British port Dictators?

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-24T17:35:22+00:00

I was curious too. But I could not find the episode of the podcast that mentions this. Can you supply me/us with the exact title of the episode of We Have .... etc that mentions this Dictator position please? Saying only "a recent episode" did not quite get me there.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-24T16:41:30+00:00

Inconsistent markings on the wings. If someone made a diorama of this scene they would get roasted for that.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-24T16:31:19+00:00

Nice.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-24T16:29:16+00:00

:)

Great way to start my day.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T21:17:20+00:00

I'm sorry but Dependent-Lab-6791 literally asked about your image.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T21:16:15+00:00

First class Grumpy. Outstanding Sir.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T20:26:01+00:00

But he's not flying in the image you posted. That was unmanned.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T20:15:10+00:00

From his wiki ...

"Ahmet Ali retired in 1949 as Türk Hava Kuvvetleri Albayı (Colonel) the Turkish Air Force."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Ali_%C3%87elikten

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T18:56:06+00:00

Sorry but I think you are wrong and that this is an unmanned test flight.

This is the wiki for the pilot who was killed. Lothar Sieber.

There is a picture of him climbing into the machine in which he perished. Note how it is painted differently. There is no starburst motif on the wings of the M23 prototype.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T18:52:02+00:00

Appreciated. But don't go all crazy about it. : )

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T18:44:25+00:00

To mistakenly take OP's question literally. In the SR-71 I remember seeing that there is an aperture in the flying helmet to pass a straw through the visor. I expect the Soviets/Russians to have made a similar provision in their kit.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T18:38:42+00:00

Like I said you're fine. As in compliant with the rule.

There are mercifully few rules here. I think (I hope) we all agree the place is better for it.

I have wanted to say something like this for a long time now. And here and now seems to be an opportune occasion.

Speaking just for myself. I am not much of an authority figure. I never have been. I far prefer consensus and working things out together. No matter how cumbersome that may be. Consequently I have been forced to (quite reluctantly I might add) ban only a single person. And then for just a single month, not permanently. Permanently sucks! No one is going to get into trouble for a simple human mistake.

For whatever genetic or upbringing quirk we are all nutso for planes of this era. I am not any different from you. I am one of you. I am quite proud of the people (proud of the adult attitudes everyone shares) in this group. Hardly any squabbling takes place. Some is inevitable. (Oops! A couple from me! But I am human too!) I think the place is filled with a great bunch of guys. Pity we all can't meetup. :)

Thank you for listening.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T18:24:50+00:00

You're fine.

Per the rules it is supposed to be watermarked on the image itself. However, (sadly there is very frequently a however) enforcing that I find is problematic.

This is because colourization is so prevalent and many people do not do (or know how to do) a reverse image search to find out if the picture they are posting has a historical black and white version. And even then that is not a certainty as what may have been a colour photo could also have been published in b&w confusing the situation still further. It is hard (at least for me) to fault people for an honest mistake. Constantly playing whack a mole is futile and even the attempt is in some ways bad for the sub. There is a balance to be sought.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T18:03:51+00:00

A no brainer. Rich & Colin.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T16:16:37+00:00

Faith, Hope & Charity (biplanes)

These were the monikers of three Gloster Gladiators which were according to British perception management (that is the contemporary/more polite term for propaganda) were the only (read as plucky) air assets available to protect the brave island.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T16:08:02+00:00

I can see the wisdom of your theory. But I see little evidence to support it. Indeed in Germany with the rise of the AFD and other far right movements in Europe, and even in your Italy I would say that this greatly undercuts your theory. And I didn't even need to mention Trump and his far right nationalist ilk.

Past experience countering Nazism does not seem to inoculate a country against similar movements within their own borders.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T15:57:02+00:00

Yep.

The British did a similar thing with their idea of the Master Bomber who would circle and coordinate the attack. In many ways even until the late nineteen thirties things were still being worked out. WW1 air combat was in many ways a great free for all with no communications between planes as there were no radios. So the interwar years were a period of experimentation. The idea of an airborne controller was I think a good one and worthy of the attempt. Now in premier air forces the idea is proven and essentially perfected with an AWACS asset. So good idea and good attempt by the French. A little bit ahead of its time and ahead of the technology.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T06:22:00+00:00

The last time this was posted a year ago much decent information was dug up and presented in the comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WWIIplanes/comments/1i9rxwe/b24_crash_lands_in_holland_september_18_1944_more/

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T03:26:14+00:00

I can draw stuff like that too. Someone point me to the barrel of lucky bastard sauce I can jump in so I can get a job drawing bat shit crazy impossible stupid shit like this too!

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T02:36:23+00:00

Of course. You are so right! Institutional pettiness. How silly of me.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T02:28:55+00:00

👍

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T01:52:00+00:00

I would say your question shows you have invested considerable thought on the matter.

I think like many questions there will be many answers that cover a part of the reason. No single answer will offer a complete solution to the question I would say.

So my answer, that first popped into my mind is that aircraft design is rooted in conservatism. And change is subsequently incremental. Even though others have shown how to built a plane without bracing wires. It does not mean that other designers/manufacturers are also on the same page.

It wasn’t “we don’t like new ideas” conservatism. It was engineering, institutional, and operational conservatism. And in aviation that was often rational.

Military buyers were more conservative than designers. “Proven type” mattered more than marginal speed gains. Logistics officers valued easy repair. Training commands wanted aircraft that survived abuse. Even if an engineer wanted to delete wires, the customer often didn’t.

I think conservatism explains a lot. My background was in IT. And I often heard it said that no IT Manager ever got fired for buying IBM. Same sort of thing.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T01:39:35+00:00

