JohnT
-
Posts
4,334 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by JohnT
-
-
Have just got round to starting (well, cutting a few bits off the sprues of) the Trumpeter Wellington X I got at Cosford. It has dual control columns and rudder pedals though no second seat of any description. Is this is correct for all Wellingtons. Or is it just a result of Trumpeter maybe using a T. Mk X as a pattern?
I plan to do a wartime bomber, either a 215 Sq one of SEAC or a 150 Sq one in Italy.
Can anyone help?
Nick
Hi Nick
I found these 2 pics which rather indcate that while there might have been a co-pilot there was only one seat !
http://north.iwm.org.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.7351
http://www.spitfirespares.com/SpitfireSpar...struments3.html
hope this might add weight to the one seat/two seat query on operational types.
When I get home tonight I'll pull a book on "Fflying Wartime Aircraft" and pilots notes to see if there is anything on the Wimpy that might confirm things
regards
John
-
The Scotsman newspaper today carries a big article confirming 43 squadron disbanding with the best and most servicable a/c from 43 and 111 going to 111 who will continue meantime at Leuchars
MOD say that there is a commitment to place 3 Typhoon Squadrons at Leuchars in future but no guarantees as to numberplates
Thanks 43 - You will be missed. Haste Ye Back
John T
-
Interesting.... do you have a photo ?
I'd say Interesting isn't the word !
Our local museum had one and they were not that big as I recall. Quoted length 35 feet and diameter only 48 inches. Makes the V1 look like a 737 by comparison.
No idea how you would shoehorn anyone into one or who would be daft enough to climb into one. Big bang at the end of the ride though ! Reminds me of the film Dr Strangelove with Slim Pickins
Also I gather they ran on fuels that were not the most stable and that QRA away from base presented "challenges"
The range was decidedly first generation - 150 miles - so thats why they were of limited value when the Soviets were able to beef up the depth ot their air defences and the RAF desperately wanted the American Skybolt. It was cancelled, we got Polaris (probably the right decision) and the rest is history with the dark blue looking after us thereafter
John T
-
People who make simple human errors, that anyone of us could make, should not be sent to jail, period. You can train a lot of competence into a capable person, but you can't make them invulnerable to being a human being.
Well argued post I thought. But you dont have to be an aircraft techie to run this risk. Everone of us does now that we get behind the wheel of a car. Until recently if you made a simple mistake/error while driving and it had unforseen but catastrophic consequences and someone died you would be prosecuted under S3 for careless driving and be fined/banned etc. The law accepted that the sad result of a death was an unintended and unforeseeable consequence of the error and that the driver should not be punished for such.
Now you can go to jail. That means losing your job, home and maybe consequentially your family too.
Remember we are not talking about death by reckless driving. That always was a more serious offence following on something more than an "honest error" mistake.
The problem was that sometimes a "wee" mistake made millions of times a day without anything more than a minor bump - if that - ended unexpectedly in a death. Famillies of the deceased were not concerned about the driver only making a small error and wanted jail time. Politicians just couldn't say no and changed the law leaving it to judges to sort out the "hard cases" and be lenient. But make no mistake, if you get involved in a low speed accident and someone dies you can be looking at jail time even for a split second lapse of concentration.
So if we accept that as a rule for the road in principle where do we draw the line?
Personally I think its bad law but I don't get to make the rules ! There would be more holidays for starters and at least 1 free model per household every week
JohnT
-
Sorry, but ......
Ditto
seem to recall that the Luftwaffe was mostly geared to what we now call Mud Moving and most historians agree that it was not a balanced force and that contributed to its failure to achieve its goals despite the quality of the opposition and its own traing and kit. A lesson there perhaps?.
Also its a wee bit difficult to "mud move" when the other side have air superiority assets all over you.
Until we find the guy with the crystal ball who accurately predicted Korea/Vietnam/Falklands/Gulf1 and a dozen others in time to build the appropriate assets and train the crews to deploy them then maybe we might just be better having a balanced force structure through the three services?
Unless we retire our foreign policy to the borders of the Channel Islands we will need adequate force structures for all three services. And that means having the right kit in adequate numbers. Frankly I doubt that Typhoon will be aquired in sufficient numbers. Remember its supposed to have a swing role with some being optimised for air to ground and not air - air.
