Friday, December 15, 2017

Bernard Lynch, BEM, Martin Baker

Bernard Lynch has always been a hero of mine for cold-blooded courage in being the first man to test Martin Baker's prototype ejection seats.

http://www.airspacemag.com/videos/category/new-label/footage-of-the-first-martin-baker-ejection-s/

Great video from the Smithsonian Channel.

Though not noted in the video, he was rightly awarded the British Empire Medal for his work.
(The RAF pilot style moustache clearly deserved an award of its own, it's another example where the hero wasn't a pilot, not was a member of the air force, but a civilian technician.
And another note, illustrating the dangers of reporting: a journalist from The Aeroplane was hospitalised with crushed vertebrae after trying out the rig for himself.)

https://www.airspacemag.com/videos/category/new-label/footage-of-the-first-martin-baker-ejection-s/

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Fame Indeed - Aeroplane

Always good to get a bit of quiet recognition; here in the 'Regular Contributors' to Aeroplane Monthly magazine, and in good company.


Thursday, June 8, 2017

Sharp Dressed Warbirds

No excuse needed for this shot. Taken at the RAAF Museum's Pageant on 23 February, 2008, it shows three W.W.II allied fighters wearing historically appropriate shark mouth schemes.

From the nearest: The RAAF Museum's CAC Mustang A68-170, Alan Arthur's Curtiss P-40N-1 Kittyhawk NZ3125, and the Temora Aviation Museum's Supermarine Spitfire Mk.VIII A58-750. (Also present are a NAA T-28 and Mustang VH-BOB.)



The RAAF Museum's scheme is an Occupation of Japan scheme, of 77 Squadron RAAF, Al Arthur's an Italy Campaign 112 Squadron RAF version, and the Temora Spitfire in the colours of Bobby Gibbes' 'Grey Nurse' 457 Squadron RAAF.


Later that day the three aircraft flew a unique shark mouth flight scheme. A challenge for our readers; does anyone know of any other occasion three different types of shark mouth painted W.W.II era warbirds flew together? It's possible, but I can't recall another occasion.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Noakes in the Reds

John Noakes flies with the Red Arrows, 1975. Sadly John died yesterday at the age of 83. For many he exemplified the 'have a go TV' presenter, one of the greats of children's TV show Blue Peter and was regarded in playgrounds across the UK as fearless. Though this programme is entitled 'Go With Noakes' there's plenty of Blue Peter badges to be seen.

This excellent BBC documentary shows what a good documentary should contain. Though there are shortcuts ("cleared to taxi..." - takeoff shot!) it's remarkably good at showing the breadth of the job of practising and putting on a display, and shows both answers to the usual questions and answers to questions people probably wouldn't think to ask. It also, for once, shows what the ground crew do (John, as he says here, was a former RAF fitter himself) and it's a much better than usual effort in doing that, too.

Filming quality is remarkable - no tiny high-def GoPros here, but larger, unwieldy professional tape or film cameras; the Gnat's cockpit is tiny at the best of times - a camera inside at 2.5 to 4 g would be very challenging.


Some aspects have changed a lot, but the core of what the Reds specifically, and display teams in general, haven't changed in the last forty years. You can also see some of the foundations laid for the team by previous leader, the late, incomparable Ray Hanna. On which, more later...

BBC link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/aerialjourneys/5328.shtml

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Shoreham Hunder AAIB Accident Report

The UK's Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) have released the final report of the August 2015 Hawker Hunter crash that resulted in the deaths of eleven bystanders.

The summary is here, with the full report here and earlier reports and a brief video illustrating the aircraft's critical manoeuvre at the bottom of the page.

While the report is very long, there are numerous air display safety points touched upon (as well as recommendations specific to the UK's airshow industry approach) many of which are worth the time of anyone professionally involved in airshow organisation or safety in any country.

My comments on the accident at the time, are here.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Aircrew's - 100 Up & Out

 It's the final Aircrew feature in Aeroplane Monthly by Ian Bott and myself. Thanks to Ben Dunnell for the note, and Ian's write up below.

I'll just say that we weren't out of ideas and had still a good list of potential roles to do, but we didn't want to end up doing 'riffs on a theme' - minor variations between similar roles either. In short though, 100 was a good number, and we all thought it was time to move on to new projects!

It's a demanding, engrossing project that's taken a lot of my time and energy over the last seven years. And it's been a fascinating journey, and I've learned a lot and hundreds of people have helped to make it what it was. However three people without whom...

