 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Put a brew on, chief.
Tick
I'm onnit !
Cheers
grafters!
What a programme.
Needs more adverts and panning..
The messerschmitt is in the air.
Well worth watching.
I like Guy Martin , comes across very genuine and humble. Doesnt feign interest in a subject like too many presenters do. Also polite and sincere in about the right amounts.
I have stood 10ft behind a spit on start up at an airshow . rather emotional.
who's doing the voiceover? I know I know the voice but can't get a face or name.
EDIT: I have now seen the credits. Iain Glen meant nothing but Ser Jorah Mormont I do know.
Hats off to the test pilot, If that really is the first time it has left the ground, What a job.
That was excellent.
Cracking.. Proper grafting. Was looking forward to that all week and really enjoyed it.
What bit was original?
EDIT: I have now seen the credits. Iain Glen meant nothing but Ser Jorah Mormont I do know.
They are [s]dragons[/s] Spitfires, Khaleesi. They cannot be tamed, not even by their mother.
Excellent stuff. The bit where it did the low fast pass round the hangar! 😀
Via Terrahawk I've got one of the bullet casings from the BMW shoot up. I shall take it to work tomorrow like a 10 year old taking in his best toy.
Harry, we're gonna need a picture !
Sorry but that was awful. No engineering no building. All he did was put some rivets in and hang on a big bar to tighten it up.
Would have liked to have seen a bit more of the work that went into it, a bit less archive footage, maybe a few more interviews.
[IMG]Harry, we're gonna need a picture !
[/IMG]
not a bad programe, needs one now about the engineering involved, eg how the prop was made, engine rebuilt and other stuff.
I agree with project, needed more. A bit fluffy for tv.
But the moment when it came low past the hanger... 8)
I'm not sure it intended to be a "How to build a <insert thing>" program. Felt more like a generic history program that is typical for this time of year.
Harry - my browser (Chrome) is claiming that your photobucket account contains malware when I try to load this page. Don't know if it's simply being demented.
I like Guy Martin , comes across very genuine and humble.
I've always liked him but my opnion did ratchet up more than a few notches watching this.
EDIT but it could have done with being a 3 parter with a bit more engineering
I'm pretty sure he spent a lot of time actually doing 'engineering', but watching him putting in rivets, or machining a locating pin to mind-buggeringly fine tolerances would probably stretch the viewers tolerances somewhat. I would have liked to have seen perhaps two programmes, with more construction detail shown, but I guess the programmers have to cut a fine line between satisfying your average Sunday evening viewer, and the likes of us who want to see more of the fine detail.
I liked the fact that they were impressed enough with Guy's engineering skills that they would have him working on building a Spit airframe in a heartbeat.
I did think it was funny that, having spent all that time honing the locating pin, holding it for fifteen minutes meant it wouldn't fit and had to cool down again!
Was it mentioned what's going to happen to the plane now it's air worthy? I missed the last few mins
Was it mentioned what's going to happen to the plane now it's air worthy?
They are going to use it to kill ISIS whilst playing the Dambusters tune.
Did they not use the same letters and numbers on THAT WHOLE NEW PLANE?
FM
Some lucky (unidentified) owner must have deep pockets for that 'rebuild' eh chief?
Whoever whote the script for the narrator needs sacking. I realise they need to make it punchy to grab the attention of casual viewers, but you'd have thought they'd at least try and ground it in some kind of reality.
How many times was it claimed to be 'The most authentic Spitfire to be built since the war'? Somehow i suspect the ones built in the Spitfire factory between the years 1945 and 1949 were slightly more 'authentic'.
Also, 'the most successful fighter design ever' was actually less successful than the Hurricaine.
Hurricanes shot down more, but there were fewer Spitfires? So "kills per Spitfire" possibly higher than "kills per Hurricane"?.
Think it was touched on in the programme. Which was a great watch, regardless of various liberties.
About 22000 Spitfires vs 14000 Hurricanes a very quick google reveals.
