MikeC

Dare I say that if you're bringing a new 109 to market you need something to make it stand out, a USP, otherwise it's (wait for it) just another 109 [runs for cover ...]

OK, here's another photo of the Duxford Concorde. Apologies for the poor quality, it's a scanned print, taken in the early-mid 1980s iirc. Yep, that is the view from the left-hand pilot's seat, which at that moment was being sat in by yours truly. It ain't what you know, it's who you know: my late father was a volunteer Concorde crew with the Duxford Aviation Society for many years.

It is that.

Always good to see a Starfighter. Are you doing colourful or camo?

According to Bruce Robertson in Spitfire - The Story of a Famous Fighter (Harleyford), N3297 was the first of two Mk IIIs, and was the first "clipped wing" Spitfire.

My office at the time overlooked the final approach to Filton, and along with many others I was privileged to watch the final final approach, missing only the final touchdown owing to buildings in the way. Not a dry eye in the house!

Certainly looks like a Chipmunk to me! I hope this happens, but also waiting with interest to Ali's rendition.

I think this has been said with variations already, but it's worth saying again: Given ICM's form producing trainers, please give us some more like, for example, the Ryan PT series, Chipmunk, Harvard/Texan/T-6, Miles Master, or even a Jet Provost/Strikemaster and A/T-37. You can tweet about the latter on "X"

I was probably somewhat defensive myself. No harm done to anyone, I hope. As for the Spitfire flaps thing, I think it was two-fold. The flaps affected the airflow through the radiator and oil cooler, and thus you could easily overheat and damage an engine. It was OK in flight at landing speeds, as there was sufficient then, but not at taxying speeds or stationary. I also have a vague memory that the flaps were pneumatically operated, and once down and the engine off, could not be raised until the air pressure was recharged. It's possible that I'm not remembering that correctly at all, others may know more.

Yes, indeed, but that's against a tyre, relatively resilient compared to aircraft skin (metal or fabric). And I still would not like to be that guy when the Flight Sergeant sees him.

I probably wasn't clear: I'm not talking about authenticity per se, I'm puzzled by the inconsistency of insisting on getting the aircraft exactly right, then not being equally concerned with the ground equipment (if depicted). Ther term "station bike" certainly has an alternative meaning, the one I think you refer to, but we'd probably better not go there

Nail on head, I think. Absolutely There's always someone who will - and I speak from both sides, having had my ear bent by that "someone" and by being that "someone". There's a bike, but leaning against the aircraft it is not. But I suggest someone move it before the line chief (for which read the correct Luftwaffe equivalent) spots it. There are some interesting examples above,, and as I said, a picture always overrides "that would never happen". It all comes down to operational necessity of course, if a trainer goes tech, it's inconvenient but acceptable to abort the sortie; if it's an aircraft about to set out on an essential mission in wartime, not so acceptable.

Push-bikes on air-bases, absolutely, a universal presence. But leaning against an aircraft? A useful means of cheap one-person transport (stand fast tandems) then becomes a very large FOD hazard, to say nothing of sharp bits like brake levers poking holes in fabric, etc etc.

I have been wondering lately about a rather odd phenomenon concerning research and accuracy in aircraft modelling, (Aircraft as I can’t really speak for any other genres.) Many modellers go to great lengths to get the actual aircraft they are representing as accurate as possible: correcting small dimensional errors, adding missing switches, levers, and cockpit equipment; checking the exact shade of paint required; and so on. Having got a model that by any definition is “correct”, they then place it in a setting that appears to be an afterthought at best, and is frequently inaccurate. Examples I have seen at model shows and online include: “RBF Tags” – the large streamers attached to safety pins, covers, etc, that need to be removed before flight – that are inappropriate for the air arm concerned. For example, those in use on US aircraft have the caption “Remove before Flight” in white on red, on British they are usually red/white diagonal stripes. Although there are exceptions. Inappropriate (to period and/or air arm) ground equipment. Aircraft parked in an inaccurate configuration, eg flaps deployed when irl they were always parked with flaps up (See ”Spitfire”). A modeller who had done a beautiful WWII fighter, and then depicted it with a bicycle leaning against it (surely a no-no in any air force at any time!) All manner of panels open and a full live armament load (and no “Danger Aircraft Armed” signs to be seen). And a beautiful diorama of an aircraft undergoing deep maintenance, including an engine change, in a hangar, and hanging around were a couple of aircrew dressed in full flying kit having a chat (not impossible but have they really got no other duties they should be doing?) As ever, a photo trumps general “rules”. Now each of those modellers have displayed their models how they wish, and I’m not criticising that. But I am puzzled why the general attitude seems to be to get the aircraft itself accurate to the nth degree, but then apparently ignore the realities of the setting. It seems inconsistent. So I thought I’d offer this up as food for thought and civilised debate. Thoughts?

Beautiful.