That first photo is a peach!
they will play their cards close to their chest.
And even closer after they are located!
Thought it might amuse you.
‘Spitfire Survivors’ lists it as allocated to 165 Sqdn at Detling coded SK-M on 30/8/44. No mention of 163 Sqdn :confused:
Mark, do your Movement Card notes confirm this please?
Don’t worry you will not have to endure it much longer if what I heard is correct: the channel has been axed in the USA and replaced with a Discovery ‘Military History’ (or similar) type of channel, part of the programing material being aviation stuff. If its going there it will not last long here I suspect.
Voytech,
In my notes I have her going to 329 Sqn at RAF Merston on 15/06/1944 and then to 163 Sqn on 30/08/1944
Hope this is useful
‘Spitfire Survivors’ lists it as allocated to 165 Sqdn at Detling coded SK-M on 30/8/44. No mention of 163 Sqdn :confused:
When’s the party 🙂
About six weeks ago!
Wow great responce so far now I guess what MkV is saying that and correct me if I’m wrong here MkV is that in the most part we all enjoy are Hobby and will go out of the way to let new people in but with that saids we still have to make sure we don’t drive away the next Warbird Pilot/Aircrew/Mech.
I agree Rob, I am not exactly old yet (born 1965) but nearly all the people who I work with as volunteers are around the same age as me or older. There is not much young blood coming in to this business.
-that was pretty neat 75 feet over the Pacific in a Steep Left Bank
Presuming that was in the AT6, not the B17.
Sauron: Threads reporting what isn’t working in the U.N.
Mark V: Indeed, but, just because it is not a chat room, it is way better and more constructive to place some arguments on why you posted the link.
And not proposing an argument will leave the link open to any possible comment, in a completely disorganised way, most probably leading to a completely messed up thread in no time…
This thread like many other can lead to very interesting and / or instructive discussions, if the debatters take some time to post somewhat thought arguments, and of course stay civil…
Hi Frank, fair opinion but please answer my question regarding the rules. I ask this because your first post in response to the originaters post implied by the words ‘this will not be tolerated’ and ‘you have been warned’ that the post broke the rules and yet I cannot see any such rule. I am shocked that this general discussion forum appears to be moderated with such an iron hand as would appear to be the case if the thread originater has not broken a written rule.
Some people just cannot resist the temptation!
Anyway to return to topic – I think that the warbird world is not necassarily elitist but is widely seen as being so, with perhaps not enough being done to dispel this image.
Well Moggy the ‘hangers-on’ may not be in a position to divulge the full information. Granted its annoying to only hear part of the story, but ownership gives you the privelage to speak out if you wish or to keep things secret.
A very interesting thread, but where in the forum ‘rules’ is the requirment for a thread to have an argument? Moreover, the Webmaster’s rules require us to remember that this is a bulletin board, not a ‘chatroom’.
Surely the topic of the link promotes reasonable discussion. I fail to see how not proposing an argument could promote ‘flaming’. It would seem to me that the opposite is more likely to be the case.
HXXXX HXXX’X decision would have been the same no matter who you were or what your background. I believe they have refused requests from retired Air Marshals before now, for the same reasons outlined below. It does seem a harsh policy that denies access now to people who may have spent many hours flying that aircraft in the past for example due to Health and Safety legislation we are unable to allow access to the Liberator. Not even a volunteer here who served as a pilot in them during WW2 is allowed access. Please be assured it is simply Museum policy.
Sincerely,
CXXXX
Who the hell do they think owns these exhibits anyway?
plan was dropped because the role of a carrier-borne fighter was already filled.
No – it was because no US carrier at the time was equiped to store ethelyne glycol 😀