Flyby PC

He didn't collide with a blue Reliant Robin did he? Get well soon!

I know what you mean, but I'm relaxed about the CGI. I grew up when special effects meant an airfix kit hanging from a wire, set on fire and hung in a draught. Apply a little imagination and that was fine. CGI is still in its infancy. Tochi's CGI is some of the best I've ever seen, but you can still see the joins if you want to see them. I have this notion in my head that when the film crew is sitting in the cinema to watch their film for the very first time, those responsible for the CGI air combat sequencies are looking at it thinking, there's still something just not quite right.... To be honest I'm more uncomfortable about all the segregation of the coloured pilots which prevailed back then. I was about to say which prevailed in the US back then, but the prejudice wasn't confined to the US. Thankfully we've (hopefully) made a lot of progress since then.

That's a relief. Strange as it me seem, watching that clip, I found myself recalling the Catch 22 film the first time I saw it. -Not the enlightened appreciation I have for that film now, but the sense of miserable let down at expecting a good old 'shooty gunny' war film and instead getting some fuzzy abstract nerotic indulgence about someones mental breakdown. I understand Catch 22 better now, and the misguided expectation was entirely my fault not the film makers, although I still don't like the film. It might be that first impression still lingers, but the film itself just doesn't resonate with me. 33Lima makes a good point though, after RB, Flyboys and U571 etc, we have been let down before... Another film I'd like to see is the Falklands, provided it wasn't a cheap festival of British militarism, but a hard hitting expose of the failed and cynical Thatcherist / Galtieri politics which led to it, and was also sympathetic to the young Argentine conscripts chucked in at the deep end and expected to withstand the likes of the legendary 2 Para. Another factor with such a film would be the availablility of equipment to make it. I'm thinking Harriers and ships mainly... Perhaps the touchy nature of the politics is why there hasn't been a film.... I reckon Peter Jacksons Dambusters will be a watershed film. If it's excellent, there will be more classic war films updated with modern CGI. If it sucks, well, we still have the classics. I hope it is a cracker though.... I notice Braveheart was mentioned too. I'd like to see the real story of William Wallace. More facts, less woad thank you very much. Braveheart didn't even mention Stirling Bridge, where Wallaces ill-equipped soldiers stood up to the shock troops of the 13th Century, the English heavy cavalry, much feared by the French. The English defeat reverberated around medieval Europe. In Braveheart, Wallaces fights the English using the tactics closer to those used at Bannockburn rather than Stirling bridge. I don't mean to offend my English friends, but it was arrogance and contempt for the Scots 'rabble' which led the English to charge into a bottleneck formed by the bridge and make contact with the enemy on a prepared killing ground where the heavy cavalry could not mass itself for a charge nor crash into the enemy ranks at speed. Wallace, and Andrew Murray (Who???) had done their homework. There is speculation that it was Murray, not Wallace, who was tactically more astute, ( not unlike Bonnie Prince Charlie and his Lord George Murray in 1746). Andrew Murray died from his wounds after Stirling Bridge. A year later, Wallace met the English in open battle at Falkirk presenting every tactical advantage to the English, and got royally thumped. (There are parralels with Culloden in 1746, when Bonnie Prince Charlie did precisely the same, squandering the strengths and tactical advantages of his forces and leaving his men static and exposed and at the mercy of artillery and ranks of muskets). In fairness to Wallace, perhaps he was tactically astute. His Andrew Murray was already dead, but Wallace had planned to attack the English at nigtht from close quarters ambush, but his night attack was betrayed by Scottish 'nobles' jealous of his power. The Scots at Falkirk the following day were certainly niaively deployed, but is it fair to blame Wallace, or was it simply inevitable? It is true however, that in the ranks of Edward 1's army at Falkirk was indeed a knight named Robert de Bruce, destined to be future king of an independent Scotland after the battle of Bannockburn. Parrallel No 3 - Lord George Murray had attempted an unsuccesful night attack on the British Army on the night before Culloden, having marched all night leaving them exhausted for the battle to follow. Also at Culloden, Bonnie Prince Charles had ignored Murray's tactical advice. When Charles Stuart listened to Lord George Murray, he won. When he didn't listen, he lost. Both Charles Stewart and Lord George Murray survived Culloden and escaped to France, but when Murray went to visit Charles, the Prince would not see him.