Ian Bott, a great artist, and a great guy to work with on this. We've pulled each other into doing things we'd perhaps otherwise not have done, but each and every one's been well worth it. Original editor Michael Oakey, who got us started with it, and current editor Ben Dunnell of Aeroplane Monthly, both who supported us with the it, and both gave us their backing and a remarkably free hand too.

So we'll be keen to see what people think of the replacement once it's out - no sneak peeks yet, except to say Ben's been very supportive of the idea, and Ian and I will be working together on it - which we're pleased to do.

You can amuse yourself in the meantime by seeing if you can name all the subjects (not just the aircraft - that's too easy) in Ian's picture montage above...

Ian said: "Here's the latest Aircrew feature on the job of an EF-111 Raven electronic warfare officer in the new issue of Aeroplane Monthly with illustration by me and words by James Kightly. It's a big landmark for us because it's the 100th feature and, sadly, it's also the final one."

Ben Dunnell's editorial comment - thanks, Ben - "This month marks the end of an Aeroplane era, as our popular Aircrew column, so diligently compiled by James Kightly and splendidly illustrated by Ian Bott, comes to a conclusion. Their examination of the role of a US Air Force EF-111 Raven electronic warfare officer is the 100th subject in the series, and we felt that this milestone provided a suitable opportunity on which to close. Thanks to James and Ian for all their hard work on Aircrew - but they'll be back to collaborate on a new regular feature from the May issue onwards. Watch this space."

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

A hat with a light

Not something you see very often! The 1980s Royal Navy Historic Flight had a pith helmet (or shola topee) fitted with a rotating red beacon that was sometimes 'used' by one of the crew of Fairey Swordfish LS326 during taxiing.



It's seen here at the Shuttleworth Collection's Old Warden airfield.

I do hope it made it into the RNHF's regimental curios collection.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Airfix to release 1/48 Walrus kit

Airfix's announcement. So it's clearly a good time to update the Supermarine Walrus book. 
[Image: Airfix]
I think a book on just the Walrus and Seagull this time, rather than the (recently available) MMP book I wrote on the Walrus and Stranraer. 
What do you think?

[Image: Airfix]
And a PS: thanks to those who pointed it out to me!

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Bomber Crew: Then & Now

An image of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's Lancaster crew taken by Paul B shows the flight engineer and navigator working (closer to the camera) with the two pilots above and ahead.

Two things. Firstly the Flight's Lancaster isn't configured as the W.W.II Lancasters were - the wartime examples flew as one pilot (on the left) and with a flight engineer on the right on a not-permanently-fitted jump seat, and with the navigator further aft in a screened off compartment.

Secondly I was immediately reminded of a wartime painting: "Take Off: Interior of a Bomber Aircraft" by Dame Laura Knight, official war artist.

Because of the Flight's reconfiguration of the cockpit area for modern use, there's a remarkable similarity to the crew in Knight's painting - even though the crew in that are aboard the (now-extinct) Short Stirling heavy bomber, the only one of the RAF's three heavies two have a two pilot cockpit. It is interesting how, though different, the crew's positions echo their counterpart's. (For accuracy - in Knight's painting the nearest figure is actually the radio operator, not the flight engineer as in the Flight's image.)

Lancaster from the BBMF's Facebook page here. Details of Knight's painting in the IWM collection here.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Beautiful Rubbish

 The axiom 'if it looks right it'll fly right' has more than enough exceptions to ensure it shouldn't be taken seriously. Most obvious examples are ugly, highly successful aircraft (it's often forgotten that the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II was initially regarded as so ungainly it was said to have been 'delivered upside down') but there's also a dishonourable list of beautiful failures.


A good pair would be the British Bristol 188 (above) and the American Douglas X-3 Stiletto (below).


Both experimental aircraft from the golden age of probing the supersonic possibilities, both essentially failures - to be fair, both more to do with inadequate engines than airframe issues, but it has to be said their concepts were ultimately found to be unviable. Another connection is that both featured exotic metals in their primary construction. Stainless steel in the Bristol and Titanium in the Douglas, and both providing major headaches for their manufacture.

What other beautiful failures can you think of?

Boxkite Anniversary

On the 11 September, 2013, at 7:24 pm, just at dusk, the Bristol Military Biplane Boxkite replica VH-XKT flew for the first time.

Three years ago tonight.

The first flight in 2013. 

