Snoopy7422Too Many Jesus Bolts.
There is a fundamental issue with this a/c. It’s overly complicated and if it gets one small bit of shrapnel in there, and can’t translate – where will it land..? Not on our new carriers, if they have no arrester gear. Not on another carrier if the a/c have no hooks. I think that the carriers should have arrester gear anyway. Belts and braces etc. They won’t of course, so, when they go wrong, which they will, millions of Pounds of taxpayers cash will end up in the oggin.
Snoopy7422Andy;- In the case I’m referring to, the pilot, in his capacity as Test Pilot, is well known to have tested a whole raft of a/c, many of which are conspicuous by their complete absence from his logs….
I can’t claim to have any specialised knowledge of RST, however, out of interest – there is an oft used clip of a Spit on the tail of an Me110 filmed I think from the deck.
See it here at 0:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4NGf2l5PXE
It was used in the war (For example in ‘Ferry Pilot’) and many times since. I read – somewhere – many years ago, that this was staged by the Enemy a/c Flight, and that RST was the pilot of the Spitfire. Any ideas if that is true, and, if so, was it in his Pilots Logbook…? Did he also fly some of the fighter-comparison tests that they flew too, with the ‘109, Spit et al….?
Snoopy7422Andy;- In the case I’m referring to, the pilot, in his capacity as Test Pilot, is well known to have tested a whole raft of a/c, many of which are conspicuous by their complete absence from his logs….
I can’t claim to have any specialised knowledge of RST, however, out of interest – there is an oft used clip of a Spit on the tail of an Me110 filmed I think from the deck.
See it here at 0:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4NGf2l5PXE
It was used in the war (For example in ‘Ferry Pilot’) and many times since. I read – somewhere – many years ago, that this was staged by the Enemy a/c Flight, and that RST was the pilot of the Spitfire. Any ideas if that is true, and, if so, was it in his Pilots Logbook…? Did he also fly some of the fighter-comparison tests that they flew too, with the ‘109, Spit et al….?
Snoopy7422Just For The Record.
One specific point that Andy has brought up is records/logs etc. I should point out that falsifying records is one thing, but the absence of entries and detail mean next to nothing.
I have a/c logbooks from before the war right up to the present date that fail to record flights. Similarly, pilot would often, and still do, either combine, abreviate or omit flights. I’ve also seen entries made over seventy years after the flight…. Not fraudulently, just a little delay…!
Sometimes folks just genuinly forget, or they lose notes, amongst many other reasons….. I have a 1930’s – ’50’s pilots logbook that fails to record many flights and aircraft types. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t fly them, – he either didn’t think it was important enough or was just to busy. Sometimes pilots may also make duplicate entries.
It still happens too – what are a few hours to a pilot with tens of thousands of hours..? Small beer. So no, the absence of entries shouldn’t be taken that pilot ‘X’ lied. :rolleyes:
Snoopy7422Testimony.
Sadly, a great deal of “Reach For The Sky” is little more than fiction and I’m afraid that many books of the genre and period are even more so. It is unfortunate, I think, that those versions of the lives of men like Bader, Tuck, Gibson et al have ‘skewed’ history through some rather elaborate elaborations of reality. Line shooting, they would have called it. However, the problem is that much of what was written in these books simply isn’t credible, doesn’t stack up and has now become almost biblical in terms of the reverential credence that is attached to some mightily tall-tales. The end result is that these tall-tales, for that is what many of them are, have now bcome established ‘facts’ of history. And they are not.
As for “contemporaneous evidence”, I think that is highly questionable. These accounts (generally) were written by jouranlists and other writers, often ‘bigging-up’ the story, massaging their subject’s egos whilst their subjects probably revelled in telling their story with considerable embelishment. I would rather rely upon the unqualified “contemporaneous evidence” provided by official documents and records of the period (eg Log Books, ORBs, Combat Reports, Intelligence Reports and the like – from both sides) as a primary source rather than the colourful versions of these men’s lives which, frankly, do them no justice.
________________________________________________________________
“As for “contemporaneous evidence”, I think that is highly questionable.”