I'm breaking ranks here a little bit, - but just a little bit. Yes I agree with all the criticism and short comings, and yes, it was indeed a waste to spoil so much good work with screaming inconsistencies, but first time around I quite liked Red Baron. I must say very quickly however, that first time around I watched the film in its natural German, and not speaking a word of German myself, I wasn't following any plot not really understanding what was going on. Apart from MVR and his brother, I wasn't even very sure who was who, nor any of the context of the dialogue. I didn't engage the brain too much, and sat back and enjoyed the spectacle of the trenches and air combat scenes. To be honest I didn't get hung up about the authenticity of the actual fighting or the physics, but visually, I liked it watching it. The colours and cinematography were pretty good. I watched it again with english dialogue, and have to confess I found it boring to listen to. It's funny, first time out, it was fine with everybody speaking German. Would I watch it again? No. Not cover to cover. But I would, and have, caught the big dogfights on Youtube several times, not to learn anything, but just to enjoy the spectacle of it. I haven't actually seen Hells Angels, but it's one film I certainly want to see.

Oh Oh. That was quite painful to watch. Hope that's just a screen test and not part of the film. Even the grass looks flat. They have Lancs flying around in screen tests don't they? I'm sure they do. Certainly hope they do. Maybe they reckon with CGI you can get away with wooden actors. Got a baaaad feeling now, and I was really looking forward to this. The only consolation is it makes Mosquito Squadron look quite good. Hands off MGM's Battle of Britain. Mind you, that would be hard to improve on anyway. Repeat please....

Know what else I'd like to see? An untold story. Something remarkable, but never grabbing any attention. I'd like to see more about the allied armour of WW2. I actually know more about German and Russian armour than I do about British. You have your T-34's, Tigers and Panthers etc, but you never hear the stories of the guys stuck in Churchills, Crusaders, Shermans, and Crommwels, etc. Yes, yes, yes, we all know how inferior and obsolete they were compared to the German armour, but these tank crews knew it too, but had to go into battle regardless, and they deserve more attention than they've had in my opinion. The British armour competed pretty well in the desert, but they were in for a shock in Europe. Nevertheless, they did work hard to catch up, and later British Tanks like the Comet and Centurian were excellent tanks, but too late to make an impact. Then you've Hobarts funnies of course, but from war films, you get the impression the Churchills only just made it off the beach and were abandoned or destroyed within minutes. The Churchill itself was used throughout the war, and saw more action than any other British tank, even seeing action beyond WW2 in Korea. The only Churchill I've seen in a war film was used as a desk. Ha ha funny, but that's just not fair. The first Tiger tank captured by the Western allies was taken out by guess what? Correct, a Churchill. Whether inspired luck or brilliance I cannot say, but it did it. I'm not looking to re-write the history of poor performance, Winston Churchill himself said the Churchill tank had more faults than he did, but even the Churchill had its redeeming features, and with it's suspension could get itself places which other tanks could not. Even when hit, it could take a beating, and still get about despite considerable damage to it's running gear. A Churchill in North Africa survived 80 hits. The Brits didn't celebrate their tank aces like the Germans or Soviets, but there were many brave British tankers taking out their targets in spite of the odds, and I wouldn't mind seeing more fuss made about it. I'd even go so far as to say it's an untold story. Edit - And I also agree with NS13Jarhead, but for Malta in general. There's a lot made about those Gladiators, (notice I don't say 3 Gladiators), but their incredible story is just the beginning for Malta. There is a B+W film about Malta with Alec Guinness in it, but a CGI blockbuster would be something to see. Be warned, if it tells the whole story of Malta, it might be quite a long film.

