John B (Sc)

Looking back at Gordon M's post about the restraint of the chap with a piano on his foot reminds me of how impressed I was, some years ago when teaching the lady who is now my wife to drive. We came round a roundabout in open country onto an uphill dual carriageway so I'd suggested she plan to change down a gear to accelerate away. New to driving, she got the gear shift wrong and went into first, not third, which caused a very loud and rapid rev increase from the engine. Her instant reaction, as she changed back up - 'Jings!' the old Scottish 'Broons' comment. The closest I have ever heard to her swearing...

Wow. Looks nice. I can't believe the price of this kit - ~£25 for a 1/72 model. That's more than the 1/48 variants were costing, last time I looked. Granted they take a bit of work, but you do end up with a fine and bulky model eventually. I still have a couple of examples of the previous 1/72 issue, which I thought was a fair representation of a Buccaneer and could be made into a really fine kit with a bit of work. Is that the point - 'with a bit of work'? Is it that folk prefer to buy something easy to stick together even if the price is a bit staggering, or what? As for the article style, I thought passive was the norm for formal reports and recommendations - as Steve Coombs said, normal habit for engineering. For a magazine article, whatever the editor prefers, providing it is consistent and appropriate for the purpose. Since I read articles to find what the person involved thought about the kit and what he/she found good bad or difficult, I'm happy with first person. It's the random spelling errors or mis-uses of words, poor syntax and occasional total howlers of either fact or composition that really detract from magazine enjoyment. (To be fair, nowadays the composition hiccups may not be something the Editor has much, if any, control over since that work often occurs remotely)

Thanks BigStu - I shall look forward to that. I wonder if that timing is intended to link with Scale Model World. (How did you hear of this?)

Hi. Some time ago - late last year as I recall, I tried to join the Airfix Club, It passed me to a holding page where it asked me to register my interest and said the club would be running again in 2019. So far - nothing heard. I seem to recall reading something similar the year before too. Has anyone got any news or heard anything - anyone know when or whether the Club will re-open or what is going on? Puzzled - John B

Sadly, the recent past record of the MoD and the RAF between them suggest that neither of those two things will happen. It seems we no longer have people within the system who properly understand the demands of continuing airworthiness and long term capability provision. It seems we are forced to operate on a short term thinking basis almost entirely. However that is due to political 'thinking', if that isn't an oxymoron, and is strictly outwith this forum's remit! The good news is that we modellers get some different airframes to model and some dismantling or scrapping scenes to add variety... Rats, I haven't even BUILT my E-3D yet. Possibly my build rate needs attention. 'Agent K' - I'd like to hope that more sensible project definition approach implies a bit more long term thinking is involved, for once ! Fingers crossed.

Recall the ejection seats were also live, which is unusual. On quite a few less demanding jets, such as the Jet Provost, often the seats have been rendered inert. That is a machine which you could bale out of or attempt a forced landing with. Given the performance of a Hunter I'd suspect ejection is the only realistic survival option. Hence that needs to be operational to fly the jet; I'd suspect that for airshow aeros, the anti g system would also be an expectation, if not a requirement. (I know the Blue Angels generally fly without this, since they feel the sudden effect of the system is bad news for delicate piloting required for their very accurate close formation demonstrations. They are an exception I believe; most fast jet teams wear the anti-g kit) I have never used an anti-g system, I simply do the usual straining, grunting capers, but then in a small aerobatic machine it isn't really possible to achieve the rapid onset of high G that a fast jet can. I'd certainly prefer to have such a system working if I was in a piece of kit with the performance of a Hunter! Maybe it was mandatory - does anyone here know? John B

Apparently they were in this case, according to the AAIB report I read. Shall re-check that. Yes: see Item 1.6.12, page 33 of interim report. Nothing noted to suggest unserviceability, which I'd expect would be a relevant no-go item for display flying

I am not in any sense a medical expert, though I have some in my family. I understand that subtle incapacitation can occur for many reasons. It is however, unlikely that a reasonably fit & healthy pilot would suffer incapacitation as a result of a tight 360 level turn. The G loads are not especially high and will have been anticipated, both by gentle torso straining and by the anti-g trousers. Generally where notable incapacitation appears it occurs when a negative g event is rapidly followed by a fast onset positive G manoeuvre. This is a characteristic of what has been described as G-loc. Mr Hill may have failed to brace during the flat turn and hence been subtly affected as a result. From my own personal experience I’d suggest that if that had been the case he’d have been well aware of it and would not have continued immediately -he’d likely have taken a few moments, possibly another 360, to settle himself down again. This whole sad event seems to have more subtle errors and omissions than that. I am still struck by the similarity between the speeds and heights achieved to those apparently more or less normal/acceptable for a Jet Provost display. If you , for whatever reason, pick up the wrong ’model’ for what is going on, it can be hard to spot the discrepancy quickly or to change it quickly. That may be relevant.

