Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

BBMF Lanc Engine Fire

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

BBMF Lanc Engine Fire

Old 10th May 2015, 08:26
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 62
Posts: 345
Shows how much the BBC check their stories this morning (Sunday) there still claiming the lanc will be in the flypast.
Dysonsphere is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 12:14
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,144
Every cloud though, Ds....It still allowed them to slip in the de rigueur comment about the Bombing Offensive.

"Unfortunately no Lancaster in the RAF Flypast"
'No, but at least the Fighters will still be here'
"Bomber Command of course very controversial still".
'Yes, especially given the 70th Anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in February'

Something has to be done about the BBC and its predictable prejudice. Having grudgingly concluded that the British war effort as a whole was vital to the defeat of Fascist tyranny, it satisfies itself with making an enormous part of that effort an exception, ie that of Bomber Command, whilst always regretting the 55573 deaths that it cost of course.

Last edited by Chugalug2; 10th May 2015 at 12:44. Reason: Spielin
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 13:03
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the watter...
Age: 73
Posts: 251
That BBC comment annoyed me so much I switched them off.
Molemot is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 13:34
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 6,339
Chug, IMHO you are absolutely right-BBC twisting the history again
Wander00 is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 13:56
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
A National Broadcaster not proud of its Lancasters?

Ridiculous!

The Lancaster Bomber- D-Day's Workhorse - The National - CBC Player

15 mins HD - Some good in-flight shots, and interviews
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 14:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,612
Notwithstanding rewriting history [NAZIS ....... never Germans] the BBC trendies had a rough Election night, I bet!

Tough.

Shite Ory.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 18:00
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 6,339
It seems the comment about Fighter Command stayed in, but comment about Bomber Command edited out of the repeat just now
Wander00 is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 18:08
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Exeter UK
Posts: 225
The comment about Dresden was made by the co-commentator - a representative of the Imperial War Museum and not a BBC employee.
Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble.
EGTE is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 20:43
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,144
Sorry if that has burst the outrage bubble.
Don't be. The line before was very BBC, and invited a response confirming the suggestion. I'm under no illusions that the Bombing Campaign is seen as a blight on our otherwise supposedly honourable conduct of the war. You can find it expressed by historians, educationalists, polititicians, clergy, and of course broadcasters. They are all wrong in my opinion. You must fight a war to win, and to win it as quickly as possible lest you might lose it.

I'm also under no illusions that my views are not held by all who post here. No problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that a national broadcasting organisation, funded by taxation, takes a detached view of "the British", as the BBC does. Does it ever contemplate its own name, and what it should mean?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 20:48
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norfolk swamps
Age: 52
Posts: 155
Is the damage really going to be that bad ? Surely that bit of metal called a firewall will have served its purpose to a large extent ? Certainly the cabling etc aft the firewall looks in good condition, so maybe ( fingers crossed ) its an engine / bearer change and some rewiring.
JagRigger is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 21:04
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,979
These days they tend to follow civil standards so yes, plus it depends on parts too.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 21:22
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
there'll always be at least two schools of thought chugalug

Geoff Taylor (The Hollow Square and Piece of Cake) had a kind
of day of reckoning much later. He had bombed Dresden.
Interviewed twenty years ago on the ABC he said he believed
the fire bombing of innocent civilians was akin to the committing
of atrocities.

This short film is a good reminder of the deaths, the wholesale
destruction and the mental torture. Rollo Kingsford Smith was a
nephew of Charles Kingsford Smith. Rollo became head
of the Hawker de Havilland company in Sydney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6aPUMv6tk
Fantome is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 21:40
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
That BBC comment annoyed me so much I switched them off.
There were quietly ropeable, disgusted responses from RAAF aircrew based in PNG during the war, after they had watched an ABC doco on the campaigns centred on Milne Bay. The script and the delivery of the commentary pissed them right off due to the gross assumptions made by latter day 'experts' who obviously did not think it obligatory to research the subject thoroughly before talking with those who were there, right in the midst of the Japanese onslaught. So callow were some of the questions asked, the tendency was likewise, to switch the idiot box off.
Fantome is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 22:43
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,144
fantome, as I said previously, I have no problem with differing views on the RAF's Bombing campaign, or for that matter any other contentious matters. If the BBC simply stuck to reporting such differences, then again no problem.


The problem is that the BBC has corporate views and sees no problem in expressing them, whether it be politics, military, industrial, economic, or half a hundred other topics. That may be acceptable for commercially owned channels and newspapers, but it is unacceptable for a corporation that is funded out of our taxes. The only views that we should hear from it are reported ones. As it is the daily grilling of those being interviewed by its aggressive presenters tell us far more about the views of the latter than the former.


Interesting that the reported exchange that I and others object to has been edited out of the repeat. Wasn't something we said I hope?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 22:55
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 51
Posts: 1,599
Controversial? Absolute horseshit.

