A spectacular 11 Spitfire display, eh? Well that’s just great. Couldn’t you have just lied and spared the poor Sunday bods the anguish? Last time I listen to the bloody MET office.
Don’t get me wrong, the Chinook’s an impressive aircraft, but…
Yep, that’s a replica (wooden i think) of a British WW1 tank captured by the Germans and used against us, it’s for the movie ‘Fly boys’, which looks to be an excellent film about the Lafayette Escadrille during WWI.
Which is a bit early for the setting of the film, or so I hear, but we can overlook things like that if it’s as good as it could be (a FWW Dark Blue World?). It’s made of wood, plaster, paint and plumbing sundries!
Thanks for sharing this. A Hurricane with Swastikas…a chilling vision of what might have been…
DS
Not really; the origins of the Finnish swastika are quite distinct from those of the Nazi “corporate logo” and it predates the latter as a symbol by at least a decade.
W/C Bader, whilst attempting to knock the hun for six found himself on a bit of a sticky wicket.
As his aircraft plummeted he was leg left behind (rather than leg before) and the aircraft almost certainly had some spin on it. Inevitably he was out for the duration.
But luckily he was later given bail from Colditz
Moggy
And given a permed wig, bushy moustache and shellsuit by way of a disguise.
All this means is that no-one else will be able to sell similarly branded Spitfire Perfume, trousers, or whatever. They don’t have the complete rights to the name in any other context not specified by them and agreed with the relevant authorities (I imagine our favourite brewer has trademark rights over Spitfire hop-related alcoholic beverages already). There are some copyright/trademark infringement case precendents online that will make the situation clearerm for those that care. You could probably still compete in the Spitfire trouser market with some careful wording, so those dreams are not yet shattered!
When the M11 was built in the mid 1970’s, Duxford was not as significant or popular as it is today. I suspect that if the same thing happened now, the motorway would either be in a tunnel, or re-routed but I suppose it all depends on who is in Government at the time. :confused:
I can’t see that happening. They still haven’t sorted out the Stonehenge debacle, and I doubt a good enough argument could be made that Duxford as a heritage site justifies an expensive cut-and-cover tunnel or a less suitable (in planning terms) route.
Speaking of cut-and-cover tunnels, there’s that recent Tesco palava to consider!
Well obviously it cut the length significantly, and at least one fatal accident and two non-fatal ones have occurred that would have been far less serious had the M11 not been there.
I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect there have been more deaths on the road itself. Are these reason not to build motorways? Arguably, I suppose, but transport links east-west in the area are poor enough as it is without wishing the M11 away.
What happened to those flying cars they promised us?
Bloody missed it. For once knew it was a Merlin (not only that but a P-51 from the whistling noise) and hared outside like an idiot. Nothing but rooftops. Sigh.
I thought the bomb was fitted with a parachute to slow its decent?
Quite possibly. I’d like to think that the real one wasn’t made using plywood, styrene and a glue-gun, either…
Incidentally, featuring Duxford’s B-29.
Jonathan
Not sure what you mean … these three references all have dates that DO ALIGN with your chap’s memoires …
– your first reference says June 1943 on the prototype BT308
– the raf/history/lineage ref says that BT 308 was used as a test-bed “later” (meaning later than Sep ’41)
– the wikipedia reference about the Metrovick F.2 says “Flyable versions, the F.2/1, were flown on an Avro Lancaster test-bed in the spring of 1943”All we’re looking for is a “trusted reference” I assume – and a photo!
Oh, the dates for a “jet engined testbed Lancaster” (BT308) line up perfectly, it’s just that BT308 was not, as far as we can tell, flown with engines in nacelles, which are clearly described by the chap in question. Rather, and like the other examples mentioned, it flew with the engine in the fuselage and (I assume), all four Merlins intact. the first reference to a Lanc with nacelle outboard jet engines is the 1946 one referred to in my first post. The sources also suggest that BT308 retained the Manchester vertical fin. All of which is frustrating! So yes, we are looking for proof, but proof that either BT308 flew in radically different configuration for a time, or that there was indeed another aircraft out there testing pod style engines and using a RATO to get airborne. It’s seeming less likely as we go on, I know.
We’ll see what transpires when I meet the veteran in question. Thanks for all your help on this one.
Guys, JanathanF in particular, the reference you link to says the first such conversion was in Lancaster prototype BT308. This aircraft was a standard Machester airframe with new wing centre sections and 4 engines. It had the triple tail structure of the Machester BUT if you look here …
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/lineage1.html
… you’ll see reference to the fact(?) that it was: “Later, used by Rolls Royce for trial work and then to Armstrong Whitworth and fitted with Metrovick jet engine in rear fuselage.”
This is interesting!
Very! See this web reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrovick_F.2 . Trouble is, like the other early turbojets in these airframes, the sources state that it was rear-fuselage mounted. I wonder if our witness, when he refers to a RATO on the rear fuselage, might have mistaken the mods made to accomodate other jet designs on previous flights? The date still doesn’t add up unfortunately. We can only call absence of evidence not being the opposite until a reference is found. I’ll try and check the paper literature in more detail, but I expect if no-one here has ever seen it, it probably doesn’t exist.
Sorry, JF, no offence intended, (the intention was self-deprecatory!) but since the first flight (according to Avro/Putnams) of VH742 was August 8, 1946, and this is the first Lancaster mentioned in that configuration by that (probably reliable) source, perhaps your veteran has confused the configuration – could the RATO have been in fact the single tail-mounted turbojet instead?
If there was an outboard nacelle-mounted configuation Lancaster around in 1943, I for one would be extremely interested in reading about it!
Perhaps the answer lies in a book on early turbojets; my tiny library unfortunately does not include such a book.
Hey, none taken! I realise I’m probably asking the impossible here, but it’s an irresistible little tidbit, and I’d like to research it as best I can before I meet the man who wrote it. You never know with this place whether someone somewhere has read something somewhere obscure or spoken to someone in the know. So just in case….
And yes, it’s those two testbeds we’re talking about so far; those pics should be interesting for people that haven’t come across them before. Thanks for the responses so far chaps.
No need for nit-picking mode, I wasn’t countering your point by posting that site, just giving it as a reference (however poor, and I’m well aware of the shortcomings of the Internet as a research tool) and point of discussion. Besides, as you say I had already posited VH742 as the only Lanc matching the chap’s description, and if the dates given for it’s first flight are correct, it cannot be the aeroplane I’m looking for.
As far as you and I are aware, VH742 is the earliest jet testbed Lancaster design. However, the question still stands as regards there being any Lancaster testbeds of that configuration flying in or around June 1943. Could VH742 have been airborne as early as that, or could an earlier testbed have matched the description given?
I think the first Lancaster design (Lancastrian 1) to carry jet engines was VH742, first flown at Hucknall by Sqn Ldr R. T. Shepherd on August 8, 1946 with two Nene 1 turbojets in the outer nacelles.
Source Avro/Putnams
I found a web-based reference to an earlier (June 1943 no less, almost spot on the correct date ref the memoirs) example: LL735 http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lancaster/Lancaster.htm
But the first two jets tested in it were held in the fuselage, not on the wings.