-close up of R-2800 in 3D with way too much detail…-

Ronnie, when is the last time that you saw daylight? It looks amazing but you’ve either got way too much spare time or you’re not sleeping enough. 😉

Quick translation of the site linked to above:

A G-1 escapes to England

After the capitulation in May 1940, 4 Mercury engined G-1s were captured by the Germans. 13 Wasp engined G-1s were on the assembly line at the time and were finished by the Germans, one of these was number 362. After completing the aircraft Dutch test pilots would perform the test flights. To make sure that they didn’t escape, the fuel tanks were filled with the minimum amount needed and a second G-1 would follow with a German pilot on board. Still, plans were made to fly a G-1 to England. Test pilot T.H. Leegstra decided together with aeronautical engineer Piet Vos, from the board of Fokker Aircraft, to make an attempt on monday 5 May 1941. The aircraft would be number 362.

In complete secrecy the tanks were filled to enable the aircraft to stay aloft for 2½ hours. The second G-1 was flown by Emil Meinecke. The two G-1s took off at 16:20 from Schiphol and flew towards the IJsselmeer. Leegstra started performing aerobatics over the IJsselmeer ‘to test the G-1’. In reality he was trying to shake off Meinecke. Using the clouds to his advantage he managed to escape Meinecke’s attention, who returned to Schiphol thinking that Leegstra had crashed in the IJsselmeer. By that time Leegstra was flying over the North Sea. When he approached the English coast three Hurricanes came over for a closer look.

Leegstra flew low over the East Suffolk coast, 10 km south of Great Yarmouth. At this point several batteries opened fire on the G-1 from the ground. After a 40 minute flight Leegstra landed the, by then bullet riddled, G-1 on the first field he could find. Two days later, on 7 May, the G-1 was ferried to Mortesham Heath (sic). On 12 May it was flown on to Farnborough, to the Royal Aircraft Establishment, for testing. Even though the G-1 was painted in RAF markings the G-1 never flew again.

Donated to the Miles Aircraft Factory, who wanted the wooden wings to test how they would withstand the British climate, it was left to deteriorate and was eventually scrapped.

I don’t really mind if the Vimy flies or not -I do however object to it going inside if it means that the likes of the Viscount etc at Brooklands still struggle to get a roof over their heads if deference to a reproduction.

Good point, however the Vimy fits inside the present hangar, the Viscount does not. Also, while it is a reproduction/replica/facsimile I feel that the Vimy has earned a place in history in its own right by now.

On the other hand I’m sure that if Brooklands could get its hands on an original Vimy, NX71MY would be outside in a flash 😉

Hi James, thanks for your input. Just a few comments:

Um, no, you’re wrong, and it is exactly, precisely absolutely correct – it can fly legally and safely elsewhere in the world (the USA) and has done so, and, AFAIK, could do so again.

I agree with you that your statement was technically correct. By stating ‘elsewhere in the world’ you were giving the impression though (at least I thought so) that it could fly anywhere but in the UK. The correct statement is that it can fly nowhere but in the USA on its current certificate and that is a different situation. Even that would have to be expanded to include ‘except for a limited time and at the discretion of the local authorities’ but as I mentioned in my second point, that has not been researched for other countries in this case. I’m sure that there will be other countries that will be more lenient in this situation but even than there would be restrictions and a lot of discussions before you could fly the aircraft as you’d like.

I’m not referring to any transient or international agreements, I’m talking about the UK’s greater restrictions on flying compared to the USA’s available extra categories, at least one of which Australia has adopted into a UK based civil aviation system to the benefit of Australia’s heritage and recreational flying (see the Southern Cross Fokker Trimotor replica for example).

I cannot argue with that, but the bottom line remains that each country is responsible for the rules within their own borders. This is a bit like ‘the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence’. Aviation has done a lot over the past 106 years to connect continents and countries and one of the corollaries is increased cooperation and standardization of aviation related laws. The end result can never be an all-encompassing ‘fits all’ set of regulations that enables everyone to do as he/she pleases though. Also the main thrust of international standardization is where the money is: in civil air traffic. Right now economic goals are driving this, not historical awareness.

Moving along to the subject at hand: ‘Experimental’ categories or the British equivalent ‘Permit to fly’ system are very low on the pecking order, unless (as the USA has) there is a large community driving force behind it. What the USA also has is large open spaces to enable people to make mistakes without endangering others and a cavalier system of ‘rights’ that are only restricted at the risk of bodily harm or public outcry, whichever occurs first (tongue in cheek here!). What I’m saying is that the whole background for these systems is different and therefore they are now not compatible. And while we want to change this, what you need for that is people to make it happen, you need a large driving force that is willing to expend a lot of money, time and effort. The CAA isn’t going to do this just because it is a good idea. And even then the situation in the UK (think public mentality, geographical issues, industry support) will still be different when compared to the USA, or Australia for that matter, and therefore the resulting regulations will be different.

While aviation is something that has made the world a lot smaller, and has made the concept of borders seem insignificant, they are still there. We cannot change that. When thinking about aircraft people often get a ‘sky is the limit’ attitude that unfortunately doesn’t translate well to the reality that we live in. Again, we have to learn to live with that 😉

And all the above is still a very general story about aircraft certification and the Vimy story is just a very small part in this.

Sorted, email sent.

Thanks Nik! 🙂

Second one was about an airline pilot in Aus who goes to Tasmania to help a friend who has crashed in a remote area,title escapes me here at work but I will get it for those interested!

That’s ‘The Rainbow and the Rose‘.

That looks nice, and with a proper engine too!

Great photos.