Built by Project 2014, Group Captain Ron Gretton, AM, OAM, and Wing Commander Geoff Matthews, OAM, both RAAF Retired, for the RAAF Museum, this proved the aircraft worked, and it was to go on to be flown on both days of the 2014 Centenary of Military Aviation Airshow at RAAF Point Cook on the 1st and 2nd of March 2014.

Sadly the aircraft is currently grounded, but it did what it was designed to do.

An RAAF Museum Archives image of one of the original Australian Army Boxkites at RAAF Point Cook, circa 1914-15.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

'Sully' Movie


'Sully' Movie. Three facts.


1. Often called 'The Miracle on the Hudson', it wasn't a 'miracle'. It was training, developed procedures, design. Behind that came experience, skill and lastly, luck - first bad, then good.

2. The successful forced landing on water wasn't one pilot's achievement, but the achievement of an aircraft crew, both cockpit and cabin crew, and those that trained them, those that legislated to ensure they had the tools training and experience to do an exceptional job. (Humans seem to need solo heroes. Don't forget those that give heroes the tools and backup.)

There's something called Cockpit (sometimes Crew) Resource Management. Worth a look, it's about teamwork and can apply in any team. It has not been about 'one pilot in charge in an airliner' for decades now. For instance, see: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Crew_Resource_Management

3. 'They' weren't out to 'Sully' him. The (US') National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) portrayal in the film (and in the trailer, above) is a fictionalised film device to have an adversary and dramatic tension. There are a lot of questions, checking and paperwork after an airliner crash. Their job is not to blame or pillory the pilot or crew, but to gather data for future accident prevention.

It's the media where the pillorying occurs. (Captain Sullenberger believes it was, the NTSB weren't asked to be involved in the film making.) Unsurprisingly, there's been negative views from ex-NTSB members on this film. Whether that's fair or not the NTSB and their peers in Australia, Canada, the UK, Europe, New Zealand and so on are a key element that goes to make airlines flying as safe as it is for us. Enjoy the film, but remember: "Allyn Stewart, one of the film’s producers, told the New York Times that the film is not meant to be a documentary." Indeed.

[I generally don't touch modern airliner activities, but this accident is unarguably a part of aviation history, and too important to leave to a no-doubt gripping entertainment by 'Hanks'. Oh, sorry, actually a large team making a film.]

Links:
Critical review:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/09/the-silliness-of-sully/499247/

NTSB comments reported:
http://qz.com/778011/sully-ntsb-investigators-are-not-happy-about-being-made-the-villains-in-clint-eastwoods-film-starring-tom-hanks-as-chesley-sully-sullenberger/

http://www.thewrap.com/does-sully-sully-the-reputations-of-ntsb-investigators/

Pilot's view:
http://www.owenzupp.com/writing-blog/sully-the-movie-one-pilots-perspective

Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKEXxO2KNE

WSJ review:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sully-movie-lands-but-its-drama-isnt-on-the-river-1473105448?mod=e2fb

NTSB Report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Savoia Marchetti SM 82

One of the rarest surviving aircraft is the sole remaining Savoia Marchetti SM 82 in the Italian Air Force Museum at Vigna di Valle, near Rome.



727 were built, but it is remarkable that any survived from war service (commencing in 1940 on the Axis side) particularly as the aircraft was of mixed construction, but with an all-wooden wing structure - very viable as a design, but vulnerable to damage in service, weather and ultimately very tempting for burning after even a minor accident.

SM 82 PW MM.61187 is preserved in its silver post war colour scheme and configuration with Pratt & Whitney R1830 engines.

Some history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.82

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

'Aircrew' at the Athenaeum Club

Honoured to be asked to speak to the ‘Aviation Table’ of the private Athenaeum Club, Melbourne at the start of next month.



I'll be discussing how the Aeroplane Monthly feature 'Aircrew' topic is chosen by the editor, artist Ian Bott and myself, and how Ian and I research and compile the story of each particular aircraft crew task. I'll look be pleased to revisit some of the fascinating byways and challenges of researching the diverse jobs people have done in aircraft over the last century. Better drag my notes together!

Lockheed 12

With the sound of the giros winding down, Doug Hamilton's Lockheed 12 VH-HID is parked up for the night at Echuca during the Antique Aeroplane Association of Australia this past weekend.


Quite the executive machine!

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Paper- "Tested Testers: Re-learning to fly the Boxkite."

Just finishing up the draft of my paper "Tested Testers: Re-learning to fly the Boxkite." It's a look at the challenge to the team of flying replica Bristol Boxkite VH-XKT at RAAF Point Cook in 2013-4.


