I’ve got to add a pic or two of WP840, the first Chippy I flew in at the tender age of 13 from Bournmouth, Hurn in 1991.

The last picture shows her when she was featured in Pilot.

Not a G model, but an H that lost its tail. Tail number 61-023

http://www.barksdale.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123024862

61-023 was recently in the news as the first B-52H to retire.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123108767

TJ

How was that aircraft able to remain stable enough to continue level flight never mind land?

I would have thought it would have been yawing out of control eventually leading to it falling out of the sky!

On the contrary, I have no comments to make whatsoever about Memphis Belle. Yes, I know it’s not fact, and yes I realise there are historical accuracies (the P-51 escort, for a start), but as a piece of entertainment, I thoroughly enjoy it.

And yes, I’m ashamed to admit that I have a small soft spot for Pearl Harbor, but mainly because I got to see the four film Spits up-close and personal…

Did Memphis Belle really have as much damage done to her on that one mission or was that a case of artistic licence and several missions worth of damage were included to spice up the film?

I find it (slightly) hard to believe an aircraft designed to fly on four engines could finish a mission on just one, have to land with one wheel up, the belly gunner almost get killed when he was unable to exit the ball turret more than once and the aircraft suffer as many hits as the Belle did yet still be flyable and none of the crew killed or seriously injured.

This looks familiar:

I’ve worked on this particular aircraft in the past along with it’s sister ship who’s reg I can’t remember but I think it may have been KF327 or very similar. (I don’t know why I remember that if it even is remotely close)

I know there used to be three Harvards at Boscombe (when it was A&AEE), KF183, FT375 and KF314.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?engine_version=6.0&search_active=1&search=&sheadline=&domains=Airliners.net&sitesearch=Airliners.net&client=pub-8297169501225184&forid=1&channel=1924797129&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23E6E8FA%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3AE6E8FA%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3A45678C%3BLBGC%3A45678C%3BALC%3AE6E8FA%3BLC%3AE6E8FA%3BT%3AC4C8CC%3BGFNT%3AC4C8CC%3BGIMP%3AC4C8CC%3BLH%3A36%3BLW%3A639%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Fgraphics%2Fopen_file_header_image.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fstart.airliners.net%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en&q=boscombe+harvard&submit=

Looks like it was a fantastic day. I spoke to somebody who went to several of the previous Music In The Airs done much later into the evening and he said in comparison this didn’t really compare. Was that your opinion too?

They say that if an aircraft looks right it flies right and this aircraft looks absolutely perfect!

Why does everbody here seem to think that only modern fighters can be called ground breaking?
Sure, they might have some additional technological development that has not been seen on a fighter before but in aviation terms can it really be called groung breaking?
To me the fighters that truley broke new ground were the aircraft that flew in the years before and during World War I when people being able to soar through the skies like a bird was the stuff of the great fiction novels of the time!