Don't get me wrong, i enjoyed the programme. Guy Martin seems like a decent bloke, and the engineering on show was clearly staggering, but for me the edditing let it down. Like discussing 'Fighter ace Sqn Ldr Stevenson' whilst clearly showing an image of a Sgt riding a motorbike.
And the Typhoons pretending they were Spitfires.
Such a pity that some of the effort that seems to go into building Spitfire after Spitfire isn't spent on building up a couple of Vulcans.
Yes, I know it's "a bit" more difficult!
Rachel
Yeah, only "a bit"
I watched this the other day and found it a bit disappointing. It was in no way any sort of restoration. They just built a new Mk1 Spitfire. There was so little detail too: Here's the engine. Here's the propellor. That sort of thing, yet they can spend 30 seconds after each set of adverts recapping what's already been done or what they've already told you.
That should have been minimum 3x1hr episodes, preferably double that. It was like the first 2 and last 2 pages of a book, after a long look at the cover.
"Not a real spitfire" "not really dogfighting" with a "not really a 109"
That bit was a bit naff, and I'm not really sure what it was trying to do
[i]Also, 'the most successful fighter design ever' was actually less successful than the Hurricaine.[/i]
In that in the BoB more enemy aircraft were shot down by Hurricanes? Is true, but by any standards the Hurricane was at the end of its development by 1939 ( it was itself a development of a biplane design) so to call it more successful is stretching it a bit.
Nickc - i understand your point, however i respectfully disagree. Here is my opinion on the matter:
A fighter aircraft has one job, which is to shoot down enemy aircraft. Statistically, more enemy aircraft were shot down by Hurricanes than by Spitfires. Therefore, i personally regard the Hurricane to be a more 'successful' aircraft.
I realise they were employed differently (Hurricanes were usually sent after incoming bombers) however, the facts remain.
Ok, at the time of the BoB there were more hurricane squadrons, they went after the bombers and dive bombers precisely because they were vulnerable against bf109s.
Yes your correct fighters to be successful have to down more enemy than are shot down themselves, but without spitfires the hurricane would not have been as successful as it was.
Most hurricane Sqns were redeployed away from 11 group, and spent a large part of the BoB in 12 and 13 group defending industrial towns, out of range of 109s and they were withdrawn to fighter bomber and night fighter roles by 1942.
Good aeroplane without a doubt, "more successful" than the spitfire...not sure
Such a pity that some of the effort that seems to go into building Spitfire after Spitfire isn't spent on building up a couple of Vulcans.Yes, I know it's "a bit" more difficult!
Rachel
I fully appreciate your point, and my heart agrees, but reality dictates that it's quite possible now, as shown, to build a Spit from the ground up, and fly it, for a price that's not beyond the reach of a moderately wealthy person, which is pretty much unique, whereas it's difficult enough keeping XH558 flying, running costs in fuel alone are mind buggeringly horrendous!
Instead of another Vulcan, I'd prefer to see a Victor flying alongside XH558, it's such an amazing looking aircraft.
P51 Mustang surely?
[i]P51 Mustang surely?[/i]
as most successful piston engined fighter of WW2
yes
I liked it.
Don't normally like slebs presenting documentaries, but Guy Martin knows what he's talking about and is obviously a decent, enthusiastic bloke.
If you want something (a lot) more detailed.
The book he was flicking through is this:
[img] 
[/img]
It's pretty dry - lots of wonderful recollections, but lots of technical and behind the scenes stuff too.
I have some odd feeling towards the Vulcan. An interesting aircraft certainly, but one who's only noteworthy achievement was one (admittedly long range) bombing operation, which effected practically zero significance to the Falklands conflict. It was ultimately an example of the RAF trying to invite itself to the Navy's party.
As i said, the Vulcan is an interesting aircraft, but i think there are plenty of others with more historical significance which should be afforded preservation.
it could have gone a lot further I think James Mays giant airfix kit held more interest but GM comes across well ,could he the long lost love child of Fred Dibnah ? 8/10
the spitfire has a pretty special place in the heart of the nation in a "winning the war saving the day" sort of way whereas the vulcan was for dropping nuclear bombs on women and children which is quite difficult to feel warm and fuzzy about.
still awesome tho....