Why don't we buy a Mossie for the BBMF?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, in actual fact BBMF does cost a lot. Okay, not much in the wider scheme of things, but when it is money being spent on nothing that has any defence application, it's a waste by definition. All very nice of course, but unnecessary. If I thought for a minute that the BBMF aircraft would otherwise be lost forever then okay, that's a different matter. But when we all know they'd survive and flourish in civilian hands...
As for the wider significance of the BofB, you have to bear in mind that it's not quite so significant for a younger age group. One could argue that the V-Force is just as significant if not more so. It's a proverbial Pandora's box, when one starts making judgements as to what is significant and what isn't.
As for the wider significance of the BofB, you have to bear in mind that it's not quite so significant for a younger age group. One could argue that the V-Force is just as significant if not more so. It's a proverbial Pandora's box, when one starts making judgements as to what is significant and what isn't.
Take the money from the tin Triangle pot - oh what heresy. I'll get my coat!
Good luck
you have to bear in mind that it's not quite so significant for a younger age group. One could argue that the V-Force is just as significant if not more so. It's a proverbial Pandora's box, when one starts making judgements as to what is significant and what isn't.
Individual elements of WW2, whether the BofB or the Bomber offensive, may not their own have special significance to future generations. However the war as a whole will endure in our culture for centuries. It had social, technological, geopolitical and economic consequences beyond anything else on offer in the last couple of hundred years. It has been burned into permanent cultural history through film and recordings. Good vs evil. The Blitz. The Holocaust. Nuclear weapons (not ours, though). The story of WW2 will remain in our national consciousness and the RAF will be an indelible part of that.
Of course, I would like to think that the exploits of the modern RAF in Kuwait, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (but not Syria?) will have signficance in years to come. I would say that, because I took part in all of it. But the notion that future generations might attach more historic significance to any of that (or indeed anything the V-Force had to offer) than they would to the RAF's role in WW2 is simply fanciful. It's not a Pandora's box at all - otherwise the Navy would be wrestling with notions of preserving Falklands ships.
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd Sep 2013 at 23:05.
Easy,
Best we roll BN up to CGY to recognise all of those campaigns (plus CORPORATE).
Re the issue of experienced engineers v BBMF, the major depth servicing is already contracted out (to ARCO inter alia) so specific knowledge would not be required 'in house'. Just as well as the creeping hand of contractorisation is rapidly robbing the RAF on any Depth maintenance experience.....
I'd like to see a 'medium' bomber in the Flight; a Boston IV in 18 Sqn colours would do the trick....
Best we roll BN up to CGY to recognise all of those campaigns (plus CORPORATE).
Re the issue of experienced engineers v BBMF, the major depth servicing is already contracted out (to ARCO inter alia) so specific knowledge would not be required 'in house'. Just as well as the creeping hand of contractorisation is rapidly robbing the RAF on any Depth maintenance experience.....
I'd like to see a 'medium' bomber in the Flight; a Boston IV in 18 Sqn colours would do the trick....
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments made by Easy illustrate my point. He obviously thinks (with some justification) that Trafalgar is perhaps the most significant campaign. Mention that to a veteran of WWII and he'd laugh his socks off. Mention it to a younger guy and he'll ask you who Hitler was.
Obviously, history is regarded differently by different people. The BoB (and presumably the bombing offensive, given the Lancaster's inclusion) are important events. But so are many others, so it's absurd to commemorate one without doing the same for others. So, like I said, it would be more sensible to just abandon the notion of having an official historic flight. No matter what you did, it would never include all the aircraft that could lay a claim to being in it.
As for the Mosquito, it's a nice idea but it's never going to happen of course. The RAFAT will probably be gone in a few years when the Hawks run out of hours. Doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that BBMF will go at the same time.