Balderdash. Any court of law views contemporaneous evidence and notes, far above later recollections, especially if it was committed to paper at the time. Hence a Police Officers pocket-notebook. Evidence / testimony second or third hand is usually totally inadmissible and considered hearsay. My comments were, obviously, referring specifically to autobiographical works, written at the time, and in the period soon after the war, when these events were fresh in the participants minds – by those participants. I did not allude to any other types of wordsmithing by outsiders.
Official documents are often highly contemporaneous too, and list facts and statistics. Factual, yes – but often not very revealing. They describe the price, rather than the value.
I’m not defending errors included in books written by non-participants, but at least at the time they had a better opportunity of speaking to participants when those events were still relatively fresh in their minds – and so many were still alive. Not an option today.
For this reason, I very rarely buy ‘history’ books, preferring the testimony of those who were actually there and participated in the events to the second-hand confections of outsiders at the time of the events or latter-day ‘experts’, seventy-years removed. Most historians tend to put a slant of their versions of history to suit their opinions. If that’s not ‘skewing’, I don’t know what is… What the actual participants saw, heard, felt, and tasted – that is the real history, and the only testimony that really matters.
Finally, it’s true that DB was very much a ‘Marmite’ person, opinions of him tended to be polarised. I do not think it really reflects well, however, on those now seeming to delight in dredging-up ‘criticisms’. These are mostly mere baubles. Folks do tend to forget there was a war on. Yes, the more aggressive tactics could cause higher losses and yes, he deliberately went out of his way to hack-off the Jerries when he was in the bag. Good for him I say. It’s not exactly news that DB could be rude either. :rolleyes: However, since there was a war on, it’s completely irrelevant. He was aggressive and took the fight to the enemy and inspired many, most of whom would have flown through the gates of Hell and back for him. That kind of respect is earned, not handed-out for free. I’m sure that many others made more errors than DB.
After the war, he often made great efforts to help folks that were injured, and would go out of his way, at personal expense to that end and shun publicity for such acts of compassion.
DB was justifiably regarded as a living legend and hero by most of his peers.
Snoopy7422Short Shrift.
Groan….
Well, all the stuff on the Big Wings etc has been debated ad nauseam. I won’t go there. The ‘politics’ are far more interesting anyway.
The Telegraph article seems to be based on just this program, seventy years after the event. There are few witnesses, and they are very old now. In all of those seventy years, this accusation could have been put-up, and peer-reviewed. It was not. I really don’t think we should take seriously any suggestions made in one, not very good documentary, nor should we take too much notice of modern-day commentators, ‘historians’ or not, who were not there.
There are many excellent books, written by major participants from both sides. They are, as a court of Law would say, contemporanious evidence, written when the facts were fresh. The article in the Telgraphs is a modern-day stocking-filler by someone who probably knows nothing about aviation anyway.
I’d like to have seen this slur put to Bader whilst he was still alive. He’d have given them the short shrift they richly deserve…:rolleyes:
Snoopy7422There was rather a lot of gratuitous pipe smoking for my liking.
Still, enjoyed seeing the Hurricane bits for a change.
Much as I loathe smoking myself, it’s easy to forget, in these more enlightened times, that during the war, virtually everyone smoked – and smoked a lot too, and in just about any situation including in flight. Fags were dished-out free, and even if folks knew about the health issues (Unlikely.) they were more concerned with meeting a sudden and violent demise to worry about smoking.
One ATA pilot was even well-known for measuring the length of his flight in fags chain-smoked….!
Snoopy7422Then & Now….
One thing that is very noticable is that at Gaydon and Farnborough, during the 1950’s and early ’60’s, the crowdline fence was very close to the edge of the runway….I can remember the Jets doing low passes, very loud, very fast and very low. It was visceral, and – they were all British too….! The static and parked a/c all seemed to be behind, as I recall anyway.
Today, one tends to be much further from the action, added to which, lovely as the parked a/c are, they spoil some of the view of the display if they are out at the front, especially landings and take-offs.
One thing that is different now too, is with all the H&S etc, insurers have minimum requirements too. I also think that damage and tampering was less likely years ago. Today, even airshows can attract some odd types. I’d never dream of leaving an a/c on show without something to provide protection from numpties.
Snoopy7422Negative G makes the blood rush to your feet 😮
Spit rolls then it cuts to a hurricane cockpit shot !
School boy errors?
My thoughts too. Loads of CGI and actors – not enough meat & two vedge, i.e – History. The program felt like it was aimed at youngsters. The interview with the Baders contemporaries redeemed the program somewhat.