Looking pretty good, I think, lots of fascinating detail, thanks to the many people who've shared their insights, eperience and knowledge on the Boxkite from Project 2014.

The paper will be presented on Thursday 10 December at the Aviation Cultures Mk.II conference at the University of Sydney.  I feel very privalaged to have been accepted to present.

It's also great that there are so many other great papers being presented, and I'm also looking forward to catching up with friends and colleagues old and new at the two-day event.

Friday, December 4, 2015

10 Years

"Straight to the poolroom." One sacrifice on the recent whirlwind tour that was 'Wings Over Australia' with Dave Homewood (on which, more anon) was that I didn't manage to get to the RAAF Museum's Volunteer Christmas function. So I missed being handed this, which arrived, with a nice note from Mary Briggs in the post today.

Ten years volunteering at the RAAF Museum. That's as a host officer, museum guide, interactive display speaker, sometime aircraft cleaner, occasional researcher, and a few other things, I think.


It's been a fascinating ten years, sometimes seems a lot longer, and sometimes a lot shorter, but it's been a fascinating and educational experience. Thanks to everyone who's made it so.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

How important was the 1934 DC-2 airliner 'Uiver'?

Good question. I'll be speaking about this at the Civil Aviation Historical Society's annual Open Day on Saturday November 7th, at Essendon Airport, Melbourne.


The theme of this years Open Day is "THE ENGLAND TO AUSTRALIA CENTENARY AIR RACE" celebrating the Melbourne City Centenary.

The Open Day will include speakers on the Air Race, including yours truly, continuous screening of aviation films, a relevant photographic display, and self guided tours of the museum assisted by volunteers.

The talks:
11.30 am: Mr John McCulloch, 'Three Days to Melbourne'

1.00 pm: Mr James Kightly, The Airline Winner - The Significance of the DC-2 'Uiver'

2.30 pm: Mr John McCulloch, The Air Race Sub-Committee: organisation and controversies behind the scenes

The Open Day will run from 10am to 5pm. The society says 'Family and friends welcome', I hope to see you there!

Sunday, August 23, 2015

UK Airshow Safety

After yesterday’s tragic accident at the Shoreham Royal Air Force Association Airshow in Sussex, UK, with seven people known to have been killed, 14 injured, and the pilot in hospital in a critical condition, there has been a great deal of understandable shock and speculation.

Unfortunately much of the commentary and speculation has no context, and for that reason, here is a number of facts to provide some background to otherwise overlooked critical aspects of this disaster.

No one yet knows what caused the accident. What is known is the aircraft, a Hawker Hunter T7 (a trainer version of a 1950s British fighter design) hit the ground, broke up, and the fuel aboard exploded. Unfortunately the impact took place on the A27 road which had traffic on it at the time, and the casualties were people just travelling on this road. The pilot survived the accident, but is badly injured and in hospital at the time of writing.

At the risk of stating the obvious, no-one wants or is prepared to have airshow accidents: not as a by-product of display activities or any other reason. Like all sport, there are dangers, but there is a great deal done to minimise and mitigate those risks, as outlined below.

Airshow Safety
The deaths yesterday are the first fatalities to bystander members of the public at a British airshow since an accident 1952. That is 63 years ago. It is no coincidence, either as the reason for this remarkable achievement is measures put in place after the 1952 John Derry DH.110 accident.

(Car racing accidents involving deaths of members of the public at Le Mans in 1955 and during the Italian Grand Prix at Monza in 1961 resulted in safety measures that have effectively ensured almost no injuries to the public since. There have been more recent spectator deaths in rally driving, while participant injuries in air displays, horse riding, motorsport, skiing and other similar activities remain low, but apparently ever present, despite continual growth of safety measures – such as helmets in horse riding and skiing. Any assessment needs to look at global trends and events and the local nation by nation or code [such as international sport safety rules] to gather meaningful data. In the case of air displays, there are variations in approach and regulation nations, and accident history, so for this discussion I have focussed on UK rules and history alone.)

One of the main principles formulated after the 1952 airshow accident is to ensure that the display aircraft mostly do not overfly the crowd or direct the energy of the manoeuvring towards the crowd. There are some exceptions, but by having this as a standard basis, any accidents that may occur will not involve those watching the show from the official public enclosure. In the case of the Shoreham accident, one point generally not made is that the accident did avoid the crowd area (as is in the standard plan) though it tragically did involve a road with people on it. While each death is a tragedy, we are lucky that there were so few, which is the result of a mixture of luck (the area around airfields is a mixture of open land and occupied areas) and planning (as above).

