If anyone has any copies of my Grandad and my book they want signing, I will be there Saturday!

Nice shots indeed….the Dak has quite a nose low attitude on landing.

Did the film security think they were Paps? Cannot see why they have a right to complain at toggys?

Shrapnel, birdstrikes, shards etc. Spraying liquids, gases, fumes………same reasons as aircrew wear clear visors today…

I have seen it in the ‘flesh’ at Stead – he has put in substantial money and effort. I congratulate him for that.

It is too easy for our army of armchair critics to sit back, sup their GnT and pronounce their disdain! When I built a kit car, my older brother guffawed at my choice and said ‘Why did you build that, I would’ve built a cobra’ – I said ‘well where’s yours?!’

Regarding pitch sensitivity, it is like alot of life – shortening the moment arm is not the whole story. The vert tail of the original MB5 was huge, presumably to improve spin recovery – again, not the whole story!! The designer has lots of tricks to create issues and attempt to get out of them!

Cracking!!

As you no doubt know, in the period you mention they would have had a CAR, sometimes down as a CA Release or Controller Air Release (the predecessor to the RTS).

The issue you may have is that most aircraft had initial clearances etc reflecting a lower capability. The Boscombe Museum has an extensive archive, but what you really need is access to the reports. Each type (and the testing conducted) really is a case by case basis. In that period, aircraft types tested ran into 100s. For example, derivatives required less assessment etc.