Apologies in advance if anyone gets offended but i do wish that the word “stunt” was not used so much,we had it all over the media reporting the Red 4 tragedy and with Rob and bbd at legends.Imo the only “stunt” act certainly in the uk is Brendan and the trucktop landing.Rant over!

I kind of agree with your post Grahame, however transferring yourself from an aeroplane to a helicopter without safety lines/harness or even backed up by a chute and performed in a public arena is a stunt in its fullest sense of the word.
To my mind it seems like an irresponsible act tbh, both from his and spectators points of view.
I don’t believe airshows should be absolutely rigid and be risk adverse, it is part of flying and entertainment, but I really can’t imagine an act like this appearing in the UK.

A genuinely sad loss with the Pitts pilot.

Is this year any worse than normal, or are these accidents just coming to our attention more because of some fairly high profile losses?

Oh, and don’t get me started on the B.O’brian act!:rolleyes:

It might not be in the correct finish for the particular airframe but the Do 24 looks superb and a lot better than when it left Hendon. It’s the first time I’ve seen a picture of it since.

Best read this thread PBY, http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=110976&highlight=xm603

Fantastic info Pondskater, precisely what was needed. Is there any dates given for the Handley Page naming?

Glad you made it through another hostipital visit smiling Jim!:)

CD, my points were general, and not disagreeing with your excellent one.

Pagan, I think that’s a – if you’ll allow me – particularly British view. Only Anglophiles would agree, I think.

The restrictions places on Commonwealth attempts at establishing industries in Canada and Australia pre-war were counter productive and protectionist, and I think a close reading of Alertken’s excellent posts on the other less stellar aspects of British industry in W.W.II will bring out many elements that give the UK industry a 70% at best, IMHO, FWIW.

I think the commonwealth thing can be misleading in the same way as you’re pointing out to me with the USA hindsight issue.
At that period (just pre war) the commonwealth was only supplying raw materials to our industry and even that was looking shakey if we were to be cut off. But we weren’t gaining extra manufacturing capacity or labour from them at that stage.
I don’t mean the ‘little island state’ thing in a twee way, but a practical way such as very nearly happened if the U Boat threat increased, the one area that Germany planned for very well.

I’m a devotee of AKs posts so absolutely agree with you there, I’m kind of saying that in spite of the downsides of our industry, the common sense and dedication of many pulled us through the war with increasingly good quality and innovative kit.
You say about our contribution to radar, nuclear weapons and jet engines, in our field does it get better than that? It is a shame that our masters didn’t fully embrace the technology earlier, but the USA made a fine job of it, and selling it back to us!

And before it gets out of hand I’m not a pagan!:D

Interesting…

I personally think that Britain’s rise of aero military might and industry is nothing short of incredible, and perhaps the greatest and swiftest change in our industrial history, that is despite the behind the scenes goings ons, relatively small skilled labour population, strikes (strong Union membership), and being a relatively small island nation.
I think where we were incredibly far sighted was during that pre-war expansion period which seems to have been driven through at any cost from 1935 on. This ranged from mass airfield construction, the idea of shadow factories, aircraft over production and storage, to standardisation of componants and practices in the aero industry.
I have always wondered why Germany never carried this off to the same degree, possibly due to their arms restrictions etc?

Russia is an interesting one, yes their production totals were staggering by anyones standards, but was the quality there across the range of aircraft built? I know they produced some outstanding types such as the IL-2 but they did seem to rely on the west to top up numbers of quality fighters, and didn’t really seem to embrace technological progression like the UK or USA.
The human cost of Stalins’ drive doesn’t bear thinking about.

USAs war effort was very impressive, but industry as a whole was increasing before the war, especially automotive, and these companies and their skilled workforces were instrumental in enabling the swift rise in production of aircraft. I’m sure the mighty industrialists (Kaiser, Ford etc) of the period must have been a great help in organising massive construction programmes. They also had a high population of workers and my understanding was that they had certain rules which made industrial strikes very hard to carry out.
I also wonder how much the British helped in the increase of USAs aero production and design, especially when one thinks of the RAFs involvement with the Mustang, Lightning, Liberator etc?
However the US never had the same level of bombing or attack threat, rationing, and possible isolation of Britain, Europe, or Japan and this must have made a huge difference in location, the size of, and ease of transportation between factories, not to mention the psychological ease at the top which must have made all this comparatively easy to be carried out.
Their technological progress is nothing short of incredible, but then so was the UKs, just on a smaller and less well prioritised level.

I’ll apologise now for the grammer!