I believe the AM ordered 15 Vegas, of which 11 are reputed to have served with 24 Sqn. I do not have access to primary sources to confirm this however, so you’d need to check.

‘ With the outbreak of the Second World War the squadron acquired more civil airliners which were impressed for wartime service. It provided a detachment in France to run a courier services, but with the withdrawal of British troops it was soon used to evacuate men back to England. Former British Airways and Imperial Airways aircraft were put to use on a network of communications flights including trips to Gibraltar and later Malta. The squadron also performed ambulance flights when required.’

The above, unverified, from the www.

That’s all I can see on the scant info you have…….. 🙂

Tony T ;- Your point about EASA is well made. As with the rest of the EU juggernought, it has been hellbent on vacuuming-up regulatory power for itself, with, one may surmise, the intention of also vacuuming-up all the revenues ultimately…. The UK CAA has become, if effect, a local office of EASA. Rather amusing really, considering the lackadaisical and amateurish way that EASA got going. I think at one stage they thought they could get everything that flew to be fitted with a transponder so that they could charge for every flight….. Someone must have had a word in their ear.
Mentioning EASA though, does bring-up an interesting question;- If the UK leaves the EU – and there is a very good chance that it will – where will that leave the CAA…? Now there’s a thought to conjure with. I wonder if they have a cunning plan….

Victor Meldrew;- Vintage aircraft tend to flow like water towards where the best operating environment is. Witness the peregrinations of some aircraft to and fro across the Pond. If the economy picks-up here, and the regulatory – and cost-burden is ameliorated, – aircraft will flow here. T’was always thus.

Venture Aviation.

There are changes afoot which will have a great deal of bearing on the maintenance and operation of historic and vintage aircraft. I’m surprised that there have not been previous comments upon this subject on the Forum. The CAA has been in ongoing consultation with interested parties and there have been two major conferences at Duxford, in February 2013 and 2014 which were both interesting and well-attended. The 2013 Conference included some very robust and entertaining Q&A sessions. What became clear was that the CAA really were listening.

Some changes have already been made. The CAA has already, as of last February, set-up a separate section to deal with GA, as it has all been lumped-in with Heavies and Commercial in the past and lesser voices drowned-out. This is a very positive step, as this means that, for the first time, GA will have it’s own seat at the top-table, and not have it’s interests totally pushed to one side by the big commercial interests.

In terms of the restoration, maintenance and operation of older machines, there is a proposal to adopt the Australian model of what is termed ‘Adventure Aviation’. This has two important ramification. Firstly it involves the CAA delegating administration, so that the ‘industry’ becomes Self-Administering. Note – NOT self-regulating… Powers will be delegated in much the same way as they are to the LAA, but with important differences.

All of this is being driven by;-
1) The ‘industry’ complaining of high costs and burdensome regulation totally lacking in any cost/benefit analysis.
2) The inability of operators to make money from operating their a/c to defray sky-high costs.
3) The pressure from Government on the CAA to cut costs. This latter point is not to be underestimated in terms of it’s influence on this project…..

With regard to (2) above – this is an area which the average enthusiast is likely to see the greatest changes. Hitherto, it has been difficult to impossible for operators to charge for flights, as their a/c were not suitable for normal licensing. This applies to airshow appearances as well as rides etc. However, under the new proposals, there is an issue of ‘informed consent’. This would, in practice, boil-down to a punter having to read a risk-assesment document, and signing a waiver. One may easily see that if this were to go ahead, if could, potentially, make as much of a step-change in the historic aircraft scene as the glut of airworthy warbirds after the making of the BoB film in 1969, if not more so. Rides/air-experience flights etc, would become available in a whole range of older machines. Not only will enthusiast be able to get into the air in historic aircraft, but the prices would be significantly reduced….

If all this happens, and if it does it’s not yet certain what exact form it will take, it’s also likely to make it more probable that many more older aircraft will become viable to operate in the UK. Now, this hasn’t happened yet – it’s still ongoing, but that is the intention. Anyone interested in seeing what this system might look like can find plenty of references to it on Australian websites. The details are being thrashed out now, and I’m guessing – and it’s only a guess – that we’ll know a lot more by this time next year.

Finally, I’d like to say that I’ve never personally had any problems with the CAA. They have a big and onerous job. I’ve only ever found them helpful, friendly and quite flexible at times. Which is not to say that these changes are not overdue of course. However, they are very much ‘on-side’ with all this. Personally, I think it will happen, and, when it does, it’ll be the biggest shot in the arm that the vintage aircraft scene has ever had.

Re 21;-

‘Resources’ are not simply materials, – they include skilled workers, production facilities and machinery. Those were all reasons as to why the Mosquito was wooden. Of course, they were not the only reasons. The Mosquitos fuselage was produced in two halves, like an Airfix kit, and both halves were fitted-out, before the two halves were joined. This was a highly efficient method of production. A composite aircraft can be very stiff. The surface of a composite a/c can also be very smooth and even, and since the whole concept of the Mosquito ( – and this was always something Bomber Command struggled to accept..) was pure speed, lowering drag was vital. Look at a lot of metal aircraft of the period, and rivets aside, you will see a lot of drag-inducing ‘panting’ in the skin. Now try finding a photo of a Mosquito with panting. You simply will not.
De Havillands had huge experience with wooden aircraft, especially fast and efficient ones. The DH88 was fast….but if you look closely at the fuselage, it betrays earlier thinking, with it’s flat sides and panting between the frames. Then look at the Albatross, which needed to be even more efficient…..gone was the panting etc…..
Mosquito’s were used if the Far East even after the war. The glue issues were acknowledged, but the aircraft remained in service and effective. The aircraft proved that it was practical and effective in every theatre of the war. (Lets see what happens when the JSF has to step up to the mark….ahem….!).
With regard to post war usage of the Beau. All one can read into that was that the Beau was a simpler more practical aircraft to operate, and no more than that. In peacetime, performance margins matter relatively little….. During the war, 25kts – or less, was life or death for a bomber crew with a fighter in hot pursuit…. Time and time again, Mosquito’s outran pursuing fighters underscoring the value of De Havilland’s pursuit of the ‘Speed Bomber’ concept against institutional inertia.

