Stresses on the airframe would be calculated and very little, the pull up into a barrel role wouldn’t apply as many G as what appears to the crowd.
By the way this is the second thread on exactly the same videoclip in less than 24 hrs, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=111532
And we have a special section in which to post videos.

The phoning the airfield issue was dealt with back at post #12 by GrahamF.

Bomberboy, you say the same thing over and over across an assortment of threads here (to the point that I wonder if you are trying to get at something), if it incenses you so much why comment or even look at the threads in the first place?
Nowhere on this thread can I see unreasonable rumour mongering or wild speculation, just polite interest and members asking for more info, that’s what we do as people interested in old aeroplanes, and in an era when info travels fast it was naturally strange that no hard facts came through more quickly.
As most people realise if you close a subject with little reasoning the interest in it will bound to be heightened. The original title of it being a landing accident didn’t help, it appears to have been a low speed taxying incident – very different things with different consequences.
I wasn’t even that interested in the incident but the dealing of the threads really surprised me.

Kev you are correct, none of this means much in the grand scheme of things, but as enthusiasts such things do interest us, like it or not.

Anyway we are definitely deviating from the subject, and it is good news to hear that possibly little damage was done and no injury caused to the pilot.

That doesn’t make sense Peter/Bruce, its a bit like a newspaper closing and then saying that no news was forthcoming to it, if the thread is closed it won’t get new info.
TBH I really can’t see what was wrong with it in the first place, we are interested in old aeroplanes and the thread reflects natural curiosity.

I must agree with Whalebones’ removed post, some of the mod decisions here recently have appeared odd.

Without trying to be funny here, but a mod locks this and another thread on the subject and another mod reopens it with some info. You never know but a normal member may have wanted to post relevant info in that time.
Also another thread reasoning this has since been deleted.

Surely the topic isn’t worthy of this heavy handed approach?

Also in the light of info linked in #2 and by Moggy the thread title needs amending (the one thing that does need modifying!) as is misleading.

They are fantastic images, and thanks for the insightful information both, it is a very interesting subject.

Just to be clear I’m not saying that I think that UK industry outshone or achieved anymore than any other of the allies, but I do believe that it reacted and dealt with the times superbly, especially given the fact that it had the very real threat of receiving heavy bombing of defensive measures (inc fighter airfields), industry, and populated areas, aswel as having vital supplies by sea being cut off.
I’m not sure that any of the other allies had to ramp up production and disperse it with against the background of that threat, or certainly not to the same extent. I don’t know enough about the French situation, but their industry didn’t seem to react or adapt at all to the growing threat.
The point about Coastal Command is a good one, it seems to have been a hugely overlooked command just pre-war (unlike Luftwaffe Condor, flying boats), which seems quite strange when you think of our island state and reliance on the sea. Apart form the Sunderland it had to use adapted bombers for long-range work, luckily the Liberator was picked up by the AM/RAF quite early on.
Strangely it is situation that the UK now finds itself in, no RAF maritime patrollers, or RN carriers and strike aircraft.

Again, this took place in MY garden. Not in YOUR garden or anyone else’s. MY garden. So they selectively came in (or fired from their bedroom window, if it’s the little arsewipes from next door) and fired at her.

Slightly tongue in cheek comment on MY own situation, not YOURS.

I completey agree with what you are saying Daz, if someone is firing at your pets, on or off your land, it’s wrong. If they are coming onto your property of firing into it that is a major offence.
Will also reiterate that harming animals (even grudgingly I will admit cats!) is wrong.
In fact I once caught some kids having a go at our worst cat, I might have had my prayers answered if I had let the situation go, but I did go out and told them to do one and leave it alone.

I’m not sure what sort of area you live in but around here you see people walking around with air rifles daily, so what I’m saying is that I can understand the temptation for some of the less, shall we say concerned types, reaching for their weapons to deal with a cat in their garden.

Anyway enough from me as I don’t want the thread to go off on a different path, let’s just stick to the jolly subject of what makes us swear!

Interesting to theorize how the Tiger (or Super Tiger) might have performed in the skies over Vietnam (when fitted with the proper equipment such as RHAWS of course).

In reality probably no better than F-4 and F-8, and everything from the A-1, A-4, A-6 & A-7 were doing aswel as they could, it wasn’t all out tech and performance that was needed in theatre.

Bager, great info and pic, was unaware of the Tiger being configured to carry missiles on its back like that. as you say there would be issues!

I must admit this is one of the more bizarre incidents reported on the forum, as in no one seems to know if it actually happened or not:confused:

However I believe it would be the airfields’ discreation whether they discuss any incidents with outside parties or not though.