The UK has been able and willing to inflict nuclear retribution on its enemies for the last 60 years or so. The U.S. actually did!

I fail to see the difference between firebombing an enemy city and nuking it, in terms of civilian casualties.

If you don't want that to happen, then play nicely at the outset, or the big boys will come and kick your arse right out of the playground.
Roadster280 is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 23:43
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,144
I can but agree with your succinctly expressed views R280. What really gets my goat is when the blame for the Offensive is placed on Bomber Harris, with the quickly added view that the crews had no option, as though they were mere enslaved automatons. They were all volunteers and many who were not selected for Bomber Command wished to be part of it.

Of course Harris made blood curdling speeches about reaping whirlwinds. That was his job, to put fire in the bellies of his crews. It's called leadership. Similarly he tried to inflict as much damage on the enemy with as little damage as possible to his own side. That was his job. Hence BC flew at night, hence area targets, hence cities.

It is ironic that because it flew by night BC was unescorted, whereas the USAAF was eventually, by day. Hence the latter could target the more predictable and therefore well defended "panacea" sites such as fuel plants. Fighters started to move the goal posts, whether Mustangs by day or Bf 110s by night. When the fuel ran out so did the latter.

As it was the war was carried to the enemy by day and by night for most of the war. Speer said it was another front, certainly it made D-Day possible which in turn liberated Western Europe. I'd say that was something to be proud of. If the BBC doesn't agree so be it, but might I suggest that it is time it keeps its harping on to itself from now on? Then I will, I promise.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th May 2015, 23:44
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Why don't you guys say whom you are quoting when you quote? If it's too technically difficult for you, do feel free to ask.

Apart from whatever outrage the BBC has caused, it's funny to note that both ends of the political spectrum appear to be equally outraged. That either means they just piss everyone off just for fun or they're pretty even.

It is their role to report and, sometimes, that means expressing views (not necessarily those of the newscasters) that you don't like.

If you think there's a corporate conspiracy going on there, you have no idea how any journalism works. British television and radio enjoys the services some of the world's best journalists. The suits in the office upstairs don't send them little notes telling them to ignore all the research they did (in some war-torn arse end of the word, for example) and instead substitute some fictitious party line. The professional journos would have left years ago if that were the case.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 11th May 2015, 00:14
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
To talk of a nuclear offensive or defensive as an effective response
is to open again that huge can of worms where the pragmatists
have to repeat ad nauseam that once those warheads are fired off
to their targets , you know what?

THERE WILL BE NO TOMORROW
Fantome is offline  
Old 11th May 2015, 00:18
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,979
Sorry I cannot get upset over all of these so called "experts"
I tend to look at them and wonder how would they feel standing inline for a shower at Belsen, or being beaten to death in Burma.
I often wonder if put in that situation with the means to defend themselves would they roll over and die, or fight to survive.

As for Dresden, well Dresden would still be standing if they hadn't started a war against us in the first place, and their memories seem to forget the likes of Coventry.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 11th May 2015, 01:12
  #60 (permalink)  
None but a blockhead
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Firstly, I'm delighted that what could have been a much more significant incident was handled so well. I hope and trust that such an important part of our history is back up in the air, where it should be, as soon as possible. Aviation is never entirely safe, but the risks in flinging a Lanc the best part of a century old about the sky are quite something - as are the reasons it's done

As for the debate over the morality of the bombing campaign - I don't think this will ever be settled, not in our lifetimes nor for some time after that. I can see the arguments from all sides, and I know enough not to know the answer. History is like that. That people are still engaged and discussing this is a good thing: I would hate to live in a culture where strong views and conflict in good faith were taboo or outlawed, and that I don't is absolutely a result of sacrifices made before I was born.

But I must defend the BBC.It has faults. It can be rancid. It also has special responsibilities. I work for it from time to time and know many people in it, and some of them have themselves been in great personal danger while doing their jobs. Most, in fact the vast majority I know and work with, are passionate about fairness - while knowing it's impossible to hit the mark every time; there's no Spock-like path to making perfect editorial decisions - and unlike many other areas of the media it's actually part of the BBC's official remit to be fair. I've seen complaints, some of a frankly farcical and trivial nature, go all the way up to the very top, with a lot of work and distress attached, because the complainant refused to accept any findings until all options were completely exhausted. If you do think Aunty's being unfair and want to prove it, then while I can't guarantee that your complaint will be dealt with to your satisfaction, you can at least expect it to be taken seriously if you're prepared to make it seriously.

Which is a long-winded and pompous way of saying that despite knowing quite how wretched it can be at its worst, I'm proud of being a very small part of what it does. We'd be a lot poorer without it. By all means damn the organisation, but please remember - a lot of good people try hard to make it better, every day. Perhaps those who've worked for other places with a public duty and that attract criticism will recognise that state of affairs...
Self Loading Freight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.