I’m also irritated by the use of the American spellings for (UK) English things – the worse being airplane instead of aeroplane – widely used by those who should know better.

I’m guilty of that, when I have to do web stuff the code is all American so it’s color and center, half an hour of that and I forget how to type properly.

One other thing that annoys the hell out of me is the use of the word “aircrafts”.

The plural of aircraft is aircraft – no “s”. One aircraft, six aircraft.

Nothing wrong with “aircrafts” as long as you remember the ‘ so it would “the aircraft’s…”

Very basic Chris, I built both the Airfix and Matchbox examples some years back, seem to remember the Matchbox version being the better of the two.

I obliterated any detail on mine with a large pot of humbrol yellow and finger prints on the canopy. Some of the old Airfix stuff is shocking, I got the JU88/Hurri set for Christmas and it really should be marketed at the very high end modellers, the wings needed to be steamed before they would even consider joining, the fuselage is going to be 60% filler I expect and that’s just the 88!

It’s Chrome, fine in MSIE8/9, Firefox, Safari and good old Opera (my browser of choice) just getting blank in Chrome.:(

Would they have produced scale flying models during the post war period or would the information from the 52 have all been based on wind tunnel tests, given the date on the first document being not long after the 52 flew then much of the work would have been done before that first flight.

Are there any other flying wings currently in development, apart from the F117 and B2 the latest military aircraft seem to be reverting to a more conventional layout of flying surfaces.

Interesting configuration, I’d imagine a lot was learnt from the AW 52G by this stage

New year’s resolution, to get up to at least one event at NAM and meet Twin Otter.