The scheme has also grown on me and I can live with it because it keeps the aircraft in the air. Don’t think it would ever have visited Austria (as it did last year) or the continent for that matter without this sponsorship. Lots people learnt about this aircraft who would not have known about it otherwise. It’ll be interesting to see what happens if the sponsorship is terminated. In this respect, the comparison with the marking on the other aircraft in the Red Bull fleet is not quite fair. The DC-6B, B-25, F4U, T-28, Widgeon and the two Alpha Jets are all owned by Red Bull, the Sea Vixen isn’t. The amount of money the Sea Vixen operators could earn by displaying a subdued Red Bull logo on it probably wouldn’t even buy enough fuel to get to the runway holding point…!

Has anybody noticed the success Red Bull is having with this paint scheme? We’re all discussing the name and flashing pictures of the logo. Mission accomplished!

Thanks for the interesting pics! Nice to see the care that the Lockheed 12 is receiving, as it must have been on display outdoors for the better part of some 30 years. The aircraft came from a Danish museum in the Eighties.

@stieglitz: I think that Tiger Moth belongs to the Dutch “Early Birds Foundation” and that it came from India in the early 80ies. I’ve seen it on a couple of occasions at fly-ins in Denmark and in Holland during the 80ies.

About the pics in the very first post:

If they were taken during a Fighter Meet at North Weald, then it wasn’t in 1986. That was the only Fighter Meet I ever attended and there was no Catalina there and the Sea Hawk was there but didn’t fly (seemed to have problems starting the engine). Those of you who were also there may remember the impressive formation flypast comprising a Northwest B747, first with a C-47 in Northwest paint, and then with a dozen warbirds. Pic here . Also fondly remembered is the Norwegian Convair Metropolitan which no longer flies and is in a museum in Norway…..

At the risk of repeating myself from an earlier thread about Hendon, the lighting levels are low for a very good reason – preservation of the aircraft.

I have major problems in believing that normal, interior lighting systems can produce enough UV radiation to do any damage to the aircraft in a realistic timescale (damage which would not be more severe than that caused by the humidity in the exhaled air from visitors… and from the frequent reshuffling and jacking up and down of exhibits).

The clouded canopies on externally displayed aircraft are in my understanding caused by moisture absorbed by the plexiglass rather than UV radiation.

I also never managed to get a sun tan indoors….!

I have always been of the opinion that lighting levels are kept low to deliberately make photography difficult, thereby helping the souvenir shop in selling their photographs and books? And is the use of flash and tripod not prohibited – at least it used to be IIRC?

# 6 is a Stinson Reliant, #10 is a Cessna Bird Dog 🙂

As far as I understand that system, the pitch of the propeller is related to the speed at which the small “fan” is spun, i.e. low airspeed -> coarse pitch, high airspeed -> low pitch. Older, Walter-engined Zlin aircraft have the same (or similar) system.

This just leaves me absolutely speechless 😮