Not hard to guess perhaps, but I'd love to see a good war film, or even a visually rich CGI documentary about the Mosquitos in 2 TAF, Tactical Air Force. Drama? - In bucket loads. This would include the precision, drama and success of low level attacks like Operation Jericho, a precision strike on Amiens prison which freed French resistance fighters from torture and certain death for some, but include similar less successful missions with all the drama and tragedy of Operation Carthage when a Mossie clipped a street light and crashed into a school. Following aircraft saw the explosion and dust, and bombed the crash site as their target instead of the Gestapo HQ. Over 125 Danish civilians died, but most terribly, 86 young schoolchildren. Many survived the bombing in the basement, only to drown as firefighters poured water on the flames. For lighter moments, there are well documented stories of Mosquitos clipping roof tops, tree tops and even a destroyers battle ensign with their tail wheels, such was the low level heights they were flying. Then there are the nuisance bombings spoiling Gorings parade, and I think one of Goebbles speeches was disrupted too. There is of course 633 squadron, and it's sequal which do pay hommage to some aspects of 2TAF Mosquitos, but both films are spolied in my opinion by the cheesey love stories and contrived plots which are quite unnecessary. Why do this when the truth is so much more amazing than the fiction? Mind you, even the best film with cutting edge CGI still wont put me in the perspex nose of a MkIV Mossie flying towards it's target, with anything in the bomb bay between a 4000lb cookie bomb to loaves of bread for the starving Dutch. Everybody has their favourites, but nobody is going to persuade me the Mosquito had an equal. A Mossie Pilot once said, at 0 feet, (I believe that means below 50ft) the Mosquito has about a 5mph advantage on a FW190, which meant you were fine, unless the FW190 went into a dive. That's what I'd like to see in a film.

Apologies if this is a bit nerdy, but recently I was reading Dad's RAF logbook, and for a long time, I basically ignored all the acronyms and numbers etc, but noticed that the airctaft he flew in Malta all had serial numbers beginning K8___, and the aircraft in Gibraltar started K5___ or K8. I did a little research, and I read that "K" represented an aircraft manufactured in the 1930's, while "J" represented the 1920's. Alternative sources say the letter didn't actually relate to the decade, but just coincided when the numeric serial number clicked over, that is every ten thousand aircraft. The RAF hit J9999 in the late 1920's and began K1. I also began to wonder if the 8 represented Malta, and 5 represented Gibraltar, but this was just co-incidence. It just meant the aircraft of Gib were just a little older than those on Malta. In the beginning, 1912 etc, early serials had letters denoting the manufacturer or type, - H for Hydroplanes, M for Monoplanes, etc, but to save confusion military aircraft serial numbers ran numerically, 1 to 10000. By 1916 however, they had run out of numbers and started to put an "A" in front. Different letters were also assigned to different arms, such as the RFC having A to J, RNAS having N1 to N9999 and S1 to S9999. In 1937, they realised that knowledge of such a system could be used to count how many aircraft the RAF actually had built, so they started to put gaps in the numbers so they didn't relate to the numbers of manufactured aircraft, and the change is rumoured to have misled people into overestimating the strength of the RAF in WW2. By 1940, they were already in the Z9900's, so started the double letter prefix AA1. This system is still used today. This all relates to British military aircraft of course.... On it's own, there isn't much you can tell from an aircrafts serial number, other than the approximate year of manufacture, but of course once you have the serial number, you can trace that aircraft and its detailed activities in logbooks and service records. It's also a little bit confusing, so I apologise if I've got it wrong. Happy to be corrected if I have.

OK, I'm being a bit slow here. This isn't a picture of A DC-1. This is a picture of THE DC-1. The first and only DC-1 there ever was, and forerunner of the DC-2, C-47 "Gooney". This plane was a one off. I apologise Olham, if I'd only read your posted link I'd have known all this yesterday!!!