"Numbers have a quality all of their own" Josif S
Of course we can just disarm altogether, save the cash and take our chances. I don't see the point in spending good money on the services knowing we are not supporting them enough to do the job. Thats immoral. We either find the cash or accept that its not fair to ask the guys to go out on a limb because we dont tell our political masters it is not good enough.
John T
PS Have a great Easter and hope you all get a 1/48 "egg" from the family
-
Put Leuchars on a C+M basis until the next tranche of Typhoons comes through.......
That would seem likely but how many re-open after being on c & m ? And given the amount spent on bailing out the banks what chance does the next tranche of typhoons have - or the carriers for that matter. Voters don't vote on defence !
-
Early retiral of the F3's would seem unlikely. Who would fly out of Leuchars then ? Close 43 and 111 and bring a squadron North or just close it/ civilianise it? The latter would seem unlikely.
I recall they did an effective cost efficient upgrade to the Jaguar just in time to retire them and why exactly did they retire the SHAR again?
As for 50 Typhoons maybe being enough to defend us against whatever - 3 points
1 I don't know the total inventory but it would be how many servicable aircraft then? Whats the norm? About 30% non availability at best?
2 Typhoon is supposed to have a swing role so how many optimised for air - air and how many for air- ground ? And whats their capability in their non optimised role? I recall that we get the under developed early tranche and for money reasons the Saudis get the fully developed jobs before we do. Or has that changed?
3 No idea who we might have a problem with next but not many of us saw the Falklands coming several weeks in advance, nor Saddam invading Kuwait nor etc etc. We don't always get the luxury of a Hitler type telling us for several years what he intends to do so we have the luxury or time to re-arm appropriately. Anyone recall the so called crash priority programmes of the 50's to get Hunter and other types up and operational for the cold war when the opposition were looking forward to having a field day with their Migs against our state of the past Meteors and Vampires. Historical footnote - not many RAF aces in Korea and RAF Canadair Sabres hastily bought for RAF Germany.
Are we condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past ?
I suppose we can always re-gun the B of B flight in an emergency
John T
-
Hi John B
For what its worth I don't like ambulance chasers either though in reality most of these guys are not lawyers but a new "profession" of claims firms that punt on cases - at a price - to law firms after milking them for a turn first. Won't touch it myself and I never have an empty desk !
At the risk of over simplifying I worry we are becoming too "American" in our outlook as a society and that ambulance chasing is just one symptom of that. ( and my sons godmother is a US citizen so I am not anti US !) These claim firms wouldn't do it if Joe Public didn't call them.
Just get hacked off a tad at my profession being a soft target most of the time when just about everyone I know are decent hard working guys etc often for modest bucks and we never really see the types that get so much prominence in the public eye.
Getting back to the thread though I have much sympathy for overworked mechanics struggling with complex work and out of date or incorrect manuals ! How can anyone expect them to get it right in that scenario? No legal liability on them in that situation though employer/ manufacturer or supplier of manual might be in trouble.
Very interesting thread guys - deserves a wider audience and more appreciation by our "masters"
John T
-
My point is that lawyers, from the safety of a courtroom, should feel capable of judging this man's actions and view him as criminal in his actions. That to me is unreasonable and does nothing to advance air safety.
Sorry but can't really let that bit of lawyer bashing go ! I should declare an interest as I am a litigation lawyer to trade and not just a plastic hacker. I am afraid too many folks don't really understand what goes on in a law court and thats probably a fault with our education system that does not really teach people about the legal system and what it does - or more importantly what it does not do. All too often the public perception comes from tv and film which is about as true to life as your average Hollywood flick. I have yet to watch a film or tv series or read a book thats remotely like what happens in a law firm.
Firstly its not the job of the Court to advance air safety - Thats the job of the authorities investigating the accident and who will recommend the design and practise changes to prevent the accident happening again. The Courts function is to determine whether there has been death caused by gross negligence and to call those responsible to account.
I do a lot of professional negligence work. That does not make me an expert in medical matters, surveying, architecture or whatever the subject happens to be. I just ask those witnesses recognised as experts in their field whether what was done was negligent or not. They tell us and assist the Court to make a decision accordingly. And yes I have seen factors such as stress of the moment taken into account in determining whether or not there was negligence. To give a neutral example a mstake was made in an A & E Dept of a busy city hospital with serious consequences for the patient on a Saturday night with staff hopelessly overstretched with an unexpected crisis. The decision reached was if it been quiet there would have been a case for to answer but in the circumstanes the error was forgivable.
