Merlin3945crashed US machines in UK
As far as I remember crashed US wrecks in the UK are still legally owned by the US but our UK MOD act as agents on behalf of the US as they would on our own wrecks.
This is why whether it is US or UK owned if a dig takes place you have to provide details of what was excavated and removed, just in case the RAF or USAF want to retrieve the parts for themselves as a historical artifact or as spares should they be in good enough condition to renovate for use.
Obiviously they need to consult the recovery team but they retain the right to the parts until the are written off the air forces books.
this is what I read the rules as but if anyone knows better.
Merlin3945Hi Elliot,
can you tell me exactly which photo you were looking at that were camera magazine remain. I am thinking you meant the one with the geodetic piece.
Merlin3945EN830,
I take your point totally but as one who has visited many crash sites and indeed visited many many gravesides and had conversation with those left behind both surviving crew and relatives the word of the moment is indeed enjoy.
Enjoy the site, the photos, the fact that we actually managed to do the recovery and all this done while knowing we had the proper procedures in place and the blessing of the pilots brother to do the dig.
The Pilot was killed in this accident but if we do not recover the remains of these aircraft and display such rare and historic parts in the museum then someone who doesnt care will come along and take the part and use them for finacial gain which is not our policy. In fact that weekend cost everyone who visited the site money. We share the costs.
sorry if I went off topic but just trying to make my point of enjoying the whole experiance.
regards scott
Merlin3945hey Snapper me old mate we might actually get to meet this year then. My missus enjoyed it so much last year I m getting to go this time around again.
I will mail you before the time but will defo see you there.
cheers Scott
Might make it to the Red Lion if somebody gives me directions.
good ones that is.
Merlin3945Machine gunning civilians certainly did happen and by both sides i might add. But to put Scotland on the topic the train station at East Linton on the old A1 was riddled with bullets and the holes are still there as are the holes on an old rail bridge near Dunbar on the A1. Also a street in Portobello I think Brunstane 1 house has bullet holes in it which i have seen.
Merlin3945possibly from an engine ground running rig or test rig. looks very basic but very like some of the ground running panels going around at the moment.
Merlin3945Merlin, Barry,
Please read the thread carefully before posting.
We’ve established that Ray was NOT a qualified helicopter pilot.
I’d troubled to post legible versions of the IMDB data at the very start. Please don’t make establishing facts more difficult by muddying already posted data.
Sorry to sound grumpy, but thinking and posting need to go together.
It’s not a simple story, as I said at the start.
So if I quote this from my post “He doesnt need to have been a pilot to be listed in the Helicopter Unit section”
I gather that doesnt mean anything to you then. Dont worry about seeming grumpy I am most of the time. Oops sorry that was the wife talking about me then.
As I said above he can easily be listed in the credit in the unit but it doesnt mean he was a pilot within it.
That bit I did get from your post that he was not a heli pilot. I dont have problems with reading yet and certainly saw that in your post.
Too much of a coincidence to be anyone else thought unless the compiler messed it up already.
Merlin3945
“Actor” Below The Line Other Physical Effects Actor Credits
The Legend of Billie Jean (1985) Jimmy J JudgeBack to Top
Below The Line Credits
The Dark Blue World (2001) “Pilot” Memphis Belle (1990) “chief Pilot” Empire of the Sun (1987) “chief Pilot” (Mustang)
Other Credits
Species (1995) “aerial ground coordinator” (Aerial unit)
The River Wild (1994) helicopter unit
Physical Effects Credits
Saving Private Ryan (1998) Stunts
This was taken from the link to the film credits for Ray Hanna. If you click his name it gives a list of other film credits. It seem very similar to Ray own credits but is it a coincidence and there is another Ray Hanna. I also noticed that there was a James Hanna above him in aerial work as well.
Really looks like it could be Ray. He doesnt need to have been a pilot to be listed in the Helicopter Unit section he could be an aerial coordinator or aerial camera advisor or anything but just attached to the heli unit.
Why dont you write to the film company and try and get an answer from them.
As far as the heli unit underwater goes sound like it was simply a crashed heli that was underwater at some point in the film. therefore an underwater heli unit. simple.
just looked at the other film listings and they have definately only got 1 Ray Hanna so unless the people doing the write up for the website have got it wrong then it is definately the same Ray Hanna.
The films we know he is in only list 1 Ray Hanna not 2.
I am no expert but it seems like a closed case to me.
Merlin3945You know what really gets me is all the speculation on whats going where etc.
As far as I am aware TFC is a business, correct?
Therefore I would assume that they are the ones who know their business best, right?
So why dont we just leave them to get on with it and marvel at all the delights that do come out of their shed and perform over here from time to time instead of all the is it or isnt it threads.