Snoopy7422The Emperors New Clothes.
The idea of more covered areas at any museum in which to accomodate more exhibits must surely, always be a laudable thing, given the harshness of the UK climate.
There are some excellent architects around. There is also, unfortunately, a tendency, especially amongst certain architects to want to come-up with something ‘unusual’ or, heaven forfend ‘original’. Hangars haven’t changed much in the last hundred years or so, for the simple reason that there is a basic design which works well and is flexible. The gallery gives an elevate view. Look at the old hangars at Duxford which continue in use and still do an excellet job of work.
I had cause to drive through Birmingham a few days ago, a city which has suffered more than most at the hands of planners and architects. Many wonderful buildings – which had survived the wartime blitz, were torn down during the late 1950’s – tmid-1960’s. Now, many of the surviving buildings have been overshadowd by vast monstrosities that look like they were penned by a seven year old with an addiction to Lego and glue-sniffing.
The old Moor Street Station has been nicely restored, but right next to it is the new Bull Ring, a vast turd, covered with shiny lumps… Next to the fine classically-inspired Civic Centre and Hall of Memory, (Where Alex Henshaw famously displayed a Spitfire for the Lord Mayor and crowds gathered to view captured German aircraft.) there is what can only be described as a zigurat, clad with strips of scrap metal. These buildings are truly ghastly abominations.
A few months ago, I visited, in quick sucession, both Duxford and Cosford. The Superhangar at Duxford works very well, is light and spacious – and is inherrently flexible. This cannot be said for the gimmicky new hangar at Cosford, which I found dark and cluttered inside, and an eyesore outside.
Any aircraft museum is basically a hangar, and one can plainly see that at it’s best, form really should follow function. All too often, folks restrain their criticism for fear of appearing ignorant or Luddites. Likewise, museums funds should be directed, primarily into their exhibits, not into funding the expensive flights of fancy of architects who spend other peoples money as if it was water. A hangar is cost-effective. A well insulated simple clear-span building is more than sufficient.
I find the whole idea of building a tower, – ‘twisted’ or otherwise, – in which to exhibit a/c quite bizarre…it’s rather like trying to re-invent the wheel, and coming-up with the ‘Squariel’.:rolleyes:
Snoopy7422No Race Comet Lost in 1934.
Has anyone ever tried to find out if anything remains of the Comet that went down in the desert, during the race ?.
Bob T.
No Comet was lost during the 1934 Macroberts race. A fourth Comet was built for the French. An additional Comet was built for Tom Campbell-Black to race.
G-ADEF was the fifth and last Comet, and named “Boomerang”. It was built for Cyril Nicholson, and piloted by Tom Campbell Black (of Grosvenor House fame) and J.C. McArthur in an attempt on the London-Cape Town record. It reached Cairo in a record 11 hr, 18 min in August 1935. Technical failures resulted in the a/c being abandoned by the crew in a remote area of the Sudan where it was completely destroyed on impact and in the subsequent fire.
Snoopy7422Last of the Summer Wine.
The weather was very kind in the end. There was a nice YAK and a large scale model of a Sea Fury that flew and sounded excellent. Bacon butty’s for a quid too, you can’t go wrong….:)
Snoopy7422Oh…
AA – aaahh…you are spot-on. My frazzled brain. Peripheral interest an’ all that….;).
Snoopy7422Sprite.
AA;- I’ve seen photos of it. I heard some years ago that it was completed and flew well, it’s just that with so many other a/c around, there was no demand. I haven’t got the phtos to hand, but from memory, it was somewhat similar to that little two-holer of Nick Compers…:)
Snoopy742276 Year Old Information.
Didn’t the Comet have a problem with the props changing pitch suddenly causing undesirable handling? I seem to recall this as one of the reasons it hasn’t flown much. Did this get fixed or is this not an issue any more?
The one-shot pneumatic Ratiers were taken off in about 1936, so you are about 76 years behind the drag curve…:) The airscrews fitted now have a terrific history for reliability.
The main problem has been the u/c. It’s now been modifed to ensure positive locking.
Probably most significantly, from the photos of ‘SS in the workshop, it appears that the proper tailskid has been refitted, which was long overdue. This will help reduce the chances of groundlooping by a large margin.
Sign In