Found this - The one and only DC-1 was sold to Lord Forbes in the United Kingdom in May 1938, who operated it for a few months before selling it in France in October 1938. It was then sold to Líneas Aéreas Postales Españolas (L.A.P.E.) in Spain in November 1938. It was later operated by Iberia from July 1939 with the name 'Negron' and registered EC-AAE. As such it crashed following an engine failure on take-off from Malaga Airport in December 1940 and force landed at the end of the runway, never to fly again. Local rumor has it that part of the airframe was used to build a portable alter on which an effigy of the Virgin Mary is carried around the City on Holy Days. Ironically, in Spain, the Virgin Mary is called the "Queen of the Skies". With TWA the aircraft was named the "City of Los Angeles", City of the Angels. An unconscious similarity! The rare shot below, taken after the crash, is courtesy of Joaquin de Caranza Paris, the Director of the Malaga Aviation Museum (via the Austin J. Brown collection). Edit. Who'd be a historian? Seems there is disagreement whether this alter was made from the DC-1 in 1940, or a Ju-52 in 1944. Edit 2- Got this from a French WIKI site- Finally TWA sold the DC-1 in January 1936 to Howard hughes who did add new additional tanks for flights of more than 9600 km for an attempt around the world. Having quickly lost interest in the DC-1, he sold finally the aircraft to the Viscount Forbes on May 27, 1938. This noble English considering a transatlantic flight in the company of H.T. "Dick" Merrill and the aircraft was modified for the canopy of a DC-2 ofEastern (c/n 1292). This project abandoned the aircraft was transported by sea to Britain, registered G-AFIF and used during the Munich crisis to transport journalists to the continent. The device was in fact appear that three months on the British before be resold to the Société Française des Transports Aériens civil registry that the handed immediately to the Government of the Second Spanish Republic. Become EC - IFG, he served under the colors of sbcl. Certainly used for reconnaissance and transport missions during the Civil war, he assumed in March 1939 the transportation of the Republican delegates negotiating the end of the war and the evacuation of Republican leaders to the France. Become EC - AAE in 1940 and used for the carriage of passengers by SATA, it was renamed "Manual Negron". In December 1940 while conducting regular Sevilla-Malaga-Tétouan DC-1 was a victim of a takeoff in Malagaengine failure. The driver can only perform an emergency landing, without damage to the occupants of the aircraft, but fatal to the cell, which was finally scrapped on the spot.

He's my hero too Shredward. What a cracking story. Can you imagine the chuckles back in Barracks? "Where's private Shredward?" "He's err, gone off to Germany with the US Air Force Sir. Be back later this evening he said". "He's WHAT????" "He's Fkn Airborne Sir! Ex Coelis!" I mean that light heartedly, in the right way. I actually know one or two genuine war heros, and believe it or not I did know a genuine war criminal until he died a few years ago, and you'd be amazed how similar a "fast forward" outlook on life they all had. They were all very quiet spoken and reserved, but when you looked them in the eye there was a steely glint of something special looking back at you. With regards to being war criminal, don't judge too quickly, he was a very brave man and a fine soldier. He was burying a comrade killed in Korea when Chinese POW's walked past. One of them spat on his mates body, and waved his copy of the geneva convention as if to gloat how untouchable he was. Sadly for him, he wasn't. Sadly for my mates father, it seems if you stick a bayonette into a prisoner of war and kill him, it's technically a war crime.

I think you're correct Olham, but references say the Republicans only had 1 DC-1, and it apparently wasn't painted like the photograph. Hmmm. Seems somebody isn't correct. How curious... http://www.zi.ku.dk/.../spain/did.html WAIT!!!! I'm wrong. The code number is the DC-1. EC-AGA!!! There's a man standing in front of the last A! That and the EC on the rudder threw me a bit, but this is the DC-1!!! WOW!!!

Thanks Olham, I'd read there was a famous DC1, but didn't find out why it was famous. It got my heart going, because a DC-1 has 6 windows in the side, where the DC-2 has 7. When you count them in the picture there are 6! But the 7th is behind the door. It is definitely a DC-2. I've actually posted the picture to one of the website authors, and I'll keep you up to date if I learn anything more from it.

This concludes the case for prosection m'Ludd.... YES!!!! That tail is red, yellow and purple. @Elephant. That's brilliant too elephant! What a buzz this is finding this stuff out. Now I need to find out who fled Spain in a DC2.....

I think I might have it.... Its a Republican DC-2.

I agree. No serial number either, although there are people standing in the way. It does seem odd the letters are so bold, but lack ensignia, and I wonder whether the door is hiding something. It also looks like there are three bands of colour in the rudder, but off course, you can't tell what the colours are. althought they do run horizontally, not vertically as you'd expect. Red white and blue is possible, but that could be French, US, British. Dutch would orange, but could be red white and blue running horizontally, but thats pure theory. It really is odd. I am even tempted to think it might be a Republican Aircraft from Spain, - Red yellow and purple, but the camo is still odd. But that could account for the informal looking reception. But I really don't know. The Camo screams jungle/far East to me, and there's an asian looking person there too, but that tail....

Thanks Olham. It could be, but those particular veterans are 1966 to 1974. I've hunted a few sites for C-47s but don't even see one with that type of camouflage. It doesn't look RAF or US, but very disctinctive all the same. I'm now wondering whether it might be French or Dutch, but even then it doesn't look right. I think it's one of these you'll either recognise it right away or you won't. Regarding the Spitfire, that looks to be a tropical filter, and an RAF roundel under the wing, with the red dot in the middle, not a kangaroo or plain white circle. I think it must be RAF, and before the rounels changed. It also seems to have a white band about a foot wide right across the wing top and bottom, but that might just be the photo.