Pilots and engineers are subject to the same laws that require prosecutions for death caused by gross negligence in every other walk of life. Corporate manslaughter is becoming a developing area of law allowing prosecutions where manufacturers and service providers are grossly negligent to the point where life is unecessarily lost. I am always saddened at the loss of a flyer. The old adage that the pilot is the first on the scene of the accident is always true. Due allowance must always be given for the heat of the moment.
But the situation is totally different where an airline takes short cuts in its maintaining of aircraft for economic reasons only that not only prejudices air safety but the public and aircrew whose lives are put at risk and sadly sometimes lost as a result.
Please don't blame lawyers for providing access to justice for people who need it. We all might need one one day.
And for the guys out there some free divorce advice -
dont - you cant afford it !!
regards
John
-
Really nice work.
I have one in the box on the shelf glaring at me beside the Sea Vixen and Scimitar. I bought them because I heard that Dynavector were really good models but have always been to afraid to start them as I have not done a vac form before. Your Javelin is superb and maybe just the kick up the behind I need to get the dust of mine ! If I get half as good a result I'd be over the moon
regards
John
-
Great work - watching with interest and learning !
I had an idea about the problem of fixing the Mossie to a base and hanging it. Might be tricky to space exactly but I did wonder about the possibility of inserting two/three small screws through the base from behind and into the underside of the wheels to give three fairly robust attachment points that would never be seen. Tailwheel might be too small but the main wheels should be ok. A potential problem might be the strength - or lack of it - of the undercart legs and fixing points to the wings but if white metal ones used? No idea if it would work as never tried it but just a thought?
Looking forward to seeing more
John
-
worked it out and pm sent !
-
John
I have a couple of 1:48 Gloster Greebe's in the stash - you are welcome to one of them.
Send me a PM to work things out.
Darius
Thanks Darius
now being a newbie I just have to work out how to send a pm !
on it !
John
-
I'll assume you've read Richard Morris' book on Gibson and, yes, he is a completely different animal to the one portayed on film. Hopefully we will see Gibson 'warts and all' and if Peter Jackson does with this material as he did with LOTR, then that should be what we will get. He likes to be as true to the original as possible.
Maybe this is why the film is taking so long to get going? PJ is having a barny with the money men as they want the Americans to have breached the dams and the Limeys/Australians/NZ'ers only flew spoof raids to draw away the thousands of nightfighters intent on shooting down 'our boys'?
Nothing would surprise me.
Hopefully it will be completed soon, then I can watch it and give my verdict.
Yes
I am still wondering how Ben Affleck will fly his B 17 ( He's done the P40/B25 already nice to be so talented, fighter jock and bomber pilot and stud too) off the Hornet, take out Galland and the Abbeville boys, destroy the Dams and retun to the arms of Kate again while showing Chuck exactly how you break the sound barrier.
I am eating too much pop corn, too much pop corn !!
-
this story was also carried on BBC R4's 'today' progamme at about 0820hrs this morning, btw.
Yeah
heard it on car radio on way into work and nearly crashed laughing when the ex instructor was asked his call sign and he said "Haggis"
er - "Viper", "Iceman" and "Maverick" - pee your pants, "Haggis" is after you
Wonder Brit understatement as ever
-
Its an interesting topic. When I was a boy the term we are referring to was used in a descriptive rather than a perjorative sense but growing up I realised that in "American" English it was used only as a term of abuse. So seeing paint commonly described as ****** brown just faded away to avoid causing offense. My parents always told me not to cause offence to others and be considerate so I don't have a problem with dropping the dogs name and replacing it with something else. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the producers to find a name that refers to the dogs character without causing offense.
I doubt that the dog was called his name for any reason other than his colouring and that it was ever intended to cause offence to anyone in the 1940's. Given the cosmopolitan nature of Bomber Command I suspect that there was not that much prejudice around in any form except from a few individuals and BC was probably more akin to todays culture than that of the general public in the UK at the time.
You can also bear in mind the forces habit of calling someone by a nickname that reflects their origins without intending any derogatory prejudice. Lots of examples spring to mind. So i am sure the problem really comes from the increasing "Americanisation" of English which puts the dogs name in a different context to that of RAF Bomber Command WW2.
Having said that I can see that to change the name does distort the historical accuracy of the film - mind you did that ever bother film producers ??!!!!
