That explains why there was a Wasp in the car park of Oxted Morrison’s a couple of months ago then. I passed it on the train and wondered whether it had force landed!
Used to live in East Anglia so was spoiled (going back a few years now) used to see F-111s, Hercs on an almost daily basis, as well as some notable occasionals, a flight of Jaguars, an F-15 once, the Red Arrows twice and a Shackleton.
These days I live under the Gatwick flightpath so see very little of a military nature 🙁 – in fact all there’s been was a Nimrod last year, landing and then taking off a few days later. It was noisy and impressive though, can’t wait ’til the Airfix one comes out!
At work, I can see a tiny patch of sky over towards the Thames so from time to time see Chinooks, Lynxs, Gazelles…
It wont be going anywhere until it pays for itself and comes off of the books and struck off charge, its currently on charge for “various training”, then it will make a short hop over the fence to join gatwick aviation museum, where it will get some long awaited tlc. The comet nose section migrated North a about the same time the comet was chopped up.
MJR
Oh, the Comet was chopped up was it? I wondered what happened to it. Shame.
Glad the museum is getting the Herald though, they’ve got a decent collection there and they look after it very well considering the short sightedness of the council not letting them build any structures to get any of the airframes under cover.
(When I read the title to the post I thought you were referring to the local paper 😀 )
Nice pictures guys. Keep them comming.
Does anyone have more photos of British or French cold war bomber or fighter designs?
OK, here is the Hawker P.1121 – not strictly a prototype (the pic is a mock up) and the Air Ministry showed annoyingly little interest in it as they were more concerned with Mach 356 fighters the size of a 747 armed with missiles with a hundredweight of electronics. The P.1121 was a Mach 2-2.5 air superiority fighter and strike aircraft designed by Sydney Camm to be powered by a single de Havilland Gyron or Bristol Olympus. Any hope it would have had was squashed by the same 1957 White Paper that did for the Fairey Delta 3.
In my opinion it could have been a very fine aircraft that would have supported the Lightning very well and kept the UK up with its competitors in the design stakes up through the 60s and 70s. It was briefly resurrected to pitch for the same spec that the TSR2 was designed to meet but as it couldn’t spin plates while performing Swan Lake and riding a unicycle backwards it was rejected. Shame.

Fairey’s successful tender for the F.155T specification was unofficially called the Delta 3 – the spec called for Mach 2.5, with capability to be developed to Mach 3, two 25,000 thrust de Havilland Gyron engines, and startup-to-60,000ft in four minutes. This would have been an enormous, awesome fighter and even if the Defence White Paper of 1957 hadn’t cancelled all manned fighter projects I doubt it would have ever got beyond the prototype stage. It was based on the company’s massively successful Delta 2 research aircraft but would have been vastly bigger – apparently the fuselage cross section was about the same as a double decker bus!
This model looks similar to an Avro CF105 Arrow in layout, but Avro were consulted about the CF105 during the tender process but the Arrow would not have fulfilled the specification so it was not pursued. Which tells you how demanding the spec was, given how capable the CF105 was considered to be.
Other unsuccessful tenders were a larger, area-ruled Lightning development and a huge stacked-engine, delta canard from Supermarine.
The Scimitar loss rate is shocking for an aircraft that only saw peacetime service!
I’d be interested to know how many Blackburn Firebrands were lost as well, I seem to remember it’s high. Given the problems with swing on take off and the considerable visibility issues on landing I wouldn’t be surprised.
I would be interested to see how individual aircraft are assessed, or graded as to their significance. If you could save only 3 of the following, how would one do so?
1/ Hawker Typhoon. – Sole survivor, USA evaluation aircraft, no service use.
2/ Fairey Barracuda II. – Salvaged wreckage, sole survivor, FAA service use.
3/ Bristol Brigand. – Damaged fuselage only, sole survivor.
4/ de Havilland Sea Vampire 1 – Prototype, one of few early vampires left.
5/ de Havilland Mosquito – Prototype, one of few early mosquito’s left.
6/ Gloster E.28/39 – First UK jet powered aircraft.
7/ Supermarine Spitfire MK.IX, MH434 – Combat record, continually flown for past 60+ years, mostly original.
8/ Vickers Valiant – Dropped UK’s first atomic bomb.
9/ Avro York – Complete preserved, memorial to the Berlin airlift.
10/ de Havilland DH.88 Comet Racer – Race winner.
Could we scrap one Spitfire each, or three T6s each to save all of the above?
Various ideas have been batted around on this forum at various stages without a clear consensus on how to deal with the problems. Myself and WV838 took things off forum at one point to discuss a possible way forward, but with our other commitments there was no way we were going to be able to take the formation of an organisation to help things along.
The suggestion was of a web based network aimed at publicising projects, directing would-be volunteers to local projects, raising support and money for preservation of ‘at risk’ artefacts and creating a body for lobbying.
The suggested aims and objectives I reproduce below in case they inspire anyone.
The Society for the Preservation of Aviation Heritage
Mission
To improve historic aviation enthusiasts’ access to preservation, to provide opportunities for them to get involved in local or national projects, to raise funds for preservation and to provide a voice for enthusiasts to lobby for preservation issues.