I agree Jamie. I have no idea how much composite material is used on the 319, nor what the various other materials heat tolerances are, but this is very similar to what is done wit most composite and modern mixed structures - why almost all modern sailplanes are white almost entirely ! From a visibility standpoint red upper wings are less useful than might be supposed by viewing on the ground. Trials demonstrated years ago that even dayglo colours against a light background are not seen more readily, which is why so many RAF training types now use gloss black for visibility. That is a very nicely done and for me nostalgic scheme. I flew on Herons, Viscounts, Vanguards and a Herald and Trident in that scheme. John

I very much fear this verdict could be part of something which will significantly affect all display flying and public demonstration aerobatics in the UK in future. Look at the quite understandable comment from one of the relatives of a victim, essentially asking why any aerobatics should be permitted (over land) if 'cognitive impairment' can happen so readily to any pilot. Given that was an essential part of the defence case, that is a hard question to answer/refute formally, so to speak. As an occasional aerobatic pilot I know what my informal answer would be, but the question is what may 'authority' do? This was about 'gross negligence' and that is very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt (I believe there is a more recent threshold description that that). Further actions, the inquest and /or any enquiry may ask different questions and reach conclusions which will affect all of us interested in flying, aerobatics or airshows. Part of my concern is that the CAA and others may feel inclined to take pre-emptive action to deflect the likely focus on their involvement in all this. As with most accidents and incidents, arguably a chain of events - failures, oversights or mistakes - led to this. That will be the focus,and the results may be awkward for future airshow operations. John T's last paragraph is absolutely right, sadly I am less optimistic than he is!

And for anyone else interested, I have now found this longer film at the IWM website - https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/record/1742

Found it! It appears to be an OWM film clip,though OI haven't yet found that on the IWM site. I'd quite like to have a download of this, so if anyone knows where that can be found, super. I shall try asking the Russian Model Shop which uploaded it, but I don't speak or write any Russian! John B

Thanks Paul. I shall check that one out - very useful to know about since naval aviation is a strong interest, way back to the happy days of RN Fulmar & Navy Days.

Hi. A couple of days ago I came across a short piece of film showing air activity on a Royal Navy carrier during the Suez campaign of 1956. It showed Seahawks & Wyverns being armed and launched, plus some shots of both types landing and a Venom all weather fighter landing wheels up. The Seahawks in particular had obvious gun blast staining . I found it when opening up Facebook to check on comments from my kids - about all I use Facebook for apart from browsing occasional aviation magazine information. I don't know where it came from, nor how to get back to it - it seemed to have been loaded up by a Russian or Eastern European site, possibly a kit manufacturer. Looked to be an official record or Min istry of Information film. Has anyone else seen it and does anyone know how I could find that film clip again. I'm not all expert with Facebook! Any help or guidance would be appreciated. John B

Pyrrhic indeed, though I believe the Auk was quite philosophical about it. He was unimpressed, shall we say, about Montgomery's twisting of the facts later, to Churchill and to the press. (Montgomery was making nasty comments about the Auk when serving under him in 1940; I believe Alanbrooke commented about Montgomery's insubordinate attitude. A self publicist from quite a while back.) I also like the sound of the Auk a lot - an impressive and quite modest general. His wife running off with that airman apparently struck him very hard indeed. Tsk - this is way off the topic of Sir Frederick and Harris. Shall desist.

Thanks Procopius. Re-reading 'The Alanbrooke War Diaries' by Arthur Bryant was instructive, as was 'Auchinleck, the Lonely Soldier by Warner. - I had forgotten that. Auchinleck did seem to be rather unfortunate in his selection of subordinate commanders, though it seemed to me that Neil Ritchie was possibly the one who disappointed most. Auchinleck was however the general who first led the Eighth Army to victory, stopping Rommel at First Alamein

A good point Graham. Presumably if Churchill had put enough pressure on, Portal would have taken action- as happened with General Auchinleck after Tobruk fell. I don't think the CIGS felt Auchinleck had to go, but Churchill did.

Interesting comments on an interesting topic. This rather confirms my pre-existing view of Harris as a rather unpleasant character of possibly limited intellect - but great determination of course. Also disappointingly limited in his understanding of engineering it seems - and evidently also of manufacturing limitations. It has always amazed me that he was allowed to behave in such an imperial fashion; his reluctance and indeed quite deliberate obstructionism when it came to supplying any long range aircraft for Coastal Command was clearly bad for the overall war effort. Given the real risk of our losing the war due to the Atlantic losses to U-boats, I wonder why Churchill didn't step in and lay down the law. Possibly his bloody mindedness meant too many people were afraid of him?

Thank you for a comprehensive answer Zhizhou. Most useful. John B

Has anyone completed a build on this kit yet? I am very tempted, but rather put off by one online review which suggests that the under fuselage and nose areas have fit problems, which apparently make it hard to get the very nicely moulded windscreen and canopy to fit. Any information welcome. I still have the old Revell Mirage III from 25 years ago, so maybe could combine them ! John B

Probably either the very early Airfix Spitfire, with moulded on pilot figure, or the Frog Javelin, which also had a moulded on crew and no undercarriage openings. the blue plastic. Both very badly built. Then I 'helped' my Dad build a Revell 1/48th Sikorsky S-55, with its engine door open so the engine inside could be seen. That was a fine model kit. It was re-issued when my son was young, so I had to buy another copy!

That was my memory of early SAMs too.

True. A very odd voice, strange cadences!

That 'list' is full of biased nonsense and some serious distortions - and that is being kind to the author narrator. Nasty sneering style too. Some of the aircraft he mentions were poor, some were designed and delivered to out of date or flawed specifications. Some were modified heavily from their original purposes or overtaken by events. Very easy to criticise with hindsight, traditionally viewed as 20:20. 'Hushkit.net' seems to specialise in some weird stuff. (Oh - and HitC, their no1 was the Blackburn Twin Blackburn. Not the prettiest of aeroplanes & one which few folk will have heard of.) Thanks Pinback, and Scimitar. Excellent videos of happy days when we had a fixed wing FAA of note! John B

I think Des might be lucky, A frrend said he passed it this morning, at the same site. Fingers crossed.