Merlin3945[QUOTE=XN923]
I defy anyone to create footage with a squadron of Lancasters thundering across the landscape at 60ft with models. Yes, I agree, you can do fantastic things with models. Furthermore, I’d far rather models than CGI on its own (though as Daren points out, these days, CGI or digital compositing and models can work very well together). However, I maintain that there are some things that can’t be done realistically with models, period. Models can do a hell of a lot to enhance flying sequences but they can’t do everything, neither can CGI. You need a mix of all three, and a remake of The Dambusters would lack real aircraft – so whats the point?
…And you’re not telling me that the model sequences in 633 Squadron are as good or better than the real thing are you?
Granted you cant have a squadron of Lancs using models but neither could having 2 full sized lancs recreate a squadron either so stalemate on that one.
However you could easily have a squadron on the ground using models!! and 1 or 2 or 3 flying side by side. I have seen about 5 reasonable sized models being in the air at the same time and making a good circuit following.
However, I maintain that there are some things that can’t be done realistically with models, period
What can a full sized aircraft do that a model cant??
The question should be what can a model do that a full sized aircraft cant??
And the answer would be a hell of a lot!!
Models can do a hell of a lot to enhance flying sequences but they can’t do everything, neither can CGI
Models can do everthing that a full sized aircraft can do and in fact they can do more if the pilot puts his mind to it.
I dont want to try and start an argument on this as there are some points I quite agree with you on such as CGI cant do everything or rather CGI can it just the programmers that are limited really.
All I really wanted to know was how you could justify that statement about aeromodelling and what you experiance of it was.
As for the 633 squadron crack. Brilliant film and very good model making for its day even reall flying models were in the infancy at the time and the reason these models didnt look that good in flight was that th were on a static line and not free to move at all. Thats why you get that awful and totally awkward turn away for the hills. Great film bad effects but cant compare that with modern day models.
Merlin3945Hi guys,
I have seen most of these aircraft fly and they really are spectacular.
The B17’s look very good in the air alond with the wellington which is one of my favourites. There is a Heinkel 111 doing the rounds and a JU52 I think was at last years Longhorsley LMA show (near newcastle if anyone is interested).
And for those of you who are into jets check out the featured aircraft of Dr Keith Mitchell. A hunter which is very large as a model. Look really really good. Dont think it has flown as of yet but is intended to fly soon I think. Anyhow it a really nice model.
Merlin3945[QUOTE=XN923]lets look at the facts – there are two airworthy Lancasters in the world, both too valuable to start hacking about to reproduce Dam Buster spec, or to take part in film flying schedules at all I’d have thought. That leaves replicas – surely too expensive; models – much inferior to the real thing or; CGI – less said about that the better.QUOTE]
This statement really annoyed me for one particular reason. The part about models being much inferior to the real thing.
How do you back up that statement???
Models are merely smaller versions of the full size article in question and in fact take a look at mostly all the films made today they all have a model in them at some point usually for filming te flying sequences of a rare type or for the crash parts of the film.
the details you can have on a model can be the same spec as the full sized aircraft.
Without models alot of the scenes you see in films would simply be done with computers.
I for one would rather see a real live flying machine than to have everything done by computer.
I bet you couldnt even tell a model from the real thing if you watched a film with a model in it.
Inferior to the real thing NOT likely
Smaller and just as detailed if not better DEFINATELY.
Merlin3945Hi Guys thanks for the info.
Regards the engine. Hopefully we will be able to get a better look at it when we are next up. A couple more bodies should be able to roll it onto it side and see if there are any data plates. Does anyone know of there are any data plates on the crank case or indeed any stamp marking on the casting that would let me know what Merlin it was. If there is then when I get the AM78 it should tell me what it was built with and then if the stamp markings are different then I will know it had been changed.
Once again thanks lads.
Merlin3945And if the project does fail I doubt that the HLF would ever look favourably on another aviation related project again.
Kev this is a non starter anyway I dont think HLF have ever been keen on aviation project that fly because they would lose their investment into the project if the thing was destroyed. Which is why the Vulcan project had a hard time getting their support in the first place but once they had satisfied all the criteria on the HLF’s requirements they could only pass the project for the next stage and as you mentioned it is only the next stage and if private or public funding isnt found they the lottery money wont be there as we all know they only give if you have a certain amount of funds yourself.
Merlin3945No matter what you think about the Duxford proposal, A bird in the Air is worth two in the bush, especially in this case.
🙂
Andy this is my kind of quote. I like it. Long may she fly although be it a short while but beats scrapping her. Dont mind her going going to Duxford as long as she goes under cover when you think of all the work done to make her fly again. Would be a shame to waste the hard work.
All in all who really cares as long as we have fun watching a vulcan in the sky again and think that this time we actually have had one over on the lottery lot.
Sign In