What went wrong?
We do not know. However, we will know and I can state, categorically, that a) the accident’s causes will almost certainly be accurately identified, by professional accident investigators, and b) the report will be publicly published and available for free on the internet.  Unfortunately, it will not be available in the current news-media cycle, as it will take a number of months to be processed and completed.

This is because Britain has the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB). The AAIB will painstakingly piece together the sequence of events, forensically examine the factors, aircraft, pilot, environment and so forth, and enumerate the data and conclusions in the report. If they cannot identify causes, they will say so, but despite the destructive nature of aviation accidents, they rarely have to leave any factors listed as ‘unknown’.

That is why the airshow organisers ask for any evidence to be handed in.

In about six months from now, the publication of the report will make a few hours news, but will be available on the AAIB website from then onwards, for anyone to read and learn from. Any lessons that might change current practice in flight and show safety will be explicitly stated, and the recommendations implemented where appropriate. Significant risks identified will be acted on.

Pilot Checks
The pilot of any UK air display aircraft have to work out a standard display routine, normally made up of a number of standard aerobatic manoeuvres linked together to form the presentation. This is overseen by a designated examiner and when he or she is satisfied that the display is viable, repeatable, and safe, the pilot is issued with a Display Authorisation, or ‘DA’. This means that every display act has a standard, repeated and much-practised routine that he (or she or the crew) go through.

EDIT - Correction by Barry Tempest, formerly of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in this field: "After an evaluation by a highly experienced Display Authorisation Evaluator (DAE) appointed by the CAA they are free to design and perform any display sequence within the limitations imposed in their authorisation along with those of the aircraft they are flying. They are not restricted to the sequence flown in front of their evaluator. All such pilots are mentored by their peers as they gain experience and all major displays have a Flying Control Committee who monitor standards of safety. The FCC can terminate any display if the rules are infringed and the Display Authorisation can be suspended or revoked by the CAA."

No one ‘brings an aircraft and goes for a fly’ at a UK airshow. This, obviously, doesn’t prevent all accidents, but it does minimise the risks and removes multiple causal problems.

Display pilots are a remarkably varied group of people, however (in the UK) they are all in possession of the appropriate licences (like a car driver’s licence) and endorsements (like a heavy goods vehicle licence, or forklift licence) for any extras or differences from the standard aircraft that they expect to fly. For this, they have to be fit and healthy (as far as annual medicals can ensure) and fully experienced in flying the aircraft they are displaying. In many cases the pilots have thousands of hours flying experience, and have to have significant experience practising (and in due course performing) their display routine. (Note: the above is specific to civil pilots. Military pilots work on a different, but similarly regimented safety system.)

Aircraft Age
The Hawker Hunter is a 1950s design. The crashed aircraft was built some time later, but in that era. However, any vintage air display aircraft has to be kept in excellent condition, not just in looks but in mechanical reliability. In the case of a 1950s era jet fighter-trainer, the structure, engine, systems (like a car’s brakes and electrics) are all well known, inspected and tested in depth on a regular cycle (usually annually, and sections more frequently) and also tested as part of the pre-flight checks before every flight. Any parts that don’t work are replaced or, within a very stringent set of criteria, repaired. Most vintage display aircraft are in better condition mechanically than your five-year-old car, and are certainly inspected and tested to a far higher standard.

There is a balance between the pros and cons of still using older technology. On the negative side, older systems and aircraft are not as refined for use as more modern types. This is mitigated by the fact that, specifically in the case of 1950s military jets, they are not being used at the speeds, heights or performance that they were originally designed to be. Again, they are high performance technology, but being used in a very restricted format, rather like showing a race car, on a private course, at suburban speed limits. On the positive side of the use of old technology, the strengths and weaknesses of the design and components are well known. Any ‘product recall’ issues with the type are known (from decades earlier) documented and have the solutions in place. If they have not been solved, the aircraft does not fly.

Disaster Management
Another point rarely noted about yesterday’s accident is that the airshow team had a co-ordinated disaster management plan in place, working with the involvement of the airshow team and emergency services. In this case it clearly worked (though not all details are in) and they all deserve credit for a plan that was fully worked out and able to be implemented when it had to be.

