F16 Detail

Great detail shots Stefaan, they make a nice change from the usual “for the record” type of photo most of us seem to take all too often.

Paul F

And don’t forget “I before E, except after C”.

And they report that the education standards are being raised year on year… an ever-growing number of candidates obtain A-C grades at GCSE level, and ever more A-grades are achieved at A-Level etc… presumably none of those people find their way into the BBC?

At least it shows that someone realised that the plural of “body” is irregular, and is not simply obtained by adding an “s” at the end 😉

Shame they didn’t get it right bodies

Paul F

Are you sure?

For you, Capatain F, Zer Preview iz Over.

Perhaps I was crying with laughter, or had my head over the bucket being ill at those points…… :confused:

Or maybe my PC just gave up at that point….

Perhaps I should watch it again – no, perhaps ze vite light in ze face vould be preferable ja?

Or perhaps I can join the Tommies and use “Tom”, “Dick” or “Harry” to get under the wire, undetected by the Goons who can’t shoot straight anyway, and thus leave the forum without anyone noticing… Oh sorry, is that the one cliche they’ve missed (in the web trailer at least)?

Paul F

Saw the programme, then read the thread…..

Thought the prog was reasonably well done, apart from the few howlers already mentioned above. I too was fascinated to see the period film of Ms 406’s, though I thought they were being shown as part of an assembly of clips purporting to be “Spitfires”.

I thought it was fairly easy to see where the prog had been editted/carefully structured to give it more “drama”. After all, how many of us work at our desk with copies of reference books upside down at arm’s length (just in the right place to make a good camera shot – now there’s a surprise 😉 ). Likewise, the impression that armies of metal detector and spade-toting guys would simply wander around soggy fields on little more than a hunch seemed just a little unlikely, as did the fact that it always seemed to be the very last spot of detecting at any given site that gave the result. But perhaps to many-aviation buff viewers the “thrill of the hunt” angle made the show all that bit more watcheable.

The show taught me that I must have been living in a darkened cave for the last 10 years(?), as I hadn’t heard the “friendly fire” angle before (probably just shows that I don’t read all the right books I guess).

As to some of the dirty washing aired above – I got as far as the first five or six pages or so, and then nearly died of boredom. Not sure this was the best method/correct place to redress wrongs allegedly committed against one another chaps?

As to the pro’s and con’s of digging the sites – I’m still out on this one, but generally given the well-reasoned risk of finding human remains was seen as very slim, then I don’t see much wrong in these cases. However I have been at talks where other “diggers” of other crash sites seem to have a morbid fascination with that aspect, and where the gory details (and exhibits) are to my mind somewhat distastefull and more than a tad disturbing.

As EN830’s comments seem to suggest, I too have no problem where a recovery helps reduce the number of chaps still posted as MIA, so long as the site is dug with due care and respect, it’s the unsavoury “make a buck out of this” type recoveries that leave a nasty taste in my mouth. If a site is confirmed as containing human remains, or there’s a better than 50% chance it might, and their identity is known beyond resonable doubt, then leave well alone – treat it as a war grave.

The scenes in the prog where Bostock’s recovered helmet and goggles were presented to his wife were touching, and seemed to justify the recovery even though it added nothing to our knowledge of the Spitfire IX as a breed. Now lets just hope the parts recovered are stored properly, and don’t get listed on evilbay in the future.

Did the program answer it’s own question as to who shot Bader down?

To my mind it gave a very plausible, and well founded answer, though reading this thread today, I ackowledge that the program perhaps attributed the origination of that theory incorrectly, but surely whomever places the theory in the widest public domain first is perhaps most likely to gain the accolade, whether or not they have based their theory on the findings of others, and whether or not they credit their forebears with the groundwork – that’s life I’m afraid. That said, will many of the general public who watched the program last night even remember (or care about) the name of any of the people featured in the program – I very much doubt it? All most viewers will remember is that they saw a program which seemed to suggest that DB was shot down by another Spitfire (bet they won’t even remember who the pilot of this second Spit was).

Sorry Dilip and Andy (no preference to either of you implied), but I’m not sure that many people will care about the teddies and dummies being thrown around except some of the “specialist” readers here – and most of those probably already held their own views as to whom came up with the Casson theory first.

So, despite the controversy on this forum, for once C4 produced a program that, if not perfect, at least wasn’t a complete load of bullsh1t….that in itself makes a refreshing change.

Paul F

BA Seats to Zurich

What would be the requirements for the exit row seats?

Phil

On BA it usually being deemed strong/adult enough to open/handle the emergency exit should the need arise, and they like to have english-speaking pax there – presumably to ensure they can understand the extra safety instructions pertaining to operating the exits. My 16year old son has happily been accepted in exit rows on BA flights, but he is a strapping near six footer, with a mature manner.

Don’t forget that the exit row seats might not recline, not that that should be a problem on a short hop like this.

Flew BA to LGW to Zurich & back a couple of weeks ago on a 737 (Sorry not an expert on airliners, but I guess it would be the model you suggest.) Seats on rhs may give outward views south to the alp peaks if your flight follows same routing mine did, likewise, sitting on LHS on way back may give good views. Sitting ahead of wing may give clear air for photos (if cameras are allowed in hand luggage), whereas sitting behind wing can lead to distortion via engine efflux.

By the way, don’t expect more than a warm filled roll as in flight catering!