Obviously, history is regarded differently by different people. The BoB (and presumably the bombing offensive, given the Lancaster's inclusion) are important events. But so are many others, so it's absurd to commemorate one without doing the same for others. So, like I said, it would be more sensible to just abandon the notion of having an official historic flight. No matter what you did, it would never include all the aircraft that could lay a claim to being in it.
As for the Mosquito, it's a nice idea but it's never going to happen of course. The RAFAT will probably be gone in a few years when the Hawks run out of hours. Doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that BBMF will go at the same time.
I think the arguments are all getting fanciful. I have absolutely no doubt that when Joe Public is watching the Vulcan doing its display he's not thinking that this was one of the aircraft that kept the red menace at bay for all those years, he's just thinking it's a fantastic big noisy aircraft that's doing things he thought only a fighter could do, and that it's upstaged just about everything else on the programme, with the possible exception of the Reds.
Last edited by Tankertrashnav; 4th Sep 2013 at 09:12.
While I agree that the Hurricanes and Spitfires could be flown and operated in civilian hands, I question that the same could be said for the Lancaster. The Sally B people are facing big funding problems, while the France-based B-17 is now grounded. If industry continued to offer the support, fine, but industry are not always so keen to support privately operated concerns, as the Vulcan To The Sky Trust have found in the past.
Having said all that, all my best wishes and good luck for the East Kirkby Lancaster and the Coventry Shackleton, and I look forward to seeing them both airborne.
Having said all that, all my best wishes and good luck for the East Kirkby Lancaster and the Coventry Shackleton, and I look forward to seeing them both airborne.
Originally Posted by Archimedes
Gee Ram - I suspect that NL is referring to the fact that when inverted, the number 6 becomes the number 9...
(The aging brain cells are a bit slow these days.....should have worked it out really, considering I actually witnessed the event)
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Tankertrashnav. I would imagine that 99 percent of spectators simply regard the Vulcan as being a big, noisy machine that looks pretty impressive (providing it's not a couple of miles away, as it often seems to be at most displays it performs these days!). I doubt if many have any real understanding of what the Vulcan was all about.
But this also applies to BBMF. While there are still people around who are old enough to remember WWII and its effects, then BBMF obviously has some relevance. But these days, increasing numbers of people haven't really got a clue - as we know, some school kids think Hitler was a football manager. Consequently, when the BBMF turn-up at a show, a lot of people doze off because they don't provide the same spectacle as the big, noisy stuff.
So, I go back to my earlier comments. If the BBMF don't provide a "spectacle" as such, then their purpose is to commemorate and remind us of WWII. Therefore the same argument applies to the Cold War, or any other major conflicts. So where does one draw the line? It's difficult to regard the BBMF aircraft as any more significant than lots of others.
But this also applies to BBMF. While there are still people around who are old enough to remember WWII and its effects, then BBMF obviously has some relevance. But these days, increasing numbers of people haven't really got a clue - as we know, some school kids think Hitler was a football manager. Consequently, when the BBMF turn-up at a show, a lot of people doze off because they don't provide the same spectacle as the big, noisy stuff.
So, I go back to my earlier comments. If the BBMF don't provide a "spectacle" as such, then their purpose is to commemorate and remind us of WWII. Therefore the same argument applies to the Cold War, or any other major conflicts. So where does one draw the line? It's difficult to regard the BBMF aircraft as any more significant than lots of others.
Last edited by WH904; 4th Sep 2013 at 15:03.
WH904 Your argument carries little weight. The BBMF does a fantastic job in preserving the aircraft and showing them to the public whether they remember the war or not. I'm sure that the boys and girls of the BBMF, who give up many hours of their free time to maintain and display these wonderful aircraft, would be appalled to hear your views!
Any addition to the BBMF must be applauded and supported! Cost should never be a factor! As to their flourishing in civilian hands I very much doubt it! Many historic aircraft have been ruined in civilian ownership when their owners lost interest or ran out of money.
Oh and so nice of you to provide some profile information so we can be sure you know what your talking about!
