places, no punctuation, odd gaps between words, and increased use of text abbreviations.
I hate to generalise, but it seems that this could be down to younger members using mobile phones to post here (example post #10 here, http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=114064 ).
Using your mobile devices is fine, but please double check what you’re writing before you hit the ‘Submit Reply’ button!

* I had to double check that one!

Re powered controls, I’ve been doing a little research into early de Havilland high speed flight lately and one thing that it has unearthered is that the use of powered ailerons (followed by other control surfaces) was driven more by high speed flight than by simply giving increased controllability, or pilots ease of use, on conventional aircraft.
Powered controls allowed for better controlled transonic/supersonic flight as they were irreversible, ie the aerodynamic forces over the ailerons could not overwhelm the hydraulics/mechanics of a powered system, like they could with the conventional mechanical cable and pulley systems which could then experience flutter and incorrect control movements.
What I’m trying to say was that there was little perceived need in the UK for powered systems on a conventional structure and performance aircraft at the time.
DH introduced powered ailerons with the DH.108 & 110, which were of course transonic and just supersonic, the DH.112 Venom came later of and had them fitted.

I know very little about the Hornet or P-38 Lightning, but I wonder if the Lightning had powered ailerons because it could encounter compressibility near the transonic regime in a dive?