So true….!

🙂 Spitfire doing wonderful aeros for at least 25 mins over N/W Cambridge area just now 11-10 onwards.
Walking the dogs in beautiful weather not a sound of a commentator anywhere ,just the birds twittering and the sound of a Merlin being used WONDERFUL.
Dear airshow commentators please take note and SHUT UP.

I’ll second that. Over the years I have come to detest their inane & interminable dronings, usually punctuated by exclamations of ‘Just listen to that..!” whilst they drone-on, ensuring that no one can enjoy the sounds. All the information is in the friggin Programme if people want the griff……:rolleyes:

Horizon.

This AI is the earlier Mk1 type with the ‘skyview’. It’s been in for service and had some white paint gobbed on it, but you can still see some of the original gold foil. They were usually luminous too. They were of course also used in civil a/c pre-war from about 1936 onwards.

The Mk1A was this unit inverted, but the later devices used white paint for use with UV lights etc and the symbology was simplified too. Same basic unit however. I think the revised version started to come in around 1941.

Agreed. :rolleyes:

Seconded.
The author of the article is a PPL, low-time or not, and he can put the time in his logbook. Does that mean someone will let him jump into their Spit’ and fly it..? Of course not, but he has certainly ‘flown’ one, and it’s a bit meanspirited to suggest otherwise. Of course, any pilot, and a good many others besides would love to fly a Spit’, even if it’s ‘only’ from the back of a two-seater – which is about as close as 99.999r% of the population will get, whether pilot or not.
My only criticism of the article was that he referred to the P1 as the ‘Co-Pilot’. Actually, he was the Pilot, and the journalist was PUS, or whatever the Euro-bufoons at EASA calls it now.
Whether it’s just a ride, handling the controls of a new rating, the Spit is still at the top of most folks ‘to do’ list…:diablo:

I suppose this counts as a design fault as it could have been easily sorted out. I never really understood why WWII bomber crew did not have fighter pilot type permanant chutes. We lost a hell of a lot of aircrew having to find and clip on their chutes.

In 1944 some bomber pilots were issued with seat type chutes as a trial. There are several accounts of them saying they only survived because they had their chutes on them…. Not stowed away out of reach requiring the flight engineer to help find it, clip it on, while having to sort his own chute and make his escape.

Have you ever tried to move about the confines of an a/c wearing a seat-type ‘chute’…? 😮 As far as I’m aware, RAF Bomber pilots all normally wore a Seat-Type ‘chute when flying British-built a/c. Their seats were normally ‘bucket-type’ to accomodate the Irvin. Other crew members simply did not have the space, or required greater mobility, especially gunners. I’m sure there may have been some variations however, such as US bombers such as the Liberator. 🙂

Kermit Weeks.

Negativity towards Kermit Weeks might be because he popularises vintage aviation, helps make it accessible. There are probably some enthusiasts who would rather ‘their’ hobby stayed in the shadows. Just a guess:)

I must say, I too was rather surprised at the tone of some comments. KW does VASTLY more than anyone else on the entire planet for historic aviation. Sure, he’s ‘wedged to the max’ as the kids say these days. He could of course have left it invested, but he chooses to get pleasure from sharing the benefits of his wealth. His collection is stunning – and accessable to all.

KW is also a superb pilot, and took part in – and won – aerobatic contests for many years.

KW also takes on many projects that probably no other individual on the planet has ever touched. Added to that, unlike most conventional museums, most of his a/c are not condemned to a dusty death, they are cherished and either fly, or are destined to fly. That is, after all what ‘historic aviation’ is supposed to be about…..

Oh, – and he happens to be a thoroughly nice guy. 🙂

Blowing Our Own Trumpet.

I was reminded of what fantastic a/c the VC10 was to look at. It’s a pity that the time, expense and effort that went into Concord(e) wasn’t put into the VC10 to develop a suitable world export version.
Sadly, Concord(e) was probably always destined to be uneconomical to operate.
The Comet really was unfortunate bad luck, the price we paid for being at the cutting-edge.
I also think that the ‘rationalisation’ was over-egged. Sure, seperately, the UK companies didn’t have the rescources of the big US companies, but the UK firms could have worked together. It’s worked fine for Airbus…. It still could work here, since most of the ‘know-how’ in Airbus still seems to come from the UK…..!
What we lack is the political will and determination, not the knowledge and skills. :rolleyes:

I can remember this. Filmed at Booker. A gathering of parties associated with MH434 – ATA pilots, test pilots, engineers, ACS, a Dutch pilot who had flown it, all sitting and bantering.

Mark

The very one. Must have been around 1980…… I didn’t have a VCR back in those days (Who did..!) but I made a sound-recording – long-lost.

There must be a copy somewhere…..I’ve been looking for ages..:)

Name That Program….

A slight thread-drift, but;- Many years ago, in either the very late 1970’s or early ’80’s, there was a TV documentary dedicated to MH434. Can anyone here remember what it was called..? I wonder if it is still available….? Tt may have been for the old Thames TV, and would have been prior to Sir Adrian Swire selling the machine.