It is currently September 24th, 2017, 4:49 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 14th, 2017, 1:47 am 
Offline
Why is he so confused ?
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Posts: 9839
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.
Sir T wrote:
jRatz wrote:
A question. Do you want to limit this to serving/operational or are designed & built, whether to a specification or as test & eval, but not employed in service also eligible ?

I had a plan when we first started, now I see other options in my stash. :roll:


That's a good question John, and I would think the answer should probably be yes...maybe.

There have been a lot of interesting aircraft designed for the RAF that never made it - Include those.

As for pure 'research' types... I guess so, it depends on how much input the RAF had maybe - I know they have been involved heavily over the years in test flying etc. I have to admit it's not a part of the service I know a lot about - Is the ETP School part of the RAF or it's own entity?

I'd ask you for judgement normally :-D what are your thoughts - I'd say we'd allow it on a type by type basis, if the RAF had some kind of influence/input into it.


I think any aircraft developed to a specification, whether it achieved production/operation or not, should be eligible.
Paper aircraft, things cancelled before they got built, and others, more loosely connected such as research, perhaps not.
We can always go case-by-case and let the modeler make his/her case for inclusion.

So much for my Vickers Type-C Giant Bomber :sad:

_________________
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
All problems are soluble in stout.


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 14th, 2017, 1:53 am 
Offline
Modelling Gent and Scholar

Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
Posts: 4284
Sir T wrote:
jRatz wrote:
A question. Do you want to limit this to serving/operational or are designed & built, whether to a specification or as test & eval, but not employed in service also eligible ?

I had a plan when we first started, now I see other options in my stash. :roll:


That's a good question John, and I would think the answer should probably be yes...maybe.

There have been a lot of interesting aircraft designed for the RAF that never made it - Include those.

As for pure 'research' types... I guess so, it depends on how much input the RAF had maybe - I know they have been involved heavily over the years in test flying etc. I have to admit it's not a part of the service I know a lot about - Is the ETP School part of the RAF or it's own entity?

I'd ask you for judgement normally :-D what are your thoughts - I'd say we'd allow it on a type by type basis, if the RAF had some kind of influence/input into it.
The RAF were responsible for many research projects. eg the Shorts SC1, the SB1 & 5, the TSR2.
I think if it operated with the RAF roundel or an RAF registration number on it then it should be included
AFAIK the ETPS is a separate entity administered by the MOD but controlled by the RAF and uses some of their aeroplanes

_________________
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 14th, 2017, 6:38 am 
Offline
Modelling Gent and Scholar
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 4:55 pm
Posts: 7433
Location: In Avalon with Arthur
jRatz wrote:
The inclusion of non-aircraft discussion started here: viewtopic.php?p=323487#p323487
and was agreed around here: viewtopic.php?p=323567#p323567

In short, Yes.


Oh indeed Yes - Anything to do with the RAF is acceptable, and the Sea and Land equipment is very much a part of that.

_________________
Confused and in need of help...

My Workbench Window thread: Stuart's All new 'Backseat Blunders II'
My old and 'slightly' cluttered thread: Stuart's 'Backseat Blunders'

http://www.mediocremodels.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 14th, 2017, 6:52 am 
Offline
Modelling Gent and Scholar
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 4:55 pm
Posts: 7433
Location: In Avalon with Arthur
fredk wrote:
Sir T wrote:
jRatz wrote:
A question. Do you want to limit this to serving/operational or are designed & built, whether to a specification or as test & eval, but not employed in service also eligible ?

I had a plan when we first started, now I see other options in my stash. :roll:


That's a good question John, and I would think the answer should probably be yes...maybe.

There have been a lot of interesting aircraft designed for the RAF that never made it - Include those.

As for pure 'research' types... I guess so, it depends on how much input the RAF had maybe - I know they have been involved heavily over the years in test flying etc. I have to admit it's not a part of the service I know a lot about - Is the ETP School part of the RAF or it's own entity?

I'd ask you for judgement normally :-D what are your thoughts - I'd say we'd allow it on a type by type basis, if the RAF had some kind of influence/input into it.
The RAF were responsible for many research projects. eg the Shorts SC1, the SB1 & 5, the TSR2.
I think if it operated with the RAF roundel or an RAF registration number on it then it should be included
AFAIK the ETPS is a separate entity administered by the MOD but controlled by the RAF and uses some of their aeroplanes


Thanks Fred - And that seems a good way of controlling it.

If it was made to an RAF spec, or had an RAF roundel and Reg number - It's in (or if the individual modeller can justify it

_________________
Confused and in need of help...

My Workbench Window thread: Stuart's All new 'Backseat Blunders II'
My old and 'slightly' cluttered thread: Stuart's 'Backseat Blunders'

http://www.mediocremodels.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 16th, 2017, 3:48 pm 
Offline
Why is he so confused ?
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Posts: 9839
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.
Another question ....

