Because they were discussing the Brit version and times was only an hour long. So spotters were not catered for :D:D:D:D:D

Nothing to do with ‘spotters’, but giving due respect to the people that came up with it.
The line about us improving it by putting in British engines was a typical example of lack of research, like the Sea King airframe itself the RR Gnome was based on the American GE T-58.
Would have been nice to have seen ‘Rescue 80’ of the Penlee Lifeboat disaster be mentioned, especially as its likely the cab preserved at the FAAM.

It’s great to see a programme on the Sea King, but some of the lines were a bit Blue Peterish for my taste.

CKing, I remember when ‘507 was in the RAE colours at the Farnborough shows, flying with a fire rig suspended underneath I think?

The procedures trainer I believe was a Sikorsky SH-3 before becoming a development Westland Sea King pattern aircraft as XV372.

Must admit that Sea Kings didn’t bother me much when I was at Mawgan, kind of miss all that energy in a bundle now though!

eds Sea King HAR.3 7 Nov 06 by jamtey71, on Flickr

Sea King HAR.3 XZ594 J 203 sqn 29 August 06 by jamtey71, on Flickr

Wasn’t that an AM specification at the time to utilise existing hangars?

The bomber had retractable turrets, so unlikely that they would have been “off the shelf items” in any case anything Supermarine would have been their own complicated design; because they could!

I think that’s one of those aviation myths, ie the design being compromised by available buildings.
The C Type Aeroplane shed which was drawn up at the beginning of the expansion era in 1934 had a clear opening span of 150 ft.
Even the existing A Type sheds of the RAF 1920s bomber era had an opening span of 120ft.
Logic would also dictate that aircraft design wins over the shed, they were usually only hangared for servicing and repair anyway, and if need be would have to be trollied in sideways, as Lincolns and Shackletons had to be with T2 hangars.

Hindenburg and others will know far better than I, but I think the shorter span on the Stirling was to reduce the overall weight which was higher than designed?

I can’t see how it would have been superior in speed performance to the other four engined heavies, advantages of the smaller fuselage section (really that much smaller than Halifax/lanc?) looks like it would easily be negated by the drag caused by that wing thickness.
It would be a different realistic proposition with available operational kit fitted, in fact could it have actually been worse than the Stirling which suffered from its relatively shorter span wing?

Gringoal, thank you for joining and adding your recollections of this terrible event, which can’t have been too easy to do.
From pictures I’ve seen of the scenes, I would concur with your engine theory in that it hit the ground complete before bouncing and becoming two main sections, the main compressor stages seem to be in a relatively clear area.
Your comments about the press are interesting and I have often wondered if the press has actually got worse or not. This event, Cdr Russells loss on Victorious, and various other accidents of the time seem to display the very worst of what the media has always been capable of.

I would query just one aspect of the story, which is that my recollection was that it was Duke in the Hunter who took off, as he was scheduled to do, immediately after the crash.

It would be very hard for me to argue against your recollection, but contemporary reports state that Venom VV612 with reheated Ghost was next on the display and was running and holding for its slot when the accident to WG236 occured, it took off as soon as the runway was cleared.
I haven’t confirmed the pilot but I would think it was de Havillands’ Wg Cdr, C.D. Beaumont who flew the aircraft on trials.
The Vulcan and four 707s then performed their daily fly through, and Duke in the Hunter waited for clearer weather at the end of the show before displaying.

It seems to be one more populor myth around the whole event that Duke jumped into his aircraft and took off forthwith.
He did however deliberately perform a sonic boom during his act, which was said to be his way of disproving the then current nonsense surrounding the soundbarrier in the populor press, and possibly pre-empting the press’ obvious (and incorrect) jumping to conclusions to linking the loss of the DH.110 and the sonic boom.
He did indeed receive the letter from Churchill for his act, and doubltess partly to do with his standing at that time as a well known test and display pilot.

Going back to the Brian Rivas book, one bit that sends a chill down the spine in retrospect of what would happen just the next day, is the flight in WG240 where Derry is flying at high speed with Richards.
He happens to loosen his straps and look out across the wing and comments about the wing waggling up and down, Richards looks out and sees his side doing the same, something which hadn’t been noticed before.

Probably another Comet kicking from CH4!
When you hear stupid comments in the trailers such as “the Comet was considered to be uncrashable as the Titanic was meant to be unsinkable”* one wonders where they find some of the contributors to these programmes.

Like SFF I won’t be wasting my time watching this, far better to research the background and the accidents yourself, there’s plenty of archives and references available these days.

*or words to that effect.

I will try and dig out APs to hopefully confirm type, as the numbers don’t mean much to me, possibly Dowty references.
However the shape, flat nose piece, the two circumfrance joins, and the two small screw access holes for the backplate between each prop blade holes screams Gannet to me.