The Beau’ wasn’t a bad aircraft, it just that the Mosquito was better. The Beau’ sprang out of the Blenheim, a much less advanced design than the Mosquito. Not only that, the Mosquito was more versatile and made better use of strategic materials and other resources. The glue problems in the Far East et al were overcome. Even with the same Merlins, the Beau was slower.

The Beau was designed for quite a different role to the Mosquito too. The Mosquito could do anything the Beau could do, better, and was more inherently adaptable. Their roles only really coincided as night fighters and anti-shipping a/c. Whilst both could carry external bombs and rockets, the Beau was more commonly-equiped to carry a torpedo. (I think this was only done experimentally with the Mosquito.). The Mosquito really was the original MRCA.

It’s often forgotten that the Mosquito was originally designed purely as a bomber. Even judged in that role alone, it was in a class of it’s own. Mosquito loss-rates were remarkably low. It has been argued, and the facts back this up, that if instead of building large, slow and vulnerable four-engined ‘heavies’, Bomber Command had have had many, many more Mosquitos, a great number of the Commands 55,000 casualties could have been avoided. The Heavies only made one trip a night to Germany, whereas it was not unusual for Mosquitos to make several trip a night…. The Mosquito could carry the same bomb-load as a B17 and even carry the large ‘Cookies’. All for half the engines, half the fuel and less than half the crewmen, but much more than half the risk. Quite sobering…. Analysis along these lines makes for some very uncomfortable reading. Used more effectively, in much greater numbers, the Mosquito might have achieved more – and sooner – and all that, crucially, with that much lower casualty rate.
Mosquitos ranged over all over occupied Europe, almost at will, especially at night. Whilst all this was going on, Mosquito night-fighters were in the bomber-stream attacking Luftwaffe night-fighters, and Mosquito Night-Intruders were harrying the Luftwaffe night-fighters at take-off and landing. All of this with relative impunity.

The early risky low-level Mosquito ops by the likes of the Marham-based squadrons such as 105 Sqn with the BIV, were good for moral, but not, strictly, what the machine was designed for. All the low-level fighter-bomber operations with the FBVI’s were very spectacular, but many other a/c, including the Beau’, were able to carry out many of these out almost as effectively as the Mosquito.
Especially noteworthy were the operations of Coastal Commands Banff Strike Wing, which operated in the North Sea against Axis shipping and shore targets, sometimes with fighter-support. I think the Banff Wing operated a broadly equal mix of Beau’s and Mosquitos (Presumably FBIV’s.) and it’s operations were well known for being highly effective.

The other varied roles of the Mosquito extended both the altitude and range of the machine. The MkXVIII even used a field-gun against U-Boats for a while. The PR versions of the Mosquito were sublime, much in demand and the small numbers given to the USAAF highly prized. It still worth emphasising however, that whilst there was some commonality of roles, the Mosquito can stand unchallenged on it’s performance in it’s intended role as a pure altitude-bomber alone.

Example of a great building;- Duxfords Superhangar. It’s large, light, airy, and the SUPERB viewing balcony allows a different perspective on all the exhibits.
Example of a crap building;- Cosford’s new ‘carbuncle’. It’s dark, (…and not the only hall that could be so accused…) wretched, gloomy and more of a vehicle for architectural ego than a purpose-designed exhibition-hangar. In fact, even the ordinary old hangars at Cosford are much, much better than the new hangar. I dread to think what that new monstrosity cost. Any building built around the exhibits is also frozen in aspic. A normal hangar can have the doors thrown open and everything (Relatively) quickly and easily moved around. Ordinary hangars can easily have extra skylights added to boost light levels. The addition of elevated walkways, somewhat akin to Duxfords Superhangar, around the periphery would be great too.

What else…? An aviation museum at a usable airfield clearly has an edge. A/C can be flown-in, displays can take place and visitors can arrive by air. Space and parking is also less likely to be a problem. It also adds a lot to the inherent ambiance.

I’ve also been to some museums where one gets the impression that it was set-up for the sake of setting-up a museum. By that, I mean, filled with all, or nearly all, pretty boring and mundane exhibits. Of course, not everywhere can have the resources of something like the RAFM, but the hard truth is, not everything aeronautical is ‘historic’ or meretricious of saving. Look at some of the gems we have lost…….and look at some of the meat-and-two-vedge that we see time and again…. Naturally, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing…!

Finally, one last observation – and a personal peccadillo;- Almost all museums focus on military aviation. Airliners aside, there isn’t one which really focusses on historic civil aeroplanes – they are just scattered around the UK. The closest we have is probably Old Warden. I’ve always seen this as something of a gaping hole in the museum scene. It’d be great to see such airframes collected together in one place.

As for cafes and shops and toilets. Jolly nice, but all I ever remember about visiting any aeronautical museum is the thrill of seeing past aeronautical history writ real before me. Frankly, the trivia does not even register.

Enter the KING

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know anything about those very odd Bakelite Starter Switches I described above…? They were fitted to some Light Aircraft in the mid to late 1930’s. i’ve only seen them on Civil Types such as Percivals and Miles….I wonder who made the switches….? They looked sort of heart-shaped from the front…