Ric WCollision with the terrain? Adequate height would have meant no accident. Whatever the preceding manoeuvre(s) and however you define ‘low flying’, the rule remains “don’t hit the ground”. A response to the reasonable, but sadly incorrect statement by pagen01.
I didn’t mention the pilot’s name for good reason.
The evidence showed that a Rolls Royce Spitfire was crashed into the ground, and there was no mechanical reason to cause the accident.
Do you just have a compulsion to post smart **** replies? Or do you just do it for a grin when you are bored? We all know that a crash is when flying stops…. low or otherwise. Evidence showed hitting the floor was a result of a mistake made entering a loop at that height…which wasn’t low… just too low for that particular manoeuvre.
I’m pretty sure Pagen01’s statement
“I can’t imagine for one minute RR flying their Spit that low with the gear up…”
doesn’t mean going down towards terra firma at quite a speed. Pagen01’s statement is not incorrect. Do you really think that he meant to put it into the ground? He wasn’t deliberately flying low, he was having an accident, sadly a fatal one.
Seeing as the aircraft in the photo is NOT RM689 and the pilot is NOT the same one, and this particular aircraft hasn’t hit the ground yet, I fail to see the point. Even if it isn’t photoshopped, it’s not like it hasn’t been done before, and its not likely to be the first or the last time it’s been done… even in a Spitfire.
People (much like you) that sit and try and score points in a thread as though you personally have never made an error in your life, are as bad as the self informed experts that make all the comments on the youtube video’s of such accidents.
Ric WWhat short memories we have.
G-AGLT – pilot RIP.
It was G-ALGT, and the Pilot was David Moore.
I don’t think that classes as flying low.
Ric WHaving listened to their new effort “C-lebrity” on the radio, it seems that despite all efforts the “spirit” of Queen has disappeared.
The song is as well put together as all the others… but it’s just not quite right. There is a damn good singer, and a good tune, but it seems too much of a token effort. Brian May and Roger Taylor just seem to be putting in a token effort…. The drums have none of the sharpness from songs such as “Radio Ga-ga” and “Tear it up”. The guitar is there, but it seems that all the beautiful orchestra like harmonies of old have been forgotten.
Of course we don’t have John Deacon’s bass driving things along. Funny how you never really notice it until it’s gone. Songs like “Invisible Man” and “Breakthru” were brilliant for bass.
And then Freddie…. the man who truthfully stated about the rumours of a Queen break up that “we’re gonna stay together until we ******** well die, I’m sure we will.” Nobody can replace him, but some have come close to doing a damn good job of filling in for him. George Michael at the tribute for example… Lokk at the faces of the band as they can let go and play “Somebody to Love” in the original key instead of having to alter it to suit someone else.
There’s been a couple of other times the energy comes back. Once or twice when Roger and Brian were playing with the Foo Fighters it was pretty good.
I think I’ll have to wait for the new album before I revise my opinions, but I think at the moment Queen is nothing but a shadow of what was once the best band in the world.
Ric
Ric WHaving listened to their new effort “C-lebrity” on the radio, it seems that despite all efforts the “spirit” of Queen has disappeared.
The song is as well put together as all the others… but it’s just not quite right. There is a damn good singer, and a good tune, but it seems too much of a token effort. Brian May and Roger Taylor just seem to be putting in a token effort…. The drums have none of the sharpness from songs such as “Radio Ga-ga” and “Tear it up”. The guitar is there, but it seems that all the beautiful orchestra like harmonies of old have been forgotten.
Of course we don’t have John Deacon’s bass driving things along. Funny how you never really notice it until it’s gone. Songs like “Invisible Man” and “Breakthru” were brilliant for bass.
And then Freddie…. the man who truthfully stated about the rumours of a Queen break up that “we’re gonna stay together until we ******** well die, I’m sure we will.” Nobody can replace him, but some have come close to doing a damn good job of filling in for him. George Michael at the tribute for example… Lokk at the faces of the band as they can let go and play “Somebody to Love” in the original key instead of having to alter it to suit someone else.
