I think perhaps here we have a case in point, and a problem with history. Various parties are arguing that bombing had various different effects and levels of success. Trying to recover the original purpose of the thread, the revisionist version of this debate is quite simply that bombing alone did not win the war, which some parties at the time thought it might. However, bombing did contribute to the winning of the war and perhaps its chief value was in maintaining the morale of the allies’ civilian population at a time when there was no realistic alternative to carrying on the war.

We can dispute the effects of the campaign until we are blue in the face but it is getting rather off topic IMO.

“The tail fin flash is missing and instead a light coloured (white?) symbol is on the tail. An odd shape, like pointy forward then going circular then squared off against the rudder. That in turn has a slightly darker circle on it, maybe in yellow.”

Dave that sounds like the pre-war squadron badge style of Fighter Command aircraft. It was replaced when war broke out. The dark roundel you describe is also pre-war. I suspect this is a photo of prewar crash that has been recycled for wartime propaganda. The DL codes are then most likely on 54 Squadron Spitfire that crashed in early 1939.

That all fits… The squadron badge was carried on a white ‘spear’ in the early camoflage schemes. Add that to the inaccurate codes and odd colours/roundel configuration suggests that this is a photo that has been recycled to fit an actual event, possibly for security as well as availability reasons.

Is it possible to make out what kind of propeller is fitted? That could date it more accurately too.

Good one John. Along the same lines is the RE-8 that landed in W.W.I ‘intact’ (dunno if the undercarriage was wiped off) after the crew were both killed in the air – they’d shot down the Albatross that’s now in the Australian War Memorial, and no-one believed they’d been even hurt as their aircraft went off apparently under control…

If someone wants to search for the full SP they are welcome.

With the legendary stability (and pedestrian performance) of many early First war recon types it wouldn’t surprise me if things like this weren’t more widespread.

(I remember reading a long time ago of an Avro 504 that the pilot left with the engine running only to turn round and see it take off by itself – the pilot and another chased it in a car for a few minutes after which it landed in a field, completely unharmed. But I can’t remember if this was in a contemporary memoire or Biggles. I was reading both at around the same time…)

Revisionist history…

Hmmm… Prime example, Miles M-52 v Bell X-1 the ‘all moving tail’ story… :rolleyes:

I suspect you mean this pejoratively, though my apologies if you don’t…

However, this is a perfect example. ‘Orthodoxy’ has it that Bell got their maths right from more-or-less day one and this virtually kick started the supremacy the US has in both civil and military aviation ever since. Meanwhile, the British DH108 gets same sums badly wrong with the loss of G. de Havilland and the lead in the aeronautic arms race. It is important for many reasons – indicative of the US reborn as a global superpower, and proving that the frontier spirit is alive and well. Britain is a spent force, its days of exploration over. The new world triumphs over the old.

Now the revision. In the 1990s, a British project which was cancelled the year before the sound barrier was broken gets revisited in the light of its similarity of layout to the Bell X-1, the all-moving tail being part of the design from the start and the fact that some people connected with the project claim that a technology transfer agreement was reneged on by Bell – they handed over their data and got nothing in return.

This story encapsulates for me everything that is good and bad about revisionism, and both the academic and populist senses of the word.

Academically, we have another side to the traditional story. The revelation that there were others with the technology to break the sound barrier than the US, and that possibly, some of that technology (perhaps the key part of that technology) was used to do so. The achievement of the US is viewed in its wider context, valuable in purely historical terms.

In populist terms, this allows the British to feel better about themselves, to knock a hero (Yeager) down to size (a staple of the populist-revisionist – the BBC documentary on this subject took great pleasure in showing Yeager’s reaction to being told that the all-flying tail came from Miles, revealing him to be petty and arrogant in our eyes) and to revel in the imagined glory of what might have been. It lets us get one over on the Americans, who we see as bullying, muscle-flexing, sabre-rattling and imperialistic. It allows us to share in the Americans’ victory while diminishing their own achievements. Both give us satisfaction. It’s also indicative of the British love of the underdog – the brilliant, driven individuals persecuted by bureaucracy win through against the odds (cf. R.J. Mitchell, Frank Whittle, Barnes Wallis), or doesn’t (Scott, Shackleton etc.) – which we like even better.

The Buccaneer website you linked to is SUPERB! Thank you.

No bother! As privately run ‘fan’ sites go, it’s amazing. The guy who runs it is a top bloke, very friendly and knowledgeable.

I’m not sure what the point of this is…the Buccaneer was a dedicated strike machine…the Tomcat was an interceptor which was later adapted to do limited strike roles…while retaining its interceptor equipment. A bit “chalk & cheese” if you ask me.

I given its basic design and upgrades, I would expect a Bucc to excel the strike role.

The Tomcat was a great interceptor & air to air fighter.
The Buc was a great strike aircraft.

Can’t disagree with anything there.

How did the performance of the Bucc compare to the tomcat during the first Gulf conflict?

How come they were withdrawn within a few years of being upgraded? Has nayone noticed a trend to spend billions upgrading airframes which then up as spares recovery, museum or gate exhibits?

Would the buccaneer still be in service now if it wasnt for defence cuts?

What chance of Duxford getting a Tomcat?

I won’t pretend that I am not hugely, hugely biased in this (my nom de forum and avatar might give that away slightly) but the Bucc wins it hands, feet and any other appendages down.

Actually, I’m not sure what to compare here as the Tomcat was surely a fleet fighter where the Buccaneer was used as a laser designator for Tornado strike aircraft, then as a strike aircraft in its own right – and excelled in both roles.

There is a fantastic article about the use of Buccaneers in Operation Granby on http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk as of last week, with details of the C-130 and An-12 and numerous bridges and airfields that were attacked and destroyed by Buccaneers. From this (although the author, Andy White is about as objective as I am when it comes to the Buccaneer) it is possible to discern that the Buccaneer was a highly effective attack aircraft even four decades after it was conceived.

Not sure about the Tomcat in Gulf War 1 I’m afraid.

As for the retirement of the Buccaneer Binbrook 01 has it right – although the airframe life on most of the existing aircraft was getting low. Still, an extensive refurb programme plus an avionics upgrade could have kept the aircraft in the air for another decade or so. It was by no means past it.

Looks like a Miles Hawk to me, the pre-war version of the Magister. MMMMmmm.

I found a resin model of the Falcon in Sweden. In fact, a resin model of my actual aircraft in Swedish WW2 military colours.

HP

Whoops, I meant Hawk. It’s these bird of prey names get me all the time, lucky I never worked for Rolls Royce, it would have been a disaster.

See http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/Kiwi_Resins.htm for the full range.

Can’t wait for their Percival Mew Gull to come out – should be ready any time now

Check out http://www.Shuttleworth.org for display dates, let me know when you are coming and I’ll arrange to meet you – no problem to crawl over my aircraft. The best time would be during the morning of an evening display.

A lot of stuff is already out there on my aircraft – an hour on the Net will provide you with some good basic information.

A model of the Falcon – 1 x 6th scale I think, was featured recently in RC Model World. I’m looking forward to seeing that fly – the plan is very accurate too.

HP

Plus the new 1/48 scale resin model from Kiwi Resin…