Flyby PC

My Dad died in 1977, but he's still surprising me in 2011. This is him in the 1933 RAF Physical Training Display Party at the Royal Tournament in 1933. I never even knew it. He joined up in 1932 aged 19 and wasn't de-mobbed til after the War. Thats only 14 years after the end of WW1. It's funny how tiny bits of knowledge can change the way you see things....

Don't know, it is very close, but unlike the first pictures, the flightpaths are near 90 degrees to each other. The wingman has to travel 10 to 15 ft to collide, but if the piloted plane moves a similar 10 to 15 ft in the same time slot, they will miss or very nearly. I say miss, - but a lot depends on their relative speeds. The wingman is climbing, which is good, but the piloted plane is banking steeply and could be close to stalling, which is bad. On the balance, let's be positive. Miss.

Get your Norman mitts off Berwick then.

Just my tuppenceworth, a Collie is always a sheepdog, but a sheepdog isn't always a Collie, but if I wanted a good sheepdog, I'd buy a Collie. Here are my boys. The big fella is for rounding up lions, and the little fella for rounding down the population of anything smaller than he is.

I agree - no cowardice at all. My old man chose to go to Burma and India for most of the war because according to my mother, his option was to be a tail gunner in a Lanc. My father had seen what was left of some tailgunners, being hosed out what was left of their turrets. I don't think he chose Burma because of the weather. He chose Burma because he had the choice.

I get the 'take over and conquer' side of things, but it's how it was done that intrigues me. The numbers I've seen suggest his army at the Battle of Hastings vary widely, but don't exceed 10,000 men. Ok thats a big army in 11thC. Whereas the Romans invaded in strength, eventually, I'm not aware of any massive numerical influx of Normans even after Hastings. The figure quoted for Normans who stayed in England are a mere 8000, with half of them dividing their time between France and England. It's surely not so much that the Normans conquered England, but instead selectively conquered the ruling English aristocracy. To me that implies the population were perhaps reluctant to intervene to defend their Saxon lords. The Saxons had raised armies before, equal to the vikings, so they surely had the military might to do so again had the desire been there to get rid of the Normans. It's possible the Normans paralysed any co-ordinated resistance, but I think doing so would have been an extraordinary achievement with so few men. For me the most logical explanation is that the difference between Saxon overlords and Norman overlords made little difference to the masses, unless you were a Saxon overlord. For years in Scotland it was reckoned the Celts from Ireland wiped out the indiginous Picts, but modern theories suggest both cultures were very similar anyway, and to a large extent assimilated each other to become the one single culture. It's the same, (but different a little), with the Normans and Saxons culture. All credit is given to the Normans for supplanting Saxon culture and creating the nation of England, but I suspect there is as much, if not more, Saxon origin to the culture of England as there is Norman. (For one thing, we don't all speak French so there was a limit to Norman influence). That means Saxon and Norman cultures must have had a lot in common to begin with. Perhaps if England had been left alone to grow as a Saxon culture, the differences in modern day England might not be so dramatic as we might at first suspect. English with a Norman/French twist, might have been English with a Saxon/German twist.

I'm very curious about Normans, and a bit under-read if I'm honest. I don't understand how the Norman culture became so prevalent so quickly throughout England, and even Scotland a little bit, (though Scotland is slightly different and made peace of sorts with the Vikings). For a long time, the measure of success in a Saxon king was his capacity to drive out the Vikings. If Saxon England could resist the Vikings, I don't quite get it why the Norman invasion was so successful in deposing the Saxon culture. It seems the Normans won the wars, by crushing rebellions and building their castles, but they also won the peace pretty effectively too. With the numbers of Normans involved, I don't quite understand how they managed it, unless they weren't considered so very foreign by the local population they had just conquered. I wouldn't say the population wanted to be conquered, but the peace which followed came relatively quickly, which suggests to me the conquest met limited resistance from the common people, - but I'm not sure that's correct. The Saxons are certainly not reknowned for their subservience, but I don't know why they didn't just drive out the Normans - when surely they could have. To me that suggests a degree of acceptance with Norman government. I can see they were perhaps accustomed to serving their Lord, but could it be were they so indifferent to who that Lord actually was? How did the Normans succeed suppressing and unifying the Saxon tribes when so many others, even Saxons themselves, had failed? I find that kind of thing very curious.

