Re 35

Aircraft references apart, Your reference to Jutland, HMS Dreadnought, Jutland and deterrence are a bit wide of the mark ! Deterrence didn’t play much part despite Dreadnought because the Kaiser thought that he could mount a successful challenge to British dominance of the sea.

Err That’s what I said: the launch of HMS Dreadnought with new technology temporarily levelled the playing field and complete dominance was lost.

Now back to the thread.

I still cannot understand how so much energy can be released just by breaking the bonds of an atom.
An amazingly terrible thing.

Not so much energy as that released (in the form of heat, rather than light) by the controversy generated subsequently……

I hear all your comments
but I see unique aircraft safely under cover.
I forgive everything else. 🙂

Perhaps someone might like to post a list detailing the appalling record of the RAF Museum in scrapping, or causing to be scapped, the nation’s aviation heritage while in its “care” ……

Battles are won not by fighting to the last tank, ship or aeroplane but by persuading the enemy to give up. In this the appearance of invincibility is paramount. That, after all, is how the Germans conquered mainland Europe.

The Battle of Britain was won by the same process in reverse. The Germans were persuaded to fly elsewhere by the seeming invincibility of the RAF. We now know how close run it was in reality.

While the Hurricane was a very fine fighter in every way, it would have had a much longer, harder struggle on its own, during which the lack of numbers and any worthwhile reserves would have been exposed, giving incentive to the Germans to keep going.

I do believe the Spitfire played a crucial role in the image of the RAF in the minds and on the decision-making of the German leaders, just as their Stukas certainly played on the minds of the French when they decided not to fight.

I know I should be looking at the green machines
but right now I’m dreaming of that Californian sky…..

Fond memories of Chino.

A contact I have at Duxford told me, about 18 months ago, that they were considering disposing of one of the Phantoms. They reasoned that as they had two then they could get rid of one.

Now bearing in mind that one is an ex-USN F-4J in the US collection and the other a Rolls-Royce powered FGR.2 in one of the hangars you don’t need to be Brain of Britain to realise that they are two very different and very important types in their own right and each deserves to be preserved.

It seemed that the decision was to be made on the basis that each was a Phantom, not their respective differences, development history and use.

This kind of dumbed-down thinking which has infected all our national museums is exactly why the IWM needs watching like a hawk.
After what happened to the BA Collection at Cosford they can none of them be trusted.

.

…but the RAF insisted on doing circuit training in them, they would spend hours doing circuits and bumps..

“Insisted” sounds like they had a choice!

That’s what you did in those days. BOAC/BA, EAA, BUA, RAF – all did a lot of circuits for crew training. I counted 54 landings during local training flights in my log book day and night including various clearances and ratings we had to do.
Curiously, all done in SGE/ZD233. No wonder the Air Force considered it fit only for spares! 😮