Here is one picture of the Spitfire. I have a second, but not here. It has about a dozen men posed in front of the Spitfire, and they look tropical British, or maybe even Australian. Very little info from the pic, - so frustrating. The C-47 picture is another mystery. It has all the hallmarks of some important dignatory visiting somewhere, but I know nothing more than what you see. Anybody recognise anything? I have no dates, countries or clues of any sort to give you. India or Burma perhaps. It might, and stress might, be Louis Mountbatten. Like I've said, there a point to most of his photographs.

I don't know anything much Lou. My Dad died in 1977, and left us his logbook detailing his time as aircrew from 1938 to 1939, and a pile of photgraphs. It's all a bit complicated and needs some detective work - which is very easy to get wrong. Always known some things about my dad, but it's been very garbled and unclear. Say for example, I knew my dad was a wireless operator in Swordfish, but definitely RAF. Do a quick check, and Swordfish are habitually referred to as Naval aircraft on carriers. All their action was Fleet Air Arm, so how did that work with him being RAF? However, turns out the Fleet Air Arm was only separated from the RAF in 1938/39 on the brink of war, and prior to that Swordfish were indeed flown by the RAF. For years I couldn't figue that out. Internet wasn't around back then lol. My Dad was career RAF, joining up in 1933, but he was only air crew between 1938 and 1939, and his unit was No3 Anti Aircraft Cooperation Unit, basically recon, spotting for gunnery, towing things for ships and anti-aircraft batteries to shoot at. For a long time you could google 3AACU and find virtually nothing about it. It was a pre-war squadron, and once the Swordfish were taken into the Navy in 1939, it reverted to training, and not much more. I think it was shut down late 1939, and certainly wasn't up to defending Malta. My dad didn't stay on Malta, but moved to Iraq, Egypt, India and Burma, but no longer as aircrew, but as a wireless operator on the ground. Despite being in the RAF from 1933 to 1945, the only photos we have which are aircraft related are a few 1933 Pictures of varied aircraft taken at Catterick (at least that's what they have scribbled on the back), and bundle of Swordfish/Halfar Pics, and assorted landscapes/buildings in Iraq/India/Burma. There is a tantalising picture of a Spitfire in the Far east, but no details. My Dads not in that pic, but I strongly suspect he may have taken it. There are very few 'aimless' pictures kept. He generally took or kept pictures for a reason. From his log book I started checking our Squadron Numbers and acronyms and got a much clearer picture what my dad was actually doing, but this is confined to 1938/39. For example I've already described in his log book, he was flying 'drogue' or 'sleeve' missions for 802 Squadron. That means not much at a glance, but 802 Squadron were the Gloster Gladiators on the carrier HMS Glorious. He must have been towing things for them to shoot at. That must have been excellent fun! There is also a period in 1938 when he moves from Malta to Gibraltar, and seems to fly Swordfish with Floats rather than wheels. We're not 100% sure the Swordfish float pics are all Gibraltar, because Malta has seaplane facilities too. And apparently unrelated, he has a picture of the whole British Med Fleet at anchor in Gibraltar harbour, with the front gun turrets painted red white and blue. This was to mark the ships as neutral, while they protected neutral shipping in the Med while the Spanish Civil war was going on. It's a cracking photo, with over 100 warships, Hood, Nelson, Rodney, Royal Oak, King George V etc. Anyway, dig a little deeper, and you find out March to August was a grim time for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, (our friends) because the Nationalists, backed by the Nazis, had split the republican army in two, and were spreading out along the Spanish Med coast. The Spanish Nationalists had eyes on getting Gibraltar back from the Brits, and the British Fleet was a show of strength at the time, a big warning to "keep of the grass" around Gibraltar. While I can't be sure, I think that's possibly why my dad's unit was moved to Gib for the summer 1938 too. The dates cetainly fit. It turns out he de-mobbed after the war as a Warrant Officer / Flight Sergeant. He only flew as aircrew however 1938-39. I don't think he did anything spectacular in the war, the only stories I recall as a kid was shooting at a Jap Zero with a shotgun, this being the only shot he fired at the japs, and having to return behind jap lines to recover radio equipment left behind when they were fleeing the Japanese advance. No more details when or where. From what I know of the military, if he had to get it, it was probably him who left it behind lol. So to focus on this burned out wreck, I think it reasonable to assume this picture of the burned out Swordfish is very likely to be 1938-39, and either Hal Far or Gibraltar, largely because it cannot be anywhere else. I think the pic must be Hal Far, because his Gibraltar flights are definitely all logged as float plane Swordfish, so it seems reasonable to assume this wreck has wheels, and is therefore Hal Far, but that's one of these areas of detective work where 2+2 can equal 5. That Malta Aircraft site is a terrific find Lou, and I find myself looking at K8284, a Swordfish which crashed on 10/08/38 with no casualties, or K8443, a Swordfish crash during take-off due to mechanical failure. I'm no air crash investigator, but the relatively intact shape of the wing says a low level, low speed, low impact crash to me, with the aircraft in good condition prior to burning, - but that could fit either incident. So that probably limits it to either of these two alternatives. Probably. I think if I had to, I'd put my money on K8284, if only because its definitely a 3AACU aircraft. And yes, I've checked, my father never flew in either aircraft.

