I do recognise that De Havilland were entering new territory with the Comet – especially for them as I am pretty sure that they had never built a pressurised aircraft up to that time. However, other UK companies had already made pressurised aircraft with Vickers probably being the most experienced in Britain. I can think of NO accident to any other pressurised aircraft caused by structural failure due to inadequate consideration of fatigue stress factors – even in earlier designs than the Comet.
When you look at DH’s history regarding structuralk failures, you will see that it was a weak point in many of their designs. In my opinion they were the “Lotus” of the aircraft world, lightness for performance at the expense of robustness for longevity.
Very few airliners of today have “round” windows – but they are all radiused and bonded correctly.
De Havilland should really have known better – even in the mid 1940s.
If the Humbrol brand is acquired in its entirety, that problem could be reolved too.
Getting away from the “Definition of Coupled” debate – did any of these “twinned engine” (as opposed to “twin engined”) projects produce efficient and reliable aircraft (apart from the Gannet)?
I suppose I was being a bit “loose” in describing the Double Mamba as being coupled but the point I was getting at was that I was assuming that the development of the Mamba/Double Mamba was what slowed the Gannet’s entry into service.
Is that a correct assumption?
They had some initial directional stability problems which is why those small fins were fitted to the tailplanes.
The big “slower upper” must have been the Double Mamba turboprop. Coupled engines are always trouble and the Mamba was almost unique to the Gannet, so the Gannet would have borne the brunt of any Double Mamba development problems.
Would I be right in suggesting that the Gannet was the only “coupled engine” aircraft to reach production AND have a successful career? The only other iarcraft with coupled engines that I can think of that reached production but which were notoriously unreliable were the Avro Manchester and Heinkel He177.
All other coupled engine projects never went beyond the prototype or test phase.
The report from The Examiner seems to be quite clued up. Apparently, Revell Germany has just been bought out by its own management and is now independent of the US original Revell/Monogram Inc. Revell Gmbh are now on the acquisition trail and Airfix/Humbrol is in their sights.
On the whole, I would be very pleased with this. Revell Gmbh have had a very imaginative and high quality kit release programme over the past few years – either through re-boxing and re-moulding (with updates and improvements) older models that had once been moulded by other companies (e.g. Frog, Matchbox ) or co-releases (e.g.Italeri) or brand new high quality indigenous kits. Their new Hunter is a gem, as is their Fokker DVII.
If this creates a bidding war between Revell and Hornby (who also expressed an interest in Airfix), even better.
As for the nationality of the ownership – in this day and age that is not really of relevance. As we all know, Airfix haven’t moulded kits in the UK since the early 1980s. The bulk of their production came from the Heller plant in France (the root cause of their present troubles). Their most recent kits were being moulded in China.
The Gannet first flew in 1949 and entered service with the Navy in 1954.
Can’t name the original designer but it was initially used as a carrier based anti-submarine aircraft. The version in the picture is the later Airborne Early Warning variant used by the Royal Navy up to 1978.
The Gannet is not that unknown an aircraft, having served with the Royal Navy for almost 25 years.
I have his 1983 RAF At Home St Athan display on video.
He referred to the RAF Phantom at that show as a ” heavy old hammer”.
He also commentated from the right hand seat of the Vintage Pair’s Vampire T11. It was raining heavilly (it was Wales, after all) and over the radio link you could hear the Vampire’s little wipers clattering away in a vain attempt to ckear the windscreen, which he thought highly amusing.
I try to spread my interests around. Apart from aviation (obviously) and my work (I’m a self employed accountant), I make scale models (mainly aircraft but also other subjects from time to time), sing and act with an operatic society, enjoy reading (mainly aviation related but not exclusively), indulge in some astronomy (at a very basic level) and reading up on space related matters and I generally try to keep up to date with the world in general.
I also own a Caterham 7 sports car so try and make use of that through “spirited” road driving and the odd track day or sprint event.
All in all, I have a tough time squeeezing it all in.
Was it ever released on DVD?
Ant Harringtom – the B-26 Marauder vas re-released a few months ago. I spent part of this afternoon putting the decals on mine. Hopefully it will be completely finished by the end of next week.
To be honest, I would say very few get “taken in”. Experienced modellers will know what kits are best and will avoid the old duds out there, Airfix are not the only culprits when it comes to clinging to ancient moulds either.
If a Spitfire is being bought as a cheap starter kit for a beginner, I contend that it isn’t necessarilly the most accurate kit that is best, but the cheapest, simplest and one that can be finished quickly and still look reasonable. The desire for accuracy and authenticity comes with age and experience.
Having said that, AIrfix did perservere with some no-hopers that should quietly have been put to bed decades ago.
Un;ess flying has been going on at a site since before 1908, then Farnborough has to be the oldest continuously operating airfield in the UK.