There’s been a couple of other times the energy comes back. Once or twice when Roger and Brian were playing with the Foo Fighters it was pretty good.
I think I’ll have to wait for the new album before I revise my opinions, but I think at the moment Queen is nothing but a shadow of what was once the best band in the world.
Ric
Ric WNever mind the blade…. what was done with the rest of the prop (complete with one sawed off stump) and all the other bits that were on their display in the hangar at Waddington airshow this year?
The condition it looked to be in I can’t believe they sawed the blade off rather than taking it out properly.
Ric
Ric W:confused: Err, yup, that’s (in part) what I’ve also been saying. ‘Worth’ isn’t just about cash value (thankfully).
‘People’ might. Those charged with documenting and preserving our history won’t.
It appears you’ve missed some coincidence of ‘views’ – not sure why or how, as what you’ve just been saying is along the same lines as what I’ve been saying.
As to the value of the views, these aren’t ‘my’ views ~ I’m just a journalist 😉 ~ they are the way top level authoritative museum and history organisations work around the world.
Regards,
I may have missed the point a bit. To be honest its all getting a bit difficult to try and figure out.
Despite the nature of my opinions towards recrations, replicas, etc, it is nice to see the lengths that top levels museums go to in order to preserve things. I doubt this would be such a hot topic if it weren’t the case.
As for the Jaguar… that car was responsible for getting me into aircraft. We had to let it have a rest one day in Lincolnshire; and Dad couldn’t think of anywhere other than Coningsby, home of the BBMF!
Regards,
Richard
Ric WThe logbook is worth nothing… the memory however, is priceless. I have another car that is identical… but it won’t be carrying the numbers. Despite it being a completely different car, it smells the same and feels the same and stirs the memories in me.
I still believe that if an aircraft were created, then 50 years from now, people will be regarding it as an example of that type in its own right.
I think, gentlemen, that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one? I don’t think any of us are likely to change our views!
Regards,
Richard
Ric WRic,
You do need to consider the historical aspect of these things. These items lived through history, and are a part of it. We can learn far more from an original artefact than from one that has been remanufactured or recreated – especially as those processes will involve a good dollop of conjecture as well.
It is indeed common for aircraft to be badly interpreted by museums, and I for one hope that this comes to an end. They each have their own history, which should be properly represented.
The time WILL come when these aircraft can no longer fly – lack of spares, lack of fuel; whatever. That is the time that the REAL aircraft will come into its own. The reproductions and replicas will be well down the list for potential acquisitions!
Bruce
If considered against an original, unchanged, as it came off the flightline aircraft, then yes… the historical aspect is there. But if the aircraft’s history comes from a number that someone has found amongst a box of bits, then there is no difference…
It’s almost like trying to recreate my Dad’s old Jag, because I still have the buff coloured logbook and the ignition key in the drawer. That has history for me… but if I put the numbers on a new build car it doesn’t make it the same one; history or not.
It amazes me how in one mode of transport it is called “ringing” and is illegal and in one it’s not. Both seem to be highly lucrative. I am becoming of the opinion its more to do with money, as mentioned earlier.
A millionaire type buys a firewall and a dataplate and remakes an aircraft around it. He or she is well thought of for trying to preserve a piece of history. Why? It is a new aircraft
On the other hand you have people that try and make one from scatch, usually in the face of quite a few problems. They only show up in the papers and other places as “eccentric”.
Regards
Ric
Ric WIf we take these two out, and look at it merely for what it is, then perhaps the provenance is secondary, as if it is an exact reproduction in every way, can the enjoyment factor of seeing it be any less to the observer?
You cannot see provenance, and it does not add or detract from the visual excitement of seeing the machine operated, so since the person observing the aircraft, operated in it`s element, who supposedly will not be a benefactor of any sale proceeds what does it matter???
I am sure that some could counter that the “history” makes the display more enjoyable, well I guess that is subjective, but I really do not see how this can be so.
If one walks onto Duxford as a Spitfire makes a low pass, the sight, sound, and atmosphere is identical, whether the aircraft is a new build, restored, or “recreated” example.
