Flyby PC

We've just found out even more about this picture. If you look at this picture of the float Swordfish being lifted into the sea, look behind and you see the Rock of Gibraltar in the backgound, some railway carriages, and the crane obviously. But put 2 and 2 together, and you can place that picture in this part of the Fleet picture. And then, when you look a little more closely at the Fleet picture, you see these six funny shaped objects. These are 6 Swordfish float planes with their wings folded back. These are the aircraft my Dad would have flown in while he was in Gibraltar.

Wow! First feedback from someone at the Hood Association and he's only flagged up the stern of a second carrier - HMS Furious. Don't know how many times I've looked but never saw that! I've asked about those mounts BH, and hope to hear something soon.

Or wait a minute.... What are these? I know it's a model, but I don't know what the black things mounted on the far side are.

I think I know what you mean, but don't know the answer. I know what they're not, they're not gun mounts, nor lifting points, nor fixing brackets to hold the wings when swept back. My guess is some kind of bracket to hold a cover over the rear two positions if the aircraft was flying solo. I might also have said a rear canopy, but I've never seen one. These the bits you mean? The other possibility I considered was perhaps a rack of bombs a la world war one, but I really doubt that. A cover is my best bet. You'd need to bolt it securely for flight, and do it externally, but it does look very crude if that is the purpose. Incidentally, the nickname Stringbag doesn't come from the struts and rigging. The Swordfish could actually carry all sorts of 'stuff' in her cockpit. The 'stringbag' nickname was literally meant that you could fit anything you wanted inside and carry it from A to B, and as such were often sent on delivery errands.

I sympathise 200% with release dates. When my customers insist on fixed starting dates, I know they're not being unreasonable, but I still hate it. The minute, and I mean the next minute, I commit myself to a date, all sorts of delays occur, meteors divert their path towards Earth, Mars Pluto and Jupiter suddenly line up in the 3rd quarter, unexpected distractions occurs, you suddenly have to be somewhere or do something unavoidable you didn't expect. If you don't have a deadline, you follow the same path step for step, but with a deadline agreed, you're under pressure all the way. I know other people have schedule too, I KNOW, but what annoys me, is people thinking I'm being willfully evasive or delaying a job on purpose. I cannot make them understand that compelling me to give them a starting date does not bind my schedule to behave as predicted. Oh that life was that simple. Take your time fellas, get it right. I used to tell my apprentices not to rush a job. Once a job is finished, nobody knows how long it took to do, speed of construction a grossly overblown modern concept which is much more irrelevant than people think it is. If you make an arse of a job because it was rushed, it's a piece if "**%! from day one which lies on your conscience until somebody takes pity on you and demolishes it. The older I get the more faith I have in the age old calm words of a master craftsman - "It'll be ready when it's ready". We're not going anywhere else to get P4, you guys are the only show in town. All us consumers might get frustrated from time to time, but that's what consumers do. But c'mon guys, we're better to grumble about it amongst ourselves, and let's not 'offload' expectations onto the team. They don't need the added pressure I am sure, and we risk being the losers.

Yes it is. I nearly worked there after training. There was a stonecarver firm, Dick Reid's I think it was called, that offered me a job. I was still green, it was a superb opportunity, but I just couldn't afford to live on the wage they offered. If I'd had the choice, I'd say I'd taken the wrong choice not to take the job, but the money side of things just wasn't workable. I couldn't even have stuck it for a year, it just didn't add up. I believe Dick Rieds was one, if not the best stone carving firms, and I'd have learned such a lot working there. I believe when the London Opera house was refurbished with the first UK lottery money, Dick Rieds carved the huge coat of arms in Portland Stone. I was miles away, shovelling lime into buckets instead.... but paying the rent.

Correction, you won't catch me within 400 yards of York.

You won't catch me in York.

