Meteor: Out of Service Date?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The final Meteors in normal RAF service were, as far as I am aware, at the College of Air Warfare / School of Refresher Flying at Strubby. They were all ferried to Kemble to go out of service in April 1965 at the end of the second ad hoc AFS course whilst the Gnat was having teething troubles at Valley. I was one of the Meteor AFS students bumped off No 9 Gnat course and rode T7 WA593 in formation to Kemble on 2 April 1965 - others went there a little later. My last trip was in F8 WK655 three days later from Strubby.
Later I flew the RAE Meteor T7 XF274 a few times from Farnborugh in early 1974, but after I left it crashed during an asymmetric overshoot on 14 Feb 75.
Afternote:
Meteors continued to be used as target tugs in by the RAF UK and overseas for some years afterwards.
Later I flew the RAE Meteor T7 XF274 a few times from Farnborugh in early 1974, but after I left it crashed during an asymmetric overshoot on 14 Feb 75.
Afternote:
Meteors continued to be used as target tugs in by the RAF UK and overseas for some years afterwards.
Last edited by xtp; 30th Jan 2012 at 15:58.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an interesting side-bar question. If OPF's picture is here Martin Baker Meteor Photo.Call. (Charlgrove) and I only point to the picture through it's URL, is that a breach of copyright?
Thats always been my undestanding - I seem to remember a court case a few years ago where two highland / islands newspapers were fighting over one linking to the others stories, and the case was proved. In that case - IIRC - the offending newspaper was even giving credit ti the original source, but it was still deemed a copyright breach. Wish I could remember the exact details
Thats always been my undestanding - I seem to remember a court case a few years ago where two highland / islands newspapers were fighting over one linking to the others stories, and the case was proved. In that case - IIRC - the offending newspaper was even giving credit ti the original source, but it was still deemed a copyright breach. Wish I could remember the exact details
Au Contraire, I'm afraid. I've done some digging on this and found this on wikipedia...
Bottom line, when you search on Google Images then they Inline Link to the images just as PPrune does with it's "insert image" function. If Inline Linking breached Copyright then Google would be bankrupt!!!
Mystery solved. All the very best
LJ
The most significant legal fact about inline linking, relative to copyright law considerations, is that the inline linker does not place a copy of the image file on its own Internet server. Rather, the inline linker places a pointer on its Internet server that points to the server on which the proprietor of the image has placed the image file. This pointer causes a user's browser to jump to the proprietor's server and fetch the image file to the user's computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[5] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:
Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....
Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....
Mystery solved. All the very best
LJ
Thread Starter
Thank you one and all, for the multitude of posts. Whilst my question was answered in spades, it looks like a few happy memories were stirred too. Cheers.
CG
CG
I think they were at RAF Nicosia in April 1961 as I arrived, but were soon replaced by Javelins ....... not sure if they were resident or staging through.
The Changi Target facilities flight operated them until the beginning of 1971. They had a young pilot officer lodged with them who had a long time between courses. Rumour has it he was the last one ever to be sent off solo in a Meteor.
xtp
They were all ferried to Kemble to go out of service in April 1965
Aaron.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oxon
Age: 92
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about last RAF Meteor flight but my last flight in the RAF was ferrying WH 286 from Chivenor to St Mawgan on 06/06/69 as part of a formation consisting of four Hunters and two Queens of the Sky when the aircraft of 79 Sqn deployed prior to Chivenor runway resurfacing. I've a nice photo of the formation taken from above by an FR 10. Incidentally, in those days there was none of this fluffy naming of Meteors such as Gloria, Albert or even Winston. Whoever was the pillock who came up with that idea?
I first flew a Meteor on 11/07/51 (202 AFS Valley) then CFS Course, 205 AFS (M. St G), 210 AFS (Tarrant Rushton), 34 Sqn, and then managed to keep current at 229 OCU on three tours, Sylt on APC attachment and FEAF Target Facilities Flight Changi when on the staff at HQ224 Gp Seletar. Happy days!
I first flew a Meteor on 11/07/51 (202 AFS Valley) then CFS Course, 205 AFS (M. St G), 210 AFS (Tarrant Rushton), 34 Sqn, and then managed to keep current at 229 OCU on three tours, Sylt on APC attachment and FEAF Target Facilities Flight Changi when on the staff at HQ224 Gp Seletar. Happy days!