To then say the experience was diminished by finding out the aircraft is indeed a new built example, is like your kid saying
“I really liked the taste of that, until I found out it was something I didn’t like”
I agree with this. If you could substitute a “real” aircarft with a new build one, that was flown the same, made the same noise, I think the display would be just as good.
Looks like a Spitfire? yes.
Sounds like a Spitfire? (hairs on back of neck standing to attention?) yes.
Flies like a Spitfire? yes.
Built from Spitfire drawings? yes.
Built on the same jigs as a restored “real” Spitfire? yes.
Its a Spitfire. It just didn’t take part in the war.
Ric
Ric WNope.
There is a very important value, which isn’t financial, but which people will pay for.
In exactly the same way as a modern reproduction Roman coin is not as historically important as an original Roman coin, any artefact has an historical value when original. Reproductions, copies and rebuilds are all fine as long as they are presented honestly – not as fakes. But they do not have the same value (which has no direct financial aspect) as an original in teaching us, and future researchers what a ‘real’ Proctor is.
This historical value of originality is what museums and researchers want and need – not a however faithful copy, and certainly not a fake which distorts the historical record.
Amazingly, one of the primary reasons for preserving artefacts (including aircraft) isn’t about them being ‘enjoyable’ by watching or flying them, but that they are primary sources of what history really contained.
Regards,
I disagree. There are lots of aircraft in museums that bear false markings, or are the wrong model for the markings they wear, or have been vastly modified since they left service before they got to a museum. This is not really presenting “what history really contained”
I fail to see the point of the Roman coin analogy.. other than if you were making it from scratch to prove how the metal was composed or show how the coins were minted, they have little or no use, whereas an aeroplane does… regardless of real or recreation it can still be flown.
A reproduction Roman coin however good cannot be spent, can it?
Regards
Ric
Ric WSome would argue restoring yet another Spitfire is “pointlessly expensive” when compared against other types that are not as well represented.
I’m not in the position to be able to afford the real thing, or a recreation, mores the pity. I cannot understand though, how the same aircraft can be worth more if you can find yourself a suitable serial number, especially if the airframe is a new build. It seems to me there is too much scope for those of a devious nature to find serials in order to work the system…. almost like ringing a car.
While I appreciate some people buy kits to avoid the high costs of original parts… like a Merlin, without it, it’s not really close to the real thing, more like evoking the spirit of it, in a respectful way.
I think the beautiful Mosquito rebuilds are walking the line on this subject.
If you had one of those, but couldn’t find a serial number to stick on it; would you dare to call it anything other than a Mosquito?
I wouldn’t, the end product is still a real Mosquito in my opinion.
I’m going to have to have a sit and a think, as this is making my head spin now… as somebody said further up, there just isn’t any black and white!
Regards
Ric
Ric WJDK,
Are those choices Proctor has made or have they been made for him by the authorities? If they are imposed on him the chances are all original production aircraft that are flying are the same.
Ric
Ric WIt is not beyond possibility that someone could take the Spitfire airframe design right through the approval process as a ‘new design’ and perhaps achieve approval for series production – but who would spend such vast amounts of time and money this would require in order to obtain consent to build an aircraft that would be less valuable (as a new product) than its historic cousins?
Hopefully someone will… or we will never see flying examples of long extinct types no matter how much we would like to.
If I could afford to buy a rivet for rivet recreation of a Spitfire, that could fly I think I would… and judging by the number of people that build replicas in 80% scale and others, I think I’m not alone.
To say an aircraft can or cannot fly based on whether it had a serial number that dates back to the 1940’s, and bears no relation to when it was rivetted together is wrong. If it is legislation then it can be changed. The question is , how?!
Regards
Ric
Ric WCertainly….
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22461
The gentleman in question has posted at the bottom of page 1.
Regards
Ric
Ric WJust to add… the MOD licence holder is now posting on WIX offering to answer questions… rather nice of him I thought!
I think I’m going to wait for a reply from him before I stick my foot in my mouth (again..)
Ric
Sign In