Credit where it's due to the analyists doing the testing, but when the population is required by law to practice archery, you cannot dispute that archers made a valuable contribution to the fight whatever their capacity to penetrate armour. Even if a knight was largely protected, his nerves weren't, his horse wasn't (much), and neither was the lowly serf handing him his lance. Since 1252, Englishmen between 15 and 60 was required by law to maintain a bow and arrow. Even 100 years after Agincourt, all Englishmen under 40 were still required by law to practice archery every Sunday. They wouldn't have been doing that unless archers were still considered a powerful and effective component in any army. I don't think the specialism of the longbow was any spectacular mythical performance in terms of being a "knight killer", but archery was one of the biggest reasons why knights in armour were in that armour in the first place. A longbow was a stronger shot, adding ultimate range to the shot, and adding more power to the arrow yard for yard compared to a conventional arrow. The shot would also be more accurate over a longer distance too. The devastation from a shower of arrows would be much the same as that caused by conventional arrows, but I expect the range at which it happened was the killer punch.

It's maybe my error BH, on a previous version of the picture I had Malaya marked down as Barham. If I hadn't seen the Jim Higginson picture from Hood, she still would have been too. Your correct about the identifications. When I started looking at the picture every ship could have been 'anything'. The more you look the more you see, and you can split them up into types and 'quarter' the search. I've also learned this is a combined fleet exercise too, not just the Mediterranean Fleet, but elements of the Home Fleet are there too. The Home Fleet ships are the darker coloured grey. I've also circulated the picture itself to a few sources, including the Fleet Air Arm Museum and Hood Association, so I'm hoping to get more information. Since most of the heavies are named, or narrowed down to one or two possibles, the next bit will be trying to identify the small destroyers. Without reading their numbers, I reckon the only way to find out who's who is from people who were there at the time. I'd really like to see a close up of the 'fishing fleet' of small destroyers packed into the right hand side. You can count 20+ keels, but identifing them is impossible without a better picture. The only disappointment is minor, and that is my dad wasn't in his Swordfish when he took the picture. In the beginning, we didn't even know where the picture was taken, so it was an obvious presumption it was taken from an aircraft, and we never had occassion to give the matter another thought. Even when we confirmed it was Gibraltar, the penny never dropped that there was a great big rock you could stand on to take pictures. It's so obvious now. It's also dented my hopes a little, because there could be any number of similar panoramic shots of the fleet hidden away in various old picture collections. That's not a bad thng really, because there are compensations too. It was believed my Dad had taken the picture, but it always niggled me that he'd never written anything down about it in his logbook. How could you fly over the whole combined fleet and never write it down? I never dared question that version of events, but to myself, it cast a doubt that my father actually did take the picture. Now I know it isn't in his logbook because he wasn't flying at the time, I'm now certain my father did indeed take the picture exactly as I was told he did. He did take some pics from his aircraft, - this is Hal Far airbase on Malta. Can you spot the main reason to believe this was taken from an aircraft? No prizes.

Aha! Another device is known as the Camera Obscura, and it is used in conjunction with aircraft. It consists of a wide- angle lens fitted into the roof of a small hut or tent, giving a clear view of the sky overhead. A picture of the expanse of sky is reflected on a piece of paper pinned to a table immediately below the opening of the lens. In this way one can look down at the paper and see the sky as clearly as if one were lying on one's back in a pleasant meadow on a sunny afternoon. The pupil bomb-aimer is sent up in an aeroplane fitted with a device which flashes a light as the bomb lever is pulled. As the 'plane speeds overhead a man in the hut under the lens plots its course with a pencil on the paper and when the light flashes in the aeroplane he marks the spot and calculates the margin of error, if any.

'Something' Search and Destroy. Warship perhaps?

It's got me too. Sounds like a flare type mission but it was 1045 in the morning. + 6000ft.

I thought this was a joke, right down to the little face with the propellor for a nose, - but it was real!!! The theory was a speed machine, with stubby wings for fewer struts and less drag and wind resistance. Carries less ammunition too because your enemies are expected to die laughing. On the other hand, if 33Lima gets one of them, can I put in an order for one of these please? Ye Olde Worlde Tsetse!!! http://www.wwiaviati...ritish1916.html

I'm very impressed with the knowledge gents, and you'll never know how grateful. I've got another one to ask. Anybody know what this reference in the logbook would be about? Does it means dropping flares or some kind of illuninated ordinance perhaps, for some special photoshoot or something? Any ideas?