I’d go earlier than William - for the very existence of England itself. At the time when the Romans were here in Britain, you need to forget any concept you have of Scotland and England. It would still take 700 years or so for these concepts to evolve, although the land was always here, and ‘somebody’ obviously ruled it. Scotland and England were tribal territories with no concept of nationhood. Even the origins of these tribes is often a matter of speculation and informed reasoning rather than actual known fact. People speculate the ‘concept’ of Scotland began in 685 at the Battle of Nechtansmere, when a Pictish army under King Bridei Mac Bili comprehensively defeated an army of Angles, killing their King Ecgfrith. The Angles were routed, and having raided pictish lands for over 30 years, their defeat effectively put an end to their ‘expansionism’ to the North, with very few subsequent raids getting further than the modern day Central Region / Lothians. This battle marked a divide between developing cultures that would eventually lead to Scotland and England. However, I don’t want to hi-jack the thread onto the Picts and away from the Saxons. The birth of England, or rather England’s “Nechtansmere” if you will, occurred later in 937, at the Battle of Brunanburgh. This was a massive Battle where the Saxon King of Wessex and Mercia, King Athelstan, defeated a combined force of Picts, Vikings, Scots and the Irish, and comprehensively defeated them. The chronicle of the defeat is very one sided in favouring the victorious Saxons, but disputed in it’s tone. (It was common for the victor to beef up his side of the recorded story). The fact is after the battle, there was no campaign taken north to conquer any of the undefended territory which Athelstan did want, so perhaps the defeat wasn’t quite so absolute as the chronicler described. Athelstan hadn't the strength left in his own army to take the lands for himself, but chose to consolidate the border he held of a unified Saxon Kingdom. It doesn’t really matter anyway, because where Scotland had it’s Nechtansmere, the Battle of Brunanburgh served to establish a border between Saxon lands and ‘the North’. The strength of King Athelstan established the concept of a Saxon Kingdom which would become England. For 130 years anyway… If Saxon Harold had defeated Norman William in 1066, the date which the old git Mr Bloody Hawthorne would have drummed into UKWidowmaker’s head, would probably have been Brunanburgh 937 and not Hastings 1066. (We might also have known whereabout Brunanburgh was actually fought). You can’t say no Athelstan, no England, but the battle in 937 is a cultural crossroads where everything we know would have changed if the victory had gone the other way, and but for Athelstane, who knows how the tribes of the UK would have settled their territories, or rather formally ‘recognised’ them, - with Berwick of course being NORTH of the Border.

Anybody know of an English speaking online radio station that does some type of historical / documentary type programs? Something like a Discovery Channel or History Channel, similar content but for radio instead of TV? I often need to work in the evenings and the UK radio doesn't broadcast anything like this. If I stick the TV on, darn it if I don't sit down and watch it. I blink, and I've wasted a couple of hours. Any helpful suggestions out there?

I feel like a kid in a toy shop.

WOW! Hit pay dirt if anybody is interested. I found this site way back when MikedixonUK was telling us about his grandfather, and I did some searches through their databases. http://www.archive.org/ It's the audio stuff that appeals to me, to listen to as I work. I've just found 26 half hour episodes of a 1953 Australian Radio broadcast dramatisation of the Dambusters raid. I've also found the complete 24 hour radio broadcast of D-Day (don't know which station). Still downloading, so I haven't heard them yet, - it might be rubbish, but the reviews are very good!!! I've also found some pre-war spy and secret agent drama's circa 1939. They might be fun too. There isn't just audio archives, but all sorts of newsreels too. Mosquito's in Italy, and German Newsreels from Stalingrad etc. Have a browse.... Free downloads too! Looks like I'll be getting charged extra for this months downloads... I need to get back on proper broadband....

For once I'll shut up. I actually know very little about Hastings apart from the obvious. What I do know is Harold II was a good king, defending his lands from the vikings, and nearly, very nearly, defending his lands from the Normans. With his demise, so ended the Saxon culture and monarchy, and in came the Norman era. Sadly I don't know enough to speculate on whether this was good or bad for the country as a whole, but it's always sad when someone perceived to be a good ruler is undone by a usurper. What would a Saxon England have become down the centuries? Who can say.... but I don't know enough to even speculate.

Thanks Tranquillo, I shall try that later.

I'm nearly there I think, but I've hit a problem. I've done pretty well, and I have the combination for the safe, but the safe doesn't open. I have the missing number. I've tried the combination left and right but no go. I feel a walkthrough moment coming on.Seems I've missed something. It's a shame there isn't a hints page instead of a walkthrough.

It's a toughy, but I'll get it.....

It's a bit late dated around 1938, and RAF, but if anybody wants a blank page template scanned from an RAF logbook it would only take a few minutes....

Pilot Officer Baggins eh? I've got it!!! OFF! Lord of the Wings!