Wasn't it the case that FEAF target facilities Meteors weren't replaced by anything? FEAF was in the process of being disbanded when 1574 Flight folded, and when 74 Sqn wrapped up in 1971 there was no further need. I doubt if they were ever replaced by Canberra but, if FEAF had survived, then I very much suspect that would have been the plan, especially as 361 Sqn was due with Canberra T17s? 1574 Flight to be re-equipped with TT18's or a flight of TT18's attached to 361 Sqn was the most probable future had the withdrawal from East of Suez not happened.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
M Minderbender
Hi Milo. I know it's a long time since your post #22 but I've found the details.
Netlitigation | Cases | Shetland Times v. Jonathan Wills
Rgds SOS
Netlitigation | Cases | Shetland Times v. Jonathan Wills
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 1st Sep 2012 at 00:07. Reason: Increased veracity
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
It would be nice when all the unpleasantness in Syria is finished to see some of their Meatbox decoys liberated.
Cut and paste the co-ordinates into google maps.
N36 11.22 E037 34.31
They were
Two ex RAF T.7's
Twelve production F.8
Seven ex RAF F.8
Two ex RAF FR.9
Six ex RAF NF.13
Meteors 'found' in Syria - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
Cut and paste the co-ordinates into google maps.
N36 11.22 E037 34.31
They were
Two ex RAF T.7's
Twelve production F.8
Seven ex RAF F.8
Two ex RAF FR.9
Six ex RAF NF.13
Meteors 'found' in Syria - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
Re xtp's comments in #21 above, I too was lucky enough to be on the Strubby course in 1965. On 2 April I sat in the back of VW 427 from Strubby to Kemble - so we must have been in the same push. I went on to fly the target facilities Meteors on 85 Squadron until Jul 65. Looking at my logbook I see that 85 had at least 6 Meteors on strength, in addition to several Canberras. The Meteors soldiered on with 85 for at least a year or so more. However, as has been said, the tugs at Brawdy were still flying well after this.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 65
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My father, Derek Turner, flew Meteors on and off for a good proportion of his career.
He joined 222 at Leuchars while they were flying Meteors in the early '50s and shortly before they converted to Hunters. A few years later he flew them from Sylt (TT flight I think) and after that I'm guessing he flew them, amongst other types, from Manby/Strubby in the early 60s (could be wrong on that one; too young to remember!).
Early '68 to December 70 he was with 1574 (TT) Flight at Changi. As indicated earlier, the UK was withdrawing from Singapore and the flight folded in the early months of 1971 with a number of the aircraft being handed over to the Singapore Air Force. As far as I'm aware his final hurrah with a Meteor was when he was flying with the RAE at Farnborough in the mid '70s (his usual charges were Comet or BAC-111) and was rather fond of the example they had. As posted earlier, the aircraft was lost in a flying accident and, sadly, the crew killed.
Unfortunately, Derek passed away only a couple of weeks ago. When I have time I intend to spend a little while going through his log books - lots of interesting stuff I'm quite sure!
He joined 222 at Leuchars while they were flying Meteors in the early '50s and shortly before they converted to Hunters. A few years later he flew them from Sylt (TT flight I think) and after that I'm guessing he flew them, amongst other types, from Manby/Strubby in the early 60s (could be wrong on that one; too young to remember!).
Early '68 to December 70 he was with 1574 (TT) Flight at Changi. As indicated earlier, the UK was withdrawing from Singapore and the flight folded in the early months of 1971 with a number of the aircraft being handed over to the Singapore Air Force. As far as I'm aware his final hurrah with a Meteor was when he was flying with the RAE at Farnborough in the mid '70s (his usual charges were Comet or BAC-111) and was rather fond of the example they had. As posted earlier, the aircraft was lost in a flying accident and, sadly, the crew killed.
Unfortunately, Derek passed away only a couple of weeks ago. When I have time I intend to spend a little while going through his log books - lots of interesting stuff I'm quite sure!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: winford
Age: 95
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snipe I joined 222 Sqn at Thorney Island in Feb 1950 - we had Meteor 4s and moved to Leuchars on 9 May 1950 as a formation of 9 aircraft in 1hr 10mins led by our CO Sqn Ldr Jack Frost DFC. We converted to Meteor 8s in Sep 1950. Plt Off Duncan Simpson was a fellow junior sprog on the squadron. I moved to 66 Sqn (Meteor 8s) at Linton in April 1951. I don't remember your father, Derek, he must have joined after I left. Sorry to hear of his demise. I wonder if Jack Frost was CO when he joined? Before joining the V-Force in 1958 I flew the Meteor Mk4,7,8,9,10,11,12,14 and U15. Serving on 222, 66, 85, IRE Flt Fassberg and ARDU (Woomera S.Australia).