Yes, that's my same source Lima33, or one of them, I've written to the IWM to see how I go about seeing it. I have two other helpful pics, but no authority to copy them so I can only give you the links. - This is Destroyer H59 HMS Gallant and County Class Cruiser Sussex, 'there' somewhere, but its tricky to fix exactly in the picture for a formal ID - Going by the angle of her funnels, Sussex is I THINK Bullethead's 'County C' but before Gallant arrives alongside, but, Sussex could equally be the County D behind, with Gallant unseen on the far side. I can't tell from the picture below whether that's the tail end of Royal Oak in the picture, but I think it is. So if Sussex is County C, even if Gallant arrived alongside later on, it contradicts with the Synopsis description of Gallant being nearest Hood. It's one of the two but you just can't call it. http://www.rafmuseum...nt/1762317.html And here is a cracker, fourth picture from the bottom, - Nelson, Warspite, Malaya and Royal Oak pictured from Hood. - I checked profiles and that's 5 confirms in my book, (the fifth being Hood herself). This was pictured by Jim Higginson, a veteran from Hood. http://www.hmshood.c.../higginson6.htm And as for Arethusa and Galatea my dad flew over both at some stage - there must be cine film of Galatea somewhere...

I think I'm inclined to agree again Lima, to me they look like sister ship not quite like any others in the picture. To my unskilled eye they look a little shorter than Queen Elizabeth Class, although they do bear a certain resemblance to Royal Oak.

Back again. Ruddy internet. It freezes and 'Internet Explorer has stopped working', - I usually lose what I've written but at least it took my last post. Yes, HMS Queen Elizabeth. - Not sure, but I think she was in the area. She was protecting the port of Algecirus from Republican bombing, but not sure when exactly, and Algecirus is in the Gibraltar basin. Looks good for the other Queen Elizabeth Class ship I think. The two ships at sea must be HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Barham. EDIT THANKS too Lima 33. Your post wasn't up when I started writing. Internet is playing up badly this morning. May abort and come back later... That's interesting Lima, I didn't realise the neutral turrets began in 1936 but you are correct. And - The Hospital Ship is HMHS Maine.

Wow, that's superb BH, thanks a lot. Is there a short cut to identify the cruiser types or just a good eye and experience? Malaya is wrong, the Malaya inside the harbour is confirmed, but whatever ship it is looks Queen Elizabeth Class. Renown was refitting I understand. So that leaves the two QE Class battleships as either HMS Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Barham, and Agincourt. I can probably confirm Barham is one of them, because she appears later in my Dads logbook so she was in the Med near the time, so the other has to be Elizabeth, Valiant or Agincourt. Agincourt - Scrapped 1922. Valiant - Taken into Portsmouth 1937 for reconstruction. Think the picture is March 1938, so I don't think it's Valiant. Elizabeth.- Need to wait - tinternet playing up... I did briefly wonder why there weren't any King George V Class, - George V and PoW, battleships - until I realised they hadn't been launched yet!!! Wow, that makes the sinking of Prince of Wales in 1941 pretty sore. Commissioned Jan 41, and sunk in December. Makes you realise the cost of these big ships was a big gamble. That also means that King George V's paint wasn't much drier than Bismarks when they met that fateful day, - I had no idea King George V was even newer than Bismark!!!.