Aims
• To form a broad church society devoted to the preservation of at-risk articles of aviation heritage
• For the society to be as accessible, easy to join and welcoming as possible
• To keep the community widely informed about ongoing preservation projects and how they can help
• To allow ‘armchair’ enthusiasts and those with time-pressures to become involved in one off projects by giving time, money or support
• To co-operate and collaborate (and avoid competition) with existing groups and museums to help further the cause of aviation preservation
• To provide a central point for members to raise money and share knowledge for individual preservation projects
• To provide a central point for lobbying government, councils and other bodies where there may be a benefit to the preservation movement in so doing
Objectives
• For the society to utilise online and e-technology in order to enable the broadest possible access, and be web-based rather than location-based
• To use this technology to keep members and potential members fully informed, involved and up to date with ongoing projects
• To allow members to vote on issues that they feel the society should be involved in and lobby for or against
• To provide a network of people with skills, knowledge, resources and time – a resource library and a catalogue of people with manuals for example
• To maintain a list of ongoing projects that people can become involved in either run by members of the society or not
Definitely so, as long as some in depth research goes into it. As I read it she actually had 3 swordfish available at the time and nothing was said about the lift being put out of action. That’s why deep research is needed, so that the truth can be told. But then the film makers are not noted for letting the truth spoil a good story.
Part of the problem with this era is that many of the squadron records were lost when Glorious (and later Ark Royal) was sunk, so there are a lot of conflicting stories and the official line tends to be quite sparing in terms of detail. That’s probably not the reason films are often so hideously and needlessly inaccurate though. I think for the most part it comes from film makers or studios underestimating the intelligence of their audience.
My fault really for confusing IIM and IIIF.
Funny how we’ve come from a Mach 2.75 strike bomber to a wooden-framed biplane fighter in the space of one thread, all thanks to three little letters!
Thirded. And I really hope she puts in some airshow appearances this year.
I can’t remember where I read it but I do remember the account I read of the sinking of HMS Glorious. Apparently She was commanded at the time by an ex submariner who forbade them to keep any aircraft ranged on deck or fly recce patrols. His reasoning was that recce patrols would alert the enemy that they were in the area and he wouldn’t have any aircraft ranged on deck as “it looked untidy”. As a result they knew the enemy was around somewhere but only found out where when it was too late.
Very possibly the captain did not like aircraft ranged on his deck, but when Glorious left Norway she only had one serviceable Swordfish and no fighters anyway. There certainly weren’t the resources for a proper CAP at this stage. I think they did try to get an aircraft up but a shell struck the lift and prevented any aircraft being taken on deck. Also the captain of the Scharnhorst cannily attacked from upwind so Glorious would have had to turn towards him to launch aircraft. Finally, some of her boilers were out of action so she could not make best speed. All in all a very sad episode, but crying out for a film.
The original biplane Firefly was a single seat fighter and a contemporary of the 111F.
Right you are. In any case the Fairey TSRI was the forebear of the Swordfish which crashed after getting into an uncontrollable spin. The aircraft was redesigned with a longer tail and slightly swept back wings to cure this trait.
At the beginning of the war the term ‘TSR’ was used generically to refer to aircraft of this type (although only the Swordfish fulfilled this role from the end of the Blackburn Shark to the introduction of the Albacore) and Swordfish squadrons were known as ‘TSR squadrons’ as opposed to Sea Gladiator and Skua squadrons which were ‘fighter squadrons’. Not sure how long this lasted.
Here are some subjects of films I would rather see than a Dam Busters remake, and would be just as exciting – more for the value of being relatively fresh subjects.
1. The Norway campaign in 1940 (including FAA Skuas sinking a cruiser in a dive bombing attack that proves so successful they are called upon to make a more-or-less suicide attack on the Scharnhorst, or perhaps RAF Hurricanes successfully land on HMS Glorious to save the valuable aircraft only for the ship to be sunk by German battlecruisers)
2. The attack on the Italian fleet in Taranto (it has everything, the underdog triumphs, bold new strategy changes the balance of power etc. etc.)
3. The raids on the Tirpitz, particularly Operation Tungsten
4. The 2nd TAF in Holland/Germany in 1945 – the loss rate and strain this had on the pilots of the side that was nonetheless winning would give this a rather ‘Aces High in WW2’ feel, showing that victory is very, very hard and comes at a price.
…And as for His Dark Materials, thanks, but I’ll just reread Paradise Lost.
Are we not confusing our Fireflies? The Fairey IIIF was also called Firefly I believe. The fighter Firefly was indeed intended to have a reconnaissance function as indeed were all (purpose designed) British naval fighters of the day.
I think the ‘R’ in the FR1 may have stood for radar as only radar equipped aircraft were given this designation (although it was specifically for recon function…)
I had heard another version of the TSR2 numbering story, and that is that the Canberra was retrospectively considered to be the TSR1 and as the BAC aircraft was replacing it, it came second in that designation despite the designation being new.