Building the Blackburn Roc is probably not something to boast about. The BP workers probably kept quite quiet about it.

My thoughts exactly.

73 Squadron’s emblem was a heraldic dog with one paw upraised. This was to signify the dog of the squadron’s one time WW1 commander Major Hubbard. To wit Old Mother Hubbard’s dog who went to the cupboard. The Herald’s Office translated this into a squadron badge which had a “demi-talbot rampant” which is a posh name for a greyhoundish looking dish licker. So basically a skull and crossbones is out – however pre-war squadrons had their badge on the tail in a small arrow head shaped white flash so perhaps that is some sheen of freshly applied dope which covered it.

US naval aircraft all had ashtrays to my knowledge. Galland used to smoke cigars in his 109. I very much doubt modern combat aircraft have them now though, health and safety in the warplace and all that.

Plus not good if breathing oxygen :diablo:

I recall seeing a similar action model here in Australia in that time period in a local shopping complex. The post which mentioned the Concorde and the mention of the operator wearing a captain’s uniform brings it back to me. My impression was IIRC that the models were a bit toy like, but in defence of that I was an adult when I saw it back then. That is not to say I am not an adult now – just an older one 😀

…anyway I appreciated your apology; no hard feelings. 🙂

Thank you. I had already understood your take on the issue, and then I went a bit grumpy – I can only blame the red mist coming down 😀

The problem, to me at least, is that a lot of people see archaeology as simply digging holes and finding things. I suspect many would be surprised at how little actual digging real archaeologists do – usually all that is done either by students or hired local labour. The qualified people are there for specific specialist tasks and keeping an eye on the work as a supervisor, and intervening if some quite delicate work is needed. Most of the qualified archaeologist’s tasks are examining artefacts, comparing them with known typologies or creating new ones; doing various purely scientific tasks in relation to dating etc.; ensuring that the dig is properly recorded; photography, drawing sections, artefacts etc. etc. The actual digging while careful is really only the start as the real archaeological work starts after the results are in. As far as the Myanmar thing any qualified soil scientist or ground imaging specialist could handle that – it isn’t archaeological work at all. And as for the necessity of overseeing the actual dig there isn’t any need – everything in the ground above the buried Spitfires (if they existed) is disturbed soil with no reliable dating material (something as any person who has dug graves sites, like myself, is aware). All you need is someone who can operate a digger carefully and people who know how to shore up deep pits for safety purpose -experienced council workers could do that at a fraction of the cost. 🙂

Well I know I sounded a little terse, perhaps grumpy, but as an archaeologist all this silliness in Myanmar in the name of “archaeology” when in fact it is no more than chasing unsubstantiated rumours so the principals can make money is really beginning to irritate me . This is the 21st century and most of us are from countries with fine education systems and every opportunity to learn how to assess the veracity of things. Yet there seems to be a large number of otherwise normal people willing to believe that a large quantity of aircraft buried in wooden crates under many tons of earth, in one of the wettest countries on the planet, are somehow going to defy nature and be miraculously preserved. Now I don’t mind that so much but attaching the concept of archaeology to what they are doing is to me about as relevant as calling a haircut brain surgery. So please accept my apology if I appeared rude. 🙂

Somehow in the face of this ongoing silliness even TIGHAR manage to look sane.

Just to play devil’s advocate for a minute but what is the point of ‘real archaeology’?

I’m not disputing that archaeology has made significant discoveries of ‘what we do not know’ but rather what is the purpose of knowing ‘what we do not know’? What is the actual benefit, moving forward?

The fact that you asked that question indicates that you would not understand the answer. However I will try. Archaeology is a form of historical research in which in lieu of written or pictorial references artefacts are used to create an understanding of past events. It can also be used to supplement our understanding where written material exists but is scanty. As we have extant examples and a plethora of documentary sources on Spitfires then digging up a buried one doesn’t add anything to our knowledge of them, accordingly what is being done in Myanmar is not archaeology. As for Nikumaroro that is another thing altogether.

For real flying footage of all these types get the DVD of the movie Dive Bomber. Sillyish plot but great flying scenes of the real aircraft.