I think you're right Lima33. I've seen pictures of Repulse with coloured turrets, and if Repulse is in the picture, that's the only ship she can be. I have Hospital ship, HMHT Maine. The destroyer alongside Hood is apparently, H59 HMS Gallant, not H05 Greyhound, but the picture still looks more like H05 than H59, but I'll trust a report from someone there rather than a fuzzy picture..... or will I? The report also says the two light grey County Class cruisers are 'most likely' Sussex and London. Hmmm. I've seen a separate picture with H59 Gallant tied alongside Sussex, - and not tied up beside Hood where H05 Greyhound is. The synopsis says Gallant is nearest to Hood, but that might be meaning of the two ships, Gallant and Sussex, Gallant is nearest Hood. That doesn't identify either County Class specifically, and there could even be more destroyers sitting on the other side completely out of shot. I think I might stick with H05 Greyhound for the moment... I also have conflicting reports about HMS London having two or three funnels. Confused? There are 5 County Class Cruisers with 3 funnels in the picture.... sigh. The report goes on to say there are three Southampton class cruisers there, all in the Home Fleet Dark grey, and these are HMS Southhampton, Newcastle and Sheffield. I see four darker cruisers, one looks County Class, (behind the dodgy H43), two look similar, behind Foxhound and the one in front, and a third cruiser behind Forester which has two funnels, but doesn't look anything like the other two. (As I look, I have also just noticed that both Hood and Rodney have not 1 but 2 destroyers each tied alongside. They are doubled up). There is a third cruiser in light grey which looks similar to the two in dark grey, but it's different again, if you look at gap between the bridge and the first funnel. She also has a catapult aircraft. I give up for now. Brain is worn out for today..... Edit wait, wait, wait, that could be the third Southhampton Class cruiser still at the harbour mouth in front of Glorious....

Ooooh! Oooo! Oooooh! Check this out! - http://colonialfilm.org.uk/node/3222 The film's no loner there, but read the synopsis!!! Gotta get me to the Imperial War Museum...

Sobering thought... Of the 17 ships I've managed to name, one was scrapped in 1938, but of the remaining 16, 6 were sunk during the war. That's 37.5% of those I've found out. HMS Hood - Sunk by Bismark. HMS Royal Oak.- Torpedoed Scapa Flo by U47 October 39. HMS Glorious. - Sunk by Scharhort and Gneisenau June 40. HMS Greyhound. Bombed by Ju87s off Crete May 41. HMS Brazen, Sunk by air attack Dover July 40. HMS Electra. Sink Feb 42 engaging Japanese light cruiser Jintsu and destroyer Asagumo. Badly hit, and abandoned ship after running out of ammunition. When I look to the right of the picture and see a blur of 20+ destroyers and add it to all the other ships I haven't named yet, well,.... like I said, very sobering. On the upside, ever heard of HMS Warspite? I hadn't. Google her - "The Grand Old Lady". Most battle honours awarded to any single ship in the Royal Navy from Jutland to Normandy and beyond. They were going to make her a Museum ship after the war but the bean counters said no, but while being towed away to Faslane for scrap, she slipped her tow and floundered on rocks, and subsequently defied all efforts to refloat her. She wasn't going for scrap and fought them all the way! HMS Rodney was a battler too. Did her bit sinking Bismark beside King George V, and was there for Torch and D-Day. (King George V, and Prince of Wales MIGHT be in the picture too. Repulse almost certainly is because I've seen Repulse with the neutrality gun turrets. (I should start calling them gun houses apparently). That said, Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk by the Japs in Dec 41). Special mention for D-03 HMS Icarus - extended convoy duties and sank 4 U-boats. Talk about history at your fingertips.

OT - Does that undercarriage gauge not say you've got your wheels down? I think it does. Look at the label below. Don't ya just hate a smartarse! :yes:

Depends again. I'd say you've already missed the first Heinkel. If you lift your nose to shoot him you will collide. Heinkel No2 is all yours though. If you go for the shot with the first He, that it. Good night Vienna. So I'll go for a Hit, - but borderline suicide. I'd forget the first one, go for No 2 and live to fight another day.

50/ 50 guess. You could miss him, you do seem to be out-turning him and slipping underneath his turn, but with all those flames in your windscreen I don't think you can see where he is and you could have turned in on each other. I'll stay positive and say miss, despite being blinded by flames.