What I am perhaps more intrigued about is that on reading a biography of Guy Gibson I found out that he was not perhaps exactly (remotely?) like Richard Todd. The bio I read rather had him come across as a chap for the ladies and a strong character you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of. There was a suggestion that he had his favourites and could be quite brutal with subordinates if I recall - its a few years since I read the book now. I won't even get into the subject of how/why he got himself into a mosquito on his final flight but suggestions that his strong charcter played a part keep surfacing. Worth a read as, assuming its an accurate bio, you see the human frailities we all have ( yes I have had a tantrum with the odd ill fitting part but I will deny it if you tell anyone that ).
So will we see Gibson warts and all as a real person or will he gets the "Hollywood" treatment again? Thats maybe just as important as a dogs name and being PC ?
John
PS Douglas Bader wasn't like Kenneth More either but he and Gibson were still two of the greatest heroes the country has produced despite of (because of?) their own personal failings and I wish we had a few more of them about today.
-
Bother
got a reply this am and its no longer for sale - oh well back to the drawing board !!
Dont expect Trumpy to do one soon - no rivets to punch on it !
Anyone come across one please let me know - I would be eternally in your debt !
John
-
Thanks for the ref.
I have sent them an e-mail so hopefully you have just saved me hours of heartache and girning. I did Google a search but came up with nothing. I have been looking for this to complete a list of 1/48 aircraft to do a run of the types used by 111 Squadron over the years.
Once again
-
Have had no luck trying to find a 1/48 Gloster Grebe. Aeroclub have no re-release plans as yet.
Would it be possible to back engineer a Grebe from a Gamecock? The wings look similar at least though the fuselage looks a different story. Might need lots of scratchbuilding !
Any thought much appreciated
John
-
Thanks Bill and Stephen
comments and memories much appreciated
sorry about wrong forum
still getting the hang of this site !
regards
John
-
Hi
I am doing the background spade work before starting a Blue Diamonds Hunter aircraft. Anyone know what colour is a good match for the blue they sprayed them in ?
I have several colour photos but wonder about the reproduction processes and if I can rely on the prints in the book or whether to look at some modern re-incarnations doing the airshow circuit?
I think I saw them at a Turnhouse airshow when I saw 13. (er 1966!) I checked and I thought I'd seen the Black Arrows but they would have disbanded by then so it must have been the Diamonds. Not an unusual error I am told but 13 was a very long time ago now
Any help much appreciated
John
-
If you had to build a Dambuster Lanc OTHER than Gibson's which one would it be and why?
A-JJ Flt Lt Maltby, as it was that crew that seems to have dropped the upkeep exactly right and blown the Mohne.
But if I had the money and space I'd do the lot - heroes all
John
-
Your welcome
sorry about being a luddite technophobe !
Now if only Susan will let cut down the hedge, dig up the front border, demolish the drive and..................
-
Hope this link works but if not try BBC News site - Scotland - South of Scotland - Chocks away for garden spitfire
Way to go !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_...and/default.stm
ok then I'll try this !!
...
Wellingtons: were they all dual control?
in Aircraft WWII
Posted
Hi Bill
yes - sorry to give a bit of a bum steer
Got home and pulled out Wellington at War and Ken Delves book on the Wellington. No helpful pics and have not read through the text
What might help is an old copy of "Flying Wartime Aircraft" A collection of ATA pilots handling notes. In Part 1 Headed Mechanical Details common to most marks under Flying Controls it says :-
"Dual Controls
Dual controls are not normally fitted, but can be installed when required. The equipment is not normally carried in the aircraft."
The notes start with a general note on matters common to all marks in Part 1. Part 2 deals with "Flying particulars applicable to most marks" and then there is specific further notes in Part 3 for the differences within the various marks.
Happy to copy the pages at work and post to you if you want them along with a b & w photo of pilots position taken from the wrong side for you purposes sadly.
Don't know if this helps or hinders but there you are for what its worth. The author of the introductions - Hugh Bergel - says the notes are exactly as first issued to ATA pilots. He liked the Wellington as a lovely plane to fly - all except the Mk VI which he says "was the only nasty Wellington. The pilots view was so restricted taxying was a misery and in the air it was as if one was wearing blinkers. .....On my only flight in a Mk VI I was unhappy from before take off till after an excessively bad landing." Otherwise he calls the Wimpy delightful and brilliant.
Good luck with the research
John