Here's why I'm asking...

That's excellent Lou. Thank you very much. It does however get more confusing, because in May 1938 my Dad was in Gibraltar. I'm totally happy it's a Fairey III from 202 squadron on Hal Far, but I don't see how my father could have taken the picture. He did go back to Hal Far in August, and perhaps didn't take the picture, but possibly knew the crew??? I'm guessing now. He did fly 2 drogue missions for 202 squadron in November, but both squadrons would be on Hal Far at the same time regardless of flying together. It seems it must have been something like that, because he was 3rd Anti-Aircraft Cooperation Unit, and they never flew Fairey III's, and never flew from carriers either. Where did you find the incident Lou if you don't mind me asking? I'm very curious.

Hmmmm. This is titled a "Pre-war" Fairey III. - I think that's it. The tail looks nearly right, but nearly right. Still not 100% convinced, but I don't know what else it could be.

This is a Fairey III, it says from Glorious in 1932 but it's a float (?). You can see the tail is close, but not quite right, but it might be damaged...

Thanks Lou. I've got another aircraft to ID for you. I believe this picture is HMS Glorious, but I am struggling to identify the type of aircraft in the drink. Its not a Fairey Swordfish or Flycatcher, Hawker Hart or Nimrod, nor is it Blackburn Dart or Ripon. It's not a Gladiator, nor a Fairey Seal. It's not a Supermarine Walrus, nor an Albacore. It MIGHT be a Fairey IIIF, and the tail is quite distinctive, but not 100% right. Thing is, I believe this picture is 1938, too late for Fairey IIIF's on a carrier, but 202 Squadron flew Fairey III's from Hal Far, where my father was, but again, I think this was well before 1938. That raises the question why it's beside a carrier. It could be a IIIF quite a bit before 1938, in fact IIIF's did fly of carriers as early as 1916, but if that's the case, we're wondering how my father came by the photograph. He took the vast majority in his collection, but this one is curious. I'll be happy enough just to know it is a Fairey III, then I'll know if I'm barking up the right tree or not.

My advice relates to how CFS3/OFF missions get written, whereas Olham is describing how the real pilots would plan to fly and navigate their missions. I suppose it doesn't really matter, UNLESS you're flying a mission which is a historic mission closely intended to recreate certain events happening at certain times in known locations. The best answer would be to fly a mission where the author wrote the flight path to follow the course of rivers and rails on the CFS3 map, allowing you to use waypoint or the map as you preferred. This would take a while to do, and ask an awful lot from the mission builder, but would probably be the best solution. I don't know if OFF missions are compiled to that degree of historic authenticity, but some might well could be. @Creaghorn - Yes thats in a campaign, but say you wanted to build an OFF mission to recreate a famous dogfight or engagement outside of campaign mode. You couldn't leave that to random chance encounters. It's true most of my mission building was CFS3 related, but historically accurate missions were commonly attempted. Say for example you wanted to attempt to fly Werner Voss's fial mission versus 5 SE5s from 54 Squadron, and see if you can put rounds into all of them.