Two pictures I took of the B-26 at Duxford in 1978.
The Aliens were obviously keen to learn about our latest advancements in combat aircraft and motor racing.
Thank you for the clarification.
How are the French operators of “Pink Lady” affected by this Directive?
Or is France implementing it differently?
But it’s not “Legislation” as such. It’s based on an EU Directive which can be amended by member countries as they see fit.
If you wan’t to blame anyone, blame the CAA.
Spot on JDK – British bureaucrats hide behind the EU regulators far too often.
There is a very subtle agenda at work in the UK (emanating from the Civil Service but backed up by the tabloid press) that everything emanating from Brussels is, de facto, “bad” for Britain.
No doubt, Brussels makes many blunders (as do all rule makers) but some of what they actually do is quite good.
It’s a pity not all us licence payers (who pay for BBC 4) are allowed watch the channel.
I think that there is a huge amount pf polticking going on concerning this issue. I really do think that the Sally B organisation are being “run up the flagpole” to highlight the POTENTIAL seriousness of the situation – rather than the ACTUAL seiousness.
As I said earlier, lets see how many Continental based large warbirds end up being grounded because of these new “rules”. My hunch is that none of them will.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in mainland Europe – particularly to see how the French B-17 “Pink Lady” is affected. From my observation of EU regulations, there are always exemptions, exceptions and delays available to each member country. Ironically, France often makes full use of these exemptions. Britain, on the other hand, tends to adopt EU regulation with gusto, sometimes enhancing them to make them seem even more draconian – and then telling the public that it is all the EU’s fault.
Britain palys the Euro card far too often for my liking and I do suspect ulterior motives at times.
It also features a rather unconvincing portrayal of a Learjet “belly landing”.
Although it is an interesting film, I really feel it did the US space programme a huge disservice. I’m pretty sure that very few “moon landing hoax” theories would have become so established if “Capricorn 1” had not been made. It also contains loads of technical nonsenses – like the assumption that a Mars mission could be carried out using an Apollo Saturn V launcher and that the Mars landing could be carried out by a version of the Grumman Lunar Module.
The director of the film, Peter Hyams, went on to direct the much better (and more believeable – at least technologically speaking) “2010 – Odyssey Two”.
The P1154 was looked on as the operational development of the P1127. Although touted for the Royal Navy, the Admirals were not enthusiastic about it, mainly because they could foresee their beloved big carriers being reduced in size to suit the aircraft’s V/STOL capabilities. The RAF were not to keen on it either as they cpould see the fact that the exploitation of V/STOL resulted in loss of capability in other areas (range, payload, equipment etc). The P1154 therefore had few friends where it mattered and it was no surprise that it was eventually cancelled. However, in the meantime the joint UK/US/West German Tripartite Squadron had been test flying a development of the P1127 , the Kestrel, in operational conditions and were discovering how useful V/STOL could really be in the field. In particular, the US Marines saw great potential in a fully operation V/STOL aircraft. As a result, the Kestrel was further developed into the AV-8A/Harrier GR1 and ended up with the “super” Harriers in service today.
Ironically, eventually the Royal Navy DID lose its big carriers and had to make do with the Invincible class “Through Deck Cruisers” kitted out with air defence versions of the V/STOL Harrier.
I’d go for the B-17 too, but you have to remeber how old a design it was. By the middle of WW2 it was really obsolescent but, because of thw necessities of war, was built in huge nembers. However, being an early all metal aircraft, it was somewhat over engineered (like the DC-3/C-47) for which many aircrew were very grateful. I would hazard a guess that a B-17 could sustain greater battle damage than a B-24 and still keep flying.
Was the Paget process authentic colour or a technique for colourising what were really monochrome images?
Lovely.
Nice to see so many still (potentially) flyable.
NASCAR is the most popular form of motor racing in the US. Since Rockingham opened her in the UK, the track has been trying to promote a UK version of NASCAR called ASCAR.
NASCAR/ASCAR races can be quite dramatic, with lots of spins and hefty impacts. However, like American football, trying to persuade Europeans to watch something culturally very alien is proving very difficult.
Popped in today – no photos taken but I thought I’d just let you know that the chap who originated Maintrack Models has donated his entire collection of 1/72 British prototype and experimental aircraft to FAST. The models were being delivered today so should be on display within a few days.
Maybe not as good as the real thing but a highly appropriate display given the nature of the type of flying that went on at the RAE.