Fighters were usually given names suggesting speed or aggresion

RAF naming policy in those days did follow rules, they just changed the rules every so often!

True but then fighters would have had aggressive and dramatic sort of names anyway (apart from Spidercrab!), and in some cases were alliterative to the manufacturer and used beyond the RAF, ie Supermarine Scimitar for the FAA, they don’t seem to fit a single policy.

The V-Force names do seem to be the result of a distinct naming policy, only the Valiant reflects the manufacturers name and even then is a clear departure from their previous types names (Wellington, Warwick, Windsor).
As natural as Handley Page Victor sounds to us now it would have been a massive departure from their normal alliterative naming pattern (Heyford, Hampden, Halifax) and with Sir ‘Fredy’ not exactly known for conformity within the industry it makes the name choice even more surprising.
So the V Force names represent a clear break from using UK/Commonwealth place names (unlike same era EE Canberra) and alliterative naming for one of the companies (Avro didn’t seem to follow that, Manchester, Lancaster, Lincoln).

Just be nice to tie down if this ‘V’ name policy came about handily as result of the Valiant being named or whether there was a clear directive at the AM?

An excellent little film, seems somehow a bit different from other military based docs of the time.
It, and Critters post, brings home just how serious these post-war brushfire conflicts were and indeed there does seem to a bit of history repeating itself, especially in regard of landmine threat and the extreme landscape that the services had to adapt to and fight in.
Some of the best Beverley in action footage I’ve ever seen there, when people say how inept these types were it is good to see films like this where it is hard to imagine other aircraft types of the era being able to do the same job of moving bulky loads on unprepared landing strips. Great Argosy and Belvedere footage aswel.

Jim, honestly keep your Daily Mail style outbursts for GD, Cabbage is obviously hoping for a reaction and you are fuelling it.
The thread doesn’t need shutting as for the most part it is an adult discussion on a modern military issue.

These aren’t, but then the engines are fitted and I’m guessing the nosegears retracted/lopped off! http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/B-26-Marauder/B-26-Photos/pages/43-34342-B-26G-Marauder-322BG450BS-ER-W-scrapped-Landsberg-Germany-1945-01.html
I can’t help thinking that they become tail sitters without those mighty engines attached.

Again, as I said in post 13, aerodrome* seems to have been generally applied across the many different types of airfield, including military, however officially that wasn’t the correct term for a AM/RAF airfield.
Even some service personal would be influenced by the abundance of aerodromes pre their service days.
Although aerodrome has now got quite precise meanings for licencing and regulation reasons it was quite a general term for anywhere that had flying activity.

*In the same way as charabanc seems to have generally been applied over different types of buses and coaches.

Sorry to harp on but as the thread kind of revolves around definitions it feels best to discuss them.

If it’s the one I’m thinking of then no, as that was regarding an established place name and not two descriptive words.

Aeroplane, like aerodrome is Greek derived, aeros = air, plane = planos. The French seem to have used these terms right from the start and Im guessing that their influence over early aviation in general has ensured the widespread use of them?

Some are certainly the same pictures, (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%201117.html?search=mildenhall), but nice to see them presented like this.