dark light

Ant.H

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 2,663 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: East Kirkby this Saturday… #982144
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Here’s a YouTube clip showing some of the ‘tinkering’ that goes on in the U/C bay prior to start up:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3u5pqwNjGw

    Not my footage, so I’ve linked it rather than inserting it in my post.

    in reply to: 453rd Bomb Group Old Buckenham – new images #985585
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Hi Biggles1049,

    I’m sure these pictures are much appreciated by everyone who’s seen them, many thanks for sharing them. Forums can be misleading sometimes, it’s one of those cases where the forum could really do with a “Like” button as a means of showing interest.

    As Andy mentioned, it’s intriguing to see nose art semi-obscured by cockpit armour. Does anyone have any info on when the extra armour was introduced? It seems to have been applied on all 2nd Air Division Libs after a certain date.

    in reply to: Painting RAF aircraft? #987369
    Ant.H
    Participant

    As an example, there’s the famous incident of the Spitfire that only lasted 25mins, Dunlop Urie’s X4110. Written off before the unit codes could be applied:

    http://www.aviationbanter.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8571&d=1175325735

    in reply to: Hawker Hurricane MkI P3717 – rebuild update #989079
    Ant.H
    Participant

    I can’t help thinking a “Gathering of Hurricanes” theme would work well at a Dunsfold show, what with all the Hawker/Brooklands connections.

    Ant.H
    Participant

    Well it’s rather late in the evening, but I’m going to chip in again. Deep breath…

    This debate is several-fold, and many of the points have been covered and debated. One aspect which hasn’t been mentioned much is the fact that we’re discussing this on an open forum, and the responsibilities which come with that. One of my key objections, and I should really have mentioned this sooner, is that we are here on an aviation forum as enthusiasts, and as such I feel it’s only responsible to promote the best way of doing things. By that I mean that to give casual attention to the problem, or even to say that it’s ok, people do it etc, goes against the things that we are here to discuss, enjoy and support.

    I’m probably being ridiculously old fashioned, but it just seems ironic. Who are the people who are supposed to be the keenest supporters of events? Me and you. Yes, it must be tacitly admitted that people freeload (I still don’t understand why some are taking such offence to the term, it fits perfectly. It’s not derogatory, check a dictionary) but it’s daft to be on an aviation forum taking casual acceptance of things that work against aviation events.

    I also don’t understand how some still can’t see the implications in the event of a worst case scenario. The airspace restrictions at venues are arranged around fixed points, a village over here, a farm over there, crowd on that side of the field and so on. What they can’t take into account are groups and individuals dotted around the landscape, and if something should happen it will still be the organiser picking up the trouble and the tab. It’s bad enough that an accident should happen at a show, but it would possibly be the ruin of the entire industry if a freeloader were killed or injured and the authorities decided that the organiser had to guarantee the safety of everyone attracted to future shows. It would at the very least put insurance through the roof. Of course, it would also be doubly tragic if others were needlessly involved in an accident, people’s safety is the priority after all.

    I accept that there is a certain small risk to the crowd at a show, but this is about as small as the risk can be.

    Ant.H
    Participant

    Following TN’s invitation to elaborate a bit, here goes.

    The basic problem is that it affects everyone, not just the person or groups of people directly ‘freeloading’. There are problems with trespass, damage to crops, gates, fences and so on, clogging up local roads/lanes with people and parked cars making life difficult for locals, loitering on public footpaths (technically a criminal offence I’ve been told) in addition to the previously stated risks of pilot distraction and so on.

    All of these effects ripple back to the event and its organisers, who do their level best to minimise the negative effects on the local population and ensure a safe show for all. It can also give the decent airshow goers a bad name; I well remember being told where to go and what to do with myself when I got there when I asked directions from a local on leaving a Biggin show about 15 years ago. He’d had freeloaders in the road and even standing in his driveway on and off all afternoon, and he was sick of the sight of us enthusiasts. I bet the organisers have fun trying to win local support after things like that.

