Ummmm …… clearly some people have too much time on their hands
😀
Ummmm …… clearly some people have too much time on their hands
😀
I think I said “almost survived”, Malcolm.
As for Michael Jackson….its probably all an elaborate publicity stunt anyway. :diablo:
Actually some enterprising restorers have recovered his data plate and …… :diablo:
I apologise for the poor quality, but this b&w image is the wreck of Spitfire AD131 lost near St Omer on 12 April 1942.
Incredibly, the wreck was still there right up until the late 1950’s/60’s. It had gone by the time I went looking! The roundel seems to have been cut from the fuselage (possibly by the Germans?) and the wings lie in the background.
I wonder how many other Spitfires “almost” survived?
Any pictures of other near-surviving Spitfires?
Survival? if that’s survival then Michael Jackson is simply on vacation 😀
How do you explain Samuel L jackson in Shaft then?
I for one cannot explain Samuel L. Jackson in any form whatsoever.
Perhaps it is a gap in my education.
😀
The Comper Conservatory experimental fighter didn’t serve in the Battle of Britain – that should be enough.
😀
I want to know about the Parnall Pupae.
😀
Exactly! Just like the Moth is a “development” of the caterpillar so the Hurricane is a development of the Demon. At least for the sake of this analogy! First caterpillar, then moth. First Demon, then Hurricane. Has nothing to do with age but everything to do with progression.
So what was the De Havilland Caterpillar – an early Link type trainer?
😀
Carrying .45 service revolvers was relatively common by single seat RAF fighter pilots of WW2 – despite the bulk of the weapon.
Here is a Smith & Wesson carried by a Spitfire pilot lost in 1942.
Many pilots talk of the “comfort factor” in carrying a side arm, and after D-Day it was standard compulsory issue to RAF pilots operating over the front. There are also a good many stories (pre D-Day too!!) of RAF fighter pilots finding the weapon something useful to have rather than a useless encumbrance when shot down over enemy held territory.
I am not sure about Malcolm McKay’s assertion that when carried by Officers in WW1 when going “over the top” it was used primarily to shoot laggards on your own side rather than an offensive weapon per se. I would have thought it would have been an emminently useful tool to have when taking enemy trenches or dug-outs. Still, what do I know. Anyway, we are getting off topic a tad.
I have a S&W .455 revolver issued to 43 Squadron RFC in 1916, condition is near mint and it is fully operational.
http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss268/MMcKay_album/SW2.jpg which suggests that it was a souvenir.
Seriously the first rule for a pilot who has bailed out in enemy territory where armed squads of soldiers or local militia would be after him was ditch the pistol, or if capture wasn’t appealing, then use it to commit suicide.
Anyone who thinks that a pilot on his own with a standard issue service pistol could put up a credible fight against soldiers armed with rifles has little or no real experience of firearms.
The service issue .38 calibre Enfield used in WW2 was regarded with derision by serious users of pistols. The popular Mk6 Webley was probably the best service revolver ever made and used in both wars, but it was basically issued to officers and was more a weapon used to shoot laggards on your own side when going over the top in that hell that was WW1 trench warfare, or in leading troops attacking some objective, than actually shooting at the enemy all of whom were armed with rifles and automatic weapons with much greater range, accuracy and striking power than a revolver or self-loading pistol, whatever its calibre.
Pistols were issued to airman as a part of their survival kit, but as I said the reality was that a couple of common soldiers armed with rifles are more than a match for any pilot armed with a revolver. They can stay out of pistol range and quietly go about their business of potting whoever it is who is silly enough to shoot at them with a pistol – it’s a matter of range and accuracy basically and the fact that over about 25 yards most people cannot hit anything with a pistol, especially if they are trying to evade capture, all the noise would only draw fatal attention. That is why so many of those who parachuted to safety wound up alive and well in POW camps. They may have been shot down but they were neither suicidal nor stupid, so they tossed the pistol – that’s why so many wound up as war souvenirs.
I do speak from some actual knowledge of pistols and their potential – I own quite a lot of quite serviceable working ones. Sure they look glamorous in a wild western sort of way but glamor ain’t much defence against serious firearms.
Very nice but isn’t a two seater Boomerang a Wirraway? 😀
Personally I would have preferred it as a single-seater.
What a lovely aircraft, thanks for posting that.
I’ve often wondered, what is the reality of the Hunter being an excellent fighter?
Its close support and ground attack history is excellent, but was it the superb pure day fighter that we often hear?
From most accounts, even though it was a rather lovely looking aircraft and seems to have done well as a GA aircraft, it wasn’t a particularly stand out fighter. The F86 was considered to be a much better pure fighter.
I seem to recall one aviation writer who had worked at Hawkers saying that he got into some trouble with Sir Sidney Camm by suggesting that it would have been a nicer looking aircraft if it had had an extra 2 feet of fuselage ahead of the intakes.
Certainly it had some design problems like the location of the airbrake and the problem of ejected casings actually being forced by the slipsteam to hit the bottom of the fuselage (hence the Sabrinas).
But nothing is perfect and what it lacked in the fighter department it made up for in good looks 🙂
Hi all,
Anyone with a suggestion where to find on the net (or in a book) a production list of the Beech Model 17, aka Staggerwing?
Kind regardsCoert
Try and get a copy of Staggerwing by Robert T Smith, privately published in 1967, this has details of every one built. It was a limited edition so it may be expensive.
I’m currently building a 1/72 Beech 18, and the marking scheme on the back gives two options, one USN and the other RAF. The RAF one is supposed to be KJ555, based in India, 1945. The colour scheme for it is dark green and ocean grey on top, with medium sea grey undersides. Is this accurate for a SEAC Beech 18 in 1945?
The only colour reference I have is the Exeter based Beech 18 painted in SEAC markings, which is dark green/dark brown over light blue. Any thoughts/information/photographs (especially as i’m yet to see any photos of Beech 18’s in RAF service, even b/w) welcome.
Cheers, Rob
If the aircraft is painted according to the theatre scheme in 1945 it should be DG/DE over MSG. Light Blue would be a bit unlikely as it was no longer in use in RAF schemes at that time.