There is something in what you say, but it isn't enough to explain the modern 'youth'. Yes, our history is littered with battles, adventures and life enriching experiences, but our history spans a long, long time, with many decades being very dull an uneventful. Many people would be born in poverty, live a mundane life, perhaps even dying in the same house they were born in. The exotic has always been exotic, and many tales from history are remembered because they were so different from the norm. Our views are perhaps coloured by two generations where the majory rather than minority were directly affected by war. Prior to that, it was very untypical for armies to count their ranks in millions. Were these generations lucky to see and survive the spectacle? Or were they unlucky to die or have their lives blighted by nightmares? I suspect it's a little of both, - correction, a lot of both. It's like the expression "the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity". Strike out publicity and insert experience. The bottom line is throughout history, generations of young men have been able to restrain the same primal urges which appear to so test our modern 'young bucks'. It isn't opportunity either. If these young men really fancied a real fight and life changing experience, they have never had such a prime opportunity to do it - with the British Army at least. Not sure about the numbers issue for everybody, but in recent years at least, if any young man had the compelling urge in him to taste war, he could have done it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lack of opportunity for a more thrilling adventure doesn't quite wash. I would agree wholeheartedly that young lads don't have the appetite for adventure, but I put it down to the welfare state. Life is too easy. They have somewhere to live, they don't starve, and have a minimum standard of life guaranteed. The opportunities to rise above any accident of birth are still there for most of us one way or another, and at the end on the day, if a young man doesn't make the best of his time, at the end of the day, he's made a significant contribution to that decision himself. Another problem is there's no stigma attached to being a sponger of the state who doesn't work for a living. For some life on benefits is even preferred to a working life, and that attitude is an infectious disease eating away our society. I might be kept up all night by benefit junkies having a party til 3am. It's my tax which pays their rent and utilities and buys their drink. Is that fair? Course not, but the politicians who might change things don't give a monkeys because they have their snout in the very same trough. I had my days as an adrenalin junkie, and I have memories in my head that can still put a smile on my face all these years later. I love the line in Bladerunner, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe". - It just doesn't matter what those things were. Another factor is modern TV. I utterly detest the mind numbing banality of soap operas and property shows. To my mind, they create a population which feels under pressure to get on in life, get a good job that can support a mortgage. We're not quite in the George Orwells 1984 where free thought is a crime, but we're getting to the stage where free thought, if not yet actively discouraged, certainly isn't encouraged. 'Risk' is too expensive. If you want to do anything with your life, there's some parasitic insurance company trying to exploit your enthusiam and rip you off for daring to do it. Even sport is runied by commercialism. Our population doesn't aspire to have a fascinating or heroic life. Our young men and women seem content to live their life by proxy through the lives of TV or PC game character. Seems to me they forfeit their life enriching opportunities incase they somehow lose momentum on the the treadmill of trying to own a house or pay for satellite TV or whatever.... Thankfully, I was both cursed and blessed by having no time for money. I feel cursed if I can't do something because I haven't enough money to do it, but blessed and tremendously rewarded when I experience some thrill that money can't buy. I was born poor, but I've tried very hard not to let it hold me back, and can honestly say I've rarely been motivated solely to aquire wealth. What is the saying? "I was born with nothing, and I still have most of it left". That's ok for money. But in terms of life experience, I wouldn't have missed a thing, or changed a thing, good or bad.

I knew it. Father Ted! Good call 33Lima.

Tough. I know when I list these, I'll think of something I've missed. The funniest program / series I remember which resonated best with my age and broke new ground was Not the Nine O'clock news. Then there was the Young Ones of course which was brilliant, though I didn't care for Alexei Sayle. Red Dward certainly had it's moments too, especially in the old days, and you can't leave out Bottom. But my funniest edition of any comedy series has to be Blackadder Goes Forth, Private Plane. The one with Rick Malal as the pilot. Peerless. I'm not a fan of Mr Bean, but all the same Rowan Atkinson is a comedy genius. So, the list - Rowan Atkinson. Blackadder. Rick Mayal. Bottom. Leslie Neilson. Naked Gun. John Cleese. Fawlty Towers. ..... And a nostalgic soft spot for Eric Morecambe. Eric and Ernie. [YouTube] [\Youtube]

So who's the Mark of Doom then? A man with a fanatic passion to shoot down historically inaccurate flight models? It couldn't be WM could it?

Hmmm, some good stuff out there, but lots of podcasts sound like student essays. In the nicest possible way, they're a little shallow in their content and very dull to listen to. Anybody know some good dramatised WW1 themed dramas and audiobooks? Something like Journey's End by R.C. Sherriff. Doesn't have to be WW1, but all things military have some interest. Not a great fan of fiction, but I'm flexible, and dramatised documentaries are definitely ok. Got lots of stone to stand and dress, but I'm going through stage that all my music is boring my ears off. Must be 4GB of great tunes on my Ipod but it seems I've heard them all before, and too many times before. So I have of course, but I need something new and interesting so the old brain slips into auto pilot and I lose track of the time and do a pile of work in a blissful trance. You know things are grim when you spend an hour and a half compiling a new playlist, and finish your database with 3 tunes ticked, and you're not even sold on them. Oh for some decent radio... Does all this mean I'm getting old? Bah! Humbug.

Thanks for that SteveLohr. I'm not really up to date with podcasts, but that might just be the very thing. Good call.

Here's hoping they put Matt Milne in charge of the theme tune, not me!!! MOOOOHHHAAAHAAHAAHAAAH!!!! I, dont need your forgivness. I, dont need you hate. I, don't need your acceptance.... All together now.....

Might be time to think outside the box. (Ha ha ha! Pun was intended...... Just not that funny, cough cough..) I read Hat in the Ring to signify the yanks were here, so we'd really need to know what's strategically different about OFF to think up a good name for it. Perhaps if somebody sent me a Beta copy I could err, I might be inspired to think of a good name for it. - perhaps "Mine all Mine at last ! Ha Ha!". ............OK, it was worth a try. Maybe this time we might see a German word in the title??? With the arrival of these new 2 seater aircraft and Sopwith Snipes now confirmed, how about "O.F.F. - Sie kommen!" (O.F.F. They're coming!)