    As for people watching from their back gardens, why shouldn’t they? Built up areas are a fixed feature which can be taken into account when drawing up display plans, and a view of the show is the least the locals deserve for putting up with the noise and extra traffic on local roads. They’re not being unsafe and they’re not dodging anything.

    As for the freeloading term, is it really that derogatory? It’s a general description of someone who gets something without paying. You could even argue that the extra risk and fuss freeloaders cause makes them worthy of something even stronger.

    In summary, I didn’t want to hijack this thread but some of things that were being said were just barmy and I couldn’t let it pass without comment. With freeloading already being a problem, it’s important to counter any suggestion that freeloading is normal or to encourage any increase by shrugging shoulders at the problem.

    Ant.H
    Participant

    Its correct to point out the dangers present to those who watch from outside the paid enclosure of an airfield, and I’m sure everyone weighs up the risks. To categorize them all as freeloaders is not becoming. I hope you don’t do it again.

    Errr…what? I don’t understand that opinion in the slightest. There are many reasons why freeloading is a bad idea, and I don’t see much of a problem in calling people who don’t pay anything “freeloaders”. Perhaps there are some who pay and then go back out for a different angle, but that’s probably a minority and still a bad idea.

    I’d elaborate further but I don’t want to hijack the thread.

    in reply to: Cosford's "Butcher Bird" #1006224
    Ant.H
    Participant

    I had a squint in the cockpit a coulpe of months ago. At the time the stick top was missing, the original harness was still fitted, as were most of the instruments. Still intrigued that its an unarmed variant ?

    As far as I’m aware, almost all the Mistel 190’s had guns removed in order to save weight as there were early problems with the Ju88’s suffering tyre bursts because of the combined weight.

    in reply to: Cosford's "Butcher Bird" #1007984
    Ant.H
    Participant

    It’s been at IWM Lambeth for a number of years J Boyle (it also went to Duxford briefly in the 80’s for a repaint), but it was recently returned to RAFM as a result of the revamp that’s going on at Lambeth.

    I must admit I never realised it was so complete internally, it’s interesting to see it with panels off exposing all the gubbins.

    It would interesting to see any pictures of it in its past guises, especially when first captured.

    in reply to: Rocs? #937067
    Ant.H
    Participant

    I can’t add any specific identities to the Rocs earmarked for Finland, but the July/August 2001 of Air Enthusiast states that all the aircraft were to come from stocks held by 20 MU, Aston Down. It might be possible to chase up the identities and other details if you (or someone else on the forum) can get access to 20 MU’s ORB’s.

    in reply to: The Sinsheim museum in Germany. #468149
    Ant.H
    Participant

    I don’t know the intimate details, but the basics are that museums and other organisations in Germany are allowed to display swastikas as long as they have a licence to do so. I think there is also the stipulation that the exhibit(s) must be kept indoors and out of casual sight, hence the ban on swastikas on airworthy aircraft for example.

    Anyway, great shots, more please!

    in reply to: YB-A (RN135) Mark XIVe Spitfire (17th Squadron) #943706
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Hello Jim,

    It’s a bit of a long shot, but there was an issue of Air Enthusiast published several years ago which carried an article on the air component of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force of Japan. I have a copy of it somewhere which I’ll try and dig out, I’m pretty sure there’s a photo of RN135 in it. I’ll check and get back to you!

    Edited: I’ve had a look and it seems the picture of ‘135 is the same as that found on the SM832 thread elsewhere on the forum.

    in reply to: Sinsheim and Speyer museums #945686
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing.

    (Edited in the light of David’s post, Pembroke wings not B25.)

    in reply to: Seafire SX336 #945704
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Well I don’t know about everyone else, but I’d love to see ‘336 stay in the same colours. What scheme is planned for SX300? Perhaps ‘336 could stay as she is and ‘300 could have the lower demarcation, earlier roundals etc?

    I wonder if there’s anyone reading this with a few million quid to spare who might fancy purchasing the Mk.XV PR503 from the US? We can but dream…

    in reply to: First Flight Bristol Boxkite Replica CFS-3 #946200
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Absolutely fantastic! Congratulations to everyone at Point Cook.

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 2,663 total)