A well deserved award in my opinion. I’ve met John a few times over the years and he once very kindly gave myself and some friends a private tour of the RNHF and allowed me to sit in the cockpit of the Firefly. I have often thought his valiant attempt to save the Sea Fury by bouncing it along the runway on one wheel trying to get the other gear leg down before having to take it up and bail out was incredibly brave and worthy of more recognition than it got at the time. It could so easily have gone horribly wrong for him. He is also an excellent chap to get chatting to in the bar, many brilliant stories!

Re: my comments in 11, this is from the Fly Navy Heritage Trust website

‘We exist to support the Nation’s Naval Aviation Heritage, by raising money for the RN Historic Flight, for the FAA Museum and for St Bartholomew’s FAA Church’

So are they going to be setting up to operate her themselves as a separate concern or will the RNHF be maintaining and hopefully flying her. This would make more sense as it would save a possble doubling up on resources, hangarage etc. at Yeovilton.

As a side note, if you are visiting Yeovilton take the time to visit St Bartholomews FAA Church. Lots of history including RN and FAA tributes.

Who will fly/operate her then? Forgive my ignorance but I thought the Historic trust was the money raising and organisational part of the RNHF. Is this not the case?

Any truth in the story that the smaller calibre rounds are intended to wound more than kill? The idea being, I was once told that 1 man dead = 1 man out of the unit/patrol/skirmish whereas 1 man wounded = 3+ men out of the unit/patrol/skirmish or patrol abandoned etc. due to getting the wounded man back plus using up enemy transport and medical resources. Is this based on fact or just popular myth?

Sorry, typo on my part, I meant bipod. As I said just passing on what I saw and found interesting.
That incident you describe could have been disastrous!! Good job No. 2 was alert. Was there any action taken afterwards?

Do automatic weapons really have inaccuracy designed in?

From a recent documentary I saw then apparently yes. They were talking about and demonstrating WW2 machine guns, Sten, Tommy etc. They were looking at the Bren gun and firing it and the shots are closely grouped. This is apparently a disadvantage for this type of weapon where shot needs to spread to make sure ‘they keep their heads down’ when being fired at. For maximum effect the shot needs to spread. They stated that modern automatic weapons are actually designed with a degree of inaccuracy to get the shot to spread.
It was on the telly so it must be definitely, certainly, absolutely true 🙂

[QUOTE=Creaking Door;2164659]How so? I can’t think of any reason that full-auto capability would result in fewer casualties?

Presumably he is referring to the fact that automatic weapons are designed to have a degree of inaccuracy built in to get a spread of shot on the battlefield whereas a rifle or a weapon on single shot is aimed at a specific target and therefore more likely to score a hit.

They shouldn’t have broken both of his arms, some poor sod has to wipe his **** now.