Chrs
Paul F

Now THATS more like it – Caspian Sea Monster to the er…Sea-

Perhaps thats how they can relocate her, forget all the “chinooks and underslung load” nonsense, just get her rolling down Brunty’s runway on her non flight-worthy u/c, then pop her up it into ground effect and cruise at tree top height to the new base in the USofA….there she can be returned to airworthy status. Oh,… does flying in ground effect need an airworthyness certificate,…. oh bu99er, there goes that “Atlantic Sea Monster” idea then :rolleyes:

As Damien B said earlier, nowhere else is likely to be able to offer suitable premises at similar rates, and the airframe cannot easily be broken down for relocation by road (or chinook 😀 ). She’s not going anywhere, so she either stays there in one piece, almost certainly earth-bound (at least for the forseeable future, perhaps as a ground-runner), or she moves out in lots of very small, irregularly-sized, sections in lorry-sized open-topped metal containers (aka rubbish skips).

Although it is easy to knock the project, and to call it a non-starter, and to say that many of us have probably had severe doubts that it would ever happen ever since it was first mooted, I think the guys and girls at the sharp end deserve some credit for attempting the impossible. It’s those driving the project from the top that need to answer the questions.

I’ve chipped in a few quid along the way, and part of me thinks “if only I’d chipped in a few quid more, then maybe……” but deep deep down, I knew it was a very long shot when it was first aired.

It’s a bit like throwing a pound coin or two at the lottery on a saturday night – most sensible punters know they won’t win, but theres always that 1 in 14,000,000 chance they might. So, do I chuck another couple of quid at the Vulcan project, or do I chuck it at the lottery, on the very slim chance that if my numbers do come up I can chuck them far more?

Like most forumites, I would love to be able to find £500 for non-essential spendies, but even if I could I think there are more realistic options elsewhere that would give me more chance to see my hard-earned cash get something else back into the air for many years to come. The planned flying “shelf life” of the Vulcan project is very short, whereas a more modest “back to the sky” project might result in an airworthy smaller airframe that would be easier to finance over a far longer flying career – thus offerring a better “return” on the restoration costs.

While the Vulcan is unique, and has a (brief) career as an active warbird, I think few non-enthusiast airshow goers would be drawn to a show simply because she was scheduled to attend, and most enthusiasts would probably already be planning to attend the shows the project mentioned whether or not she was there. Yes, I guess crowds along the Mall might be impressed to see her during Royal Flypasts etc, but how many of them would be bothered if she was not there – how many of those standing below really understood why a Cranberry joined the Reds on the last London flypast?

A project to return Concorde to the sky might draw more publicity, and gain a higher level of non-enthisisat contributions (NO, I’m not going there either so don’t worry 😮 ), but I’m not sure the Vulcan has the glamour of that other retired delta does she? I think perhaps that’s where the plan went wrong -any product only sells if there’s a market for it, and I’m not sure there much of a market for a Vulcan outside us anorak wearing, binocular toting enthusiasts, perhaps those who wrote the project plan were too close to the project to see this, and let their enthusiasm for the subject overrule common sense. They’d not be the first, and I’m sure they’ll not be the last to make that sort of mistake.

So, does this post add anything to the debate – probably not, but I think It’s helped me decide what to do with the few spare quid in my pocket.

And whether she flys or not, rather than knock the project (which is all too easy), lets make sure the lessons are learnt. As has bene said many times earlier in the thread I am sure the HLF will be reluctant to offer support to similar large/complex projects in the future, based on this project outcome, but perhaps that is the lesson to be learnt – business plans need to be tested and proven valid and robust by a panel of “non enthusiasts” who are not part of the project team before they form the basis of such a project.

Paul F
(Bitterly disappointed that my teenage son is unlikely to ever see a “Tin Triangle” in her element)

SEMAE,

Watched from the seafront, yesterday. It was windy there too, but it was interesting to see that the winds affected the low level stuff very markedly, but smoke trials left by Reds during loops etc were barely affected and hung around for longer than usual – suggesting winds were only bad at very low level….. Will post some of my photos once I’ve had chance to download them (if they’re any good).

Trust you were securely anchored down on top of Beachy Head – it gets pretty wild up there!

Paul F

A question….

BAA are a shambles and the government should order them to get their act together.

Totally agree, but can’t help wondering what will happen once BAA and it’s assets are under Spanish ownership, will this give HMG less authority over the new organisation perhaps?

I know Spain and UK are both EU members, and so should both act in an identical manner, and with same aims in mind, but we all know that many individual EU states often disagree on policy, so I wonder how things will work out once BAA is no longer a UK-owned entity.

Another visible gulf between EU members’ actions in response to a specific issue/threat was brought home to us when returning from Alicante last Friday. Satellite TV had alerted us to the HMG/BAA stance on cabin baggage on flights into and out of UK (i.e. a total ban except for the famed clear plastic carrier, no liquids, no electronic devices etc etc), so we duly packed everything except essential paperwork into our hold baggage, much to the dismay of the children who then had no DVD player and no MP3 players to keep them occupied en route to Gatwick 🙁 . On checking in at Alicante for the BA/GB Airways flight home at 9:30am on Friday we found that cabin baggage, including liquids was being allowed aboard, with no extra security checks whatsoever over and above the normal body and bag scanners. So while BAA was enforcing very strict regulations, the Spanish authorities (at Alicante if not elsewhere) seemed to be taking no additional precautions, and were openly flouting the UK Governments instructions re no cabin baggage on UK flights.

:confused: Eh?

Paul F