Why Fly?
Obviously if there are no airshows, there can be no airshow accidents. There have been national bans in other countries. However, despite the evidence of yesterday’s tragedy, overall airshows are safe entertainment and provide significant tourism revenue, education and employment. Despite some reports, it is not common for operators of ex-military jet aircraft to cover their costs from appearance fees, though there is, of course, enormous variation in the costs of operation and the income possible. (The Shoreham airshow is a charity fundraiser for the Royal Air Force Association.) In the UK, and most other countries they are tightly regulated, carefully managed and safe. Everyone works towards a ‘safety is no accident’ objective.

Statistics vary, but airshows routinely gather huge audiences on site – far greater in numbers than many live sports, and are sometimes cited as the second most popular spectator sport in the UK. The infrastructure of vintage aviation, airshow activities, right down to the vital toilets, rubbish management and coffee carts, involves a huge number of people and generates remarkable amounts of tourism-type revenue. Additionally, they are more appreciated than ever as a cornerstone of the current ‘living history’ approach to history and heritage entertainment and education.


These are some of the background measures that were in place, and I hope you find the information useful.

James Kightly, www.VintageAeroWriter.com
James is a professional writer and reporter on global vintage aviation, and has been writing for over a quarter-century.

Shared under the Creative Commons Media Licence. Please attribute any quotation. References, corrections and additions will be incorporated as appropriate, and noted as changes in the text.

Edit1 - minor typos corrected.
Edit2 - clarification of display authorisation process from Barry Tempest.

Monday, August 17, 2015

'Harry Tate'


The Vintage Aviator Collection built RAAF Museum' RE8 replica; incredibly authentic on the grass at RAAF Point Cook. This, I'm now sure, is the first ever R.E.8 to fly in Australia. 

Just out is the Part 2 of the feature article on the 'Harry Tate' in Flightpath magazine. Lot of graft that (I hope!) isn't evident in the final result which I'm pretty pleased with

As in any good article, once I got going I ended up with too much material, much of which had to be cut. Here's a couple of sections.

A great (RAAF Museum Archive) photograph by the great photographer Frank Hurley of a carefully posed group of 3 Squadron Australian Flying Corps R.E.8 crew taken, no doubt, on a big wood box camera with a Magnesium flare flash. 

These young men were both like us, in their humanity, and quite unlike us in their expectations. They flew these 'crates' which were the state-of-the-art then (equivalent to today's space station in their technical extremity of the time) and they took their chances. Skill and training and experience were all very limited.

Many were lucky. Many more were unlucky, and that cockpit with a fuel tank in the pilot's lap could quickly become a very nasty end. It's a trite euphemism; 'the fallen'. Many of these young men were literally 'the fallen' and there was nothing nice about it. It's a nasty way to die. Others were 'just' horribly injured. It was important to learn and write about them.

As ever, it was a collaborative effort. Big thanks to co-author Rob Langham, without whom... First time I've written an article where the other author will be pictured in it in his own Sidcot suit! Rob's take and input was decisive. A very big thanks also to Philippa Brotchie who kindly went to the Australian War Memorial archive, extracted the document that nailed down a key fact about a 'mystery'. And Brett Clowes provided some critical thinking and data. Michael Molkentin's book 'Fire in the Sky' was a core reference, with lots of good 'gen' - this might be a surprise to you, Michael! Peter Hart might also be surprised by knowing we used his 'Bloody April' and 'Aces Falling'. Thanks both.
 
 I've been spending some time in a virtual cockpit alongside some very normal young men, all now long gone. The cockpit is here illustrated by the very same replica R.E.8. 

Finally I'd like to let the one of these young chaps speak. That was one reward of this article. There's great first-hand accounts, and they certainly told their own stories better than I could. Nigel Love of 3 Squadron AFC, overlooks the 'archie'; enemy guns always shooting at him, and the ever-present enemy 'jaeger' (hunters) ready to shoot him down - the real 'huns in the sun'. He just says:
“Regular duty assigned to air crew of a 'Corps Squadron', was for continuous ‘line patrol’. It involved a machine flying up and down the whole of the Corps front, during daylight hours, at about 8,000 feet, taking photographs with a camera fitted to the observer’s cockpit. We used to call this patrol a ‘Spark Crawl’ – and would be about two and a half hours over the lines. When things were slow, we would drop down to zero level, emptying our machine guns on the trenches, or enemy transport behind the lines. This was somewhat ‘sticky’ business, but it was our job and it did break the monotony.” 
Monotony!