So, because the Fleet Air Arm was part of the RAF from 1 Apr 1924 through 24 May 1939, those aircraft/crews would be eligible ? But not the carriers, shore bases, etc ?

_________________
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
All problems are soluble in stout.


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 16th, 2017, 4:59 pm 
Offline
Modelling Gent and Scholar

Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
Posts: 4284
I would say no; as the FAA was only administered by the RAF.
It had Royal Navy personnel, used RN ranks and its airframes usually carried Royal Navy titles with the airframe number

_________________
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 17th, 2017, 1:24 am 
Offline
Why is he so confused ?
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Posts: 9839
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.
I didn't think it that simple. Shore-based aircraft in a maritime role were operationally controlled by the RAF.
The ship based got a bit more difficult, with RN crews being allowed to fly some.
Aircraft may have been developed to Admiralty requirements, but done so under Air Ministry auspices, leading to the usual issues of that sort.
At the transition back, FAA still needed RAF help with crews and such, so technically we're really talking about the "RAF at Sea" for that period. After all the goal was to give all air to the RAF at least long enough that it could be established as a functional independent force, not allowing the Army & Navy to nibble away at the edges.

My library is a bit thin on the details of all that so I have gone looking for more info -- not to have an argument but to clear things in my own mind. I got the though originally as I thought about "odd or ugly" aircraft as my theme so that naturally leads to the Blackburn Blackburn and others of that era. I'm sure I can find others that fit.

Now what about Army Co-op during the same 'tween-wars period ? :)

_________________
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
All problems are soluble in stout.


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 17th, 2017, 7:22 pm 
Offline
Modelling Gent and Scholar

Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
Posts: 4284
Army Co-operation was wholely RAF. Squadrons were allocated to being Army Co-op.

as an aside; talking with a few pilots who flew during this period in those squadrons; a squadron being made Army Co-op was seen as a squadron punishment. Pilots who didn't make the top grade were sent there as well as those with LMF. Pilots who were more extrovert were transferred out

_________________
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 17th, 2017, 8:02 pm 
Offline
Modelling Gent and Scholar
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 4:55 pm
Posts: 7433
Location: In Avalon with Arthur
I've been mulling this over today John, and whilst I agree with Fred's point to an extent, it is part of the RAF's history and would therefore count in my opinion. That being said I think it would be good if there was some kind of obvious link to the RAF, Rather than just the RN. I think it'll be a case by case thing.

Army co-op - without question.

Quite frankly I'd also allow a build to show the RAF assisting other air forces - Say an Oman Strikemaster.

_________________
Confused and in need of help...

My Workbench Window thread: Stuart's All new 'Backseat Blunders II'
My old and 'slightly' cluttered thread: Stuart's 'Backseat Blunders'

http://www.mediocremodels.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 17th, 2017, 8:30 pm 
Offline
Modelling Gent and Scholar

Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
Posts: 4284
Sir T wrote:
I've been mulling this over today John, and whilst I agree with Fred's point to an extent, it is part of the RAF's history and would therefore count in my opinion. That being said I think it would be good if there was some kind of obvious link to the RAF,Rather than just the RN. I think it'll be a case by case thing.
This brings to mind the RN Martlets & Sea Gladiators [804 sqd] and Fulmars [808 sqd] which fought during the Battle of Britain under control of the RAF. The Battle of Britain is often seen as only the RAF.

_________________
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.


Top
 Profile   
 
RAF 100 in 2018.
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF 100 in 2018.
PostPosted: September 17th, 2017, 10:05 pm 
Offline
Why is he so confused ?
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Posts: 9839
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.
fredk wrote:
Army Co-operation was wholely RAF. Squadrons were allocated to being Army Co-op.


Well yes, but this deprived the Army of their own aircraft for close-support, etc -- again for the purpose of building up the RAF and not allowing the Army/Navy to nibble away at it.

A scenario repeated over here post-WW2 when the USAF thought it out to be everything-air, even though their was no proven doctrine to justify it. The Army kept helicopters and small spotters. The USAF hasn't gotten over it yet, even though their own efforts to kill the useful CAS aircraft (A-10) show they really don't want to be down there in the mud. It's not a pilot thing, it's upper level. The debate extends to what we now call the Deep Battle as artillery weapons range longer and both services clash as to who owns the airspace. But that's way off topic ....

_________________
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
All problems are soluble in stout.


Top
 Profile   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Macinscott 3 style by HighDefGeek