Any addition to the BBMF must be applauded and supported! Cost should never be a factor! As to their flourishing in civilian hands I very much doubt it! Many historic aircraft have been ruined in civilian ownership when their owners lost interest or ran out of money.
Oh and so nice of you to provide some profile information so we can be sure you know what your talking about!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Any addition to the BBMF must be applauded and supported! Cost should never be a factor! As to their flourishing in civilian hands I very much doubt it! Many historic aircraft have been ruined in civilian ownership when their owners lost interest or ran out of money.
Waddo P,
Exactly; looking after the AF/BF should be fine, as should fettling the Merlins and other oily bits. The specialist inspection of the wood and overhaul of the engines/props would need to be contracted out (as per today)
Sorry for any confusion....
Exactly; looking after the AF/BF should be fine, as should fettling the Merlins and other oily bits. The specialist inspection of the wood and overhaul of the engines/props would need to be contracted out (as per today)
Sorry for any confusion....
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newt, you're entitled to your view of course but please don't make assertions that don't bear scrutiny. You can think what you like but when you start using phrases like "cost should never be a factor" and that the "boys of the BBMF would be appalled", then I find it hard to take your comments any more seriously than you take mine 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 28°52'02"N
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter, it is a long time since I was associated with BBMF (1986) but, unless things have changed radically, the RAF groundcrew do a great deal more than AF/BF. Among other things, they are the ones who check many aspects of an airframe for faults, and I suspect that no one in the RAF at present has the knowledge to declare that a casein bonded joint is serviceable. They certainly didn't in 1986. As for authorising a deferred fault!.........
If they factored in the recruiting value of small boys* who saw a Spitfire on a low pass and never needed any other advertising to get them to sign up 12 years later, the BBMF is probably quite cheap.
Watching some suit trousering the same amount for redesigning the RAF's logo hasn't quite got the same appeal.
*and girls these days.
Watching some suit trousering the same amount for redesigning the RAF's logo hasn't quite got the same appeal.
*and girls these days.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
Age: 38
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rather have the bbmf than the reds any day, although having been amongst a red sortie, they do actually care and want to be the best. I see enough leeming hawks and Linton tucanos over my house most days of the week,so the reds get a bit tedious.
A bbmf mossie would be great, but being a simpleton, does it matter what bloody glue has been used? Have the wings fallen off so far - no. Lets not forget, the latest airliners suffer from 'issues', yet these have been passed to fly within our country....
What benefit is it to the CAA to be so picky over things?
Don't the bbmf have enough spitfires? Including a 2seater which I've never seen fly?
More over, why do they give aircraft to companies who dismantle it to every nut and bolt to inspect it etc? This must cost huge sums, why can't the bbmf do it themselves.
Get rid of a few spitfires and fund a mossie, not asif they seem to fly them all.
Next point, RAF Scampton, home of the reds. From my last visit there, the reds seem to be on the only tenants -why?
Why can't they move elsewhere to a base will full time ATC, and sell Scampton. It's just had a new runway?...
Like I say, a simpleton talking here, please correct me...
Dan
A bbmf mossie would be great, but being a simpleton, does it matter what bloody glue has been used? Have the wings fallen off so far - no. Lets not forget, the latest airliners suffer from 'issues', yet these have been passed to fly within our country....
What benefit is it to the CAA to be so picky over things?
Don't the bbmf have enough spitfires? Including a 2seater which I've never seen fly?
More over, why do they give aircraft to companies who dismantle it to every nut and bolt to inspect it etc? This must cost huge sums, why can't the bbmf do it themselves.
Get rid of a few spitfires and fund a mossie, not asif they seem to fly them all.
Next point, RAF Scampton, home of the reds. From my last visit there, the reds seem to be on the only tenants -why?
Why can't they move elsewhere to a base will full time ATC, and sell Scampton. It's just had a new runway?...
Like I say, a simpleton talking here, please correct me...
Dan