Hi Dave,

I think that was actually the sole surviving P40L, rather than a K, and if memory serves correctly it was recovered from some kind of nature reserve. This meant that a special licence had to be obtained for the recovery work, which included the condition that the work was to be completed within a certain time. With time running out, the team were forced to cut through the wings to speed recovery. This was perhaps the cause of the damage you mention?

Ok I ask…what happened to the purposed film with Tom Cruise playing the role of a US flyer who was killed during the BOB ? Just asking so don’t open fire on me !

BlueNoser352!

The movie appears to have died a quiet death, if indeed it was ever seriously proposed. The man the film was supposed to be about was Billy Fiske, who lost his life at Tangmere on August 17th 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Fiske

Bern,

Yes it’s true about the Twinkle Rolls, the Gnat had an aileron deflection limiter which was activated when the undercarriage was raised. This meant the pilot had full roll authority at low speeds with the gear down (take off and landing), but at higher speeds the limiter prevented the pilot from overstressing the aeroplane. The Reds had a special dispensation to remove the limiter on the understanding that they would never do a max-rate roll above a certain speed (something like 300 knots), any faster and the tail would likely snap off!!

The Twinkle Roll actually died out before the Reds retired the Gnat, there were a couple of accidents involving standard Gnats where pilots tried to copy the Twinkle Roll by adding in a bootful of rudder, the result being structural failure. On the grounds that it was setting a bad example in the Gnat fleet, the Reds were stopped from doing it.

As for the current display, I think we are in general a bunch of spoilt brats! I could agree with some of the negative comment on here, but that fact is that the public still adore the Reds. I was at Dunsfold over the holiday weekend and the crowd were awe struck (helped by Dunsfold’s fairly tight display box), including my 5 year old nephew who now has an inflatable Red Arrows Hawk that he barely lets go of!

Sadly I don’t happen to have a Defiant handy to measure-up, but from what I can make out in pictures and diagrams etc, the turret gun spacing is equal to, or just slightly narrower than the width of the canopy. This would make it impossible for the turret to face forward with the canopy open?

The link below leads to a build article of a 1:48 scale He111H-22, finished in the colours of II/KG53. As far as I’m aware, the colours on this aircraft would also have been applied to a I/KG53 aircraft.

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/bioll111.htm

Since the thread started I’ve been turning the house upside down looking for a magazine article from the past year – 18 months, Flypast maybe or “combat Aircraft” which had the main reasons for keeping the Meteors active, and the issues with a Hawk or Alpha Jet as an alternative.:eek: Its driving me mad now !

From what I recall, the sorties are short (15 mins or so) so the fatigue life is used very slowly (and also explains the sadly infrequent trips to airshows)

Aeroplane Monthly did a feature on the MB Meteors about four or five years back, I don’t know if that would be the article you’re thinking of? From what I remember of it, MB were intending to keep them operational for another 25 years!

IIRC, the reasons given in the article for using the Meteor were pretty much as those described above so far as I can recall- twin engines that remain unaffected by the firing of the seats, a sturdy cockpit tub that withstands the blast of the seat firings, a rear cockpit close to the centre of gravity so the firing of the seat doesn’t push the nose down too much or seriously affect the CofG once the seat has departed, tandem cockpit, bird-strike resistance and general airframe strength (good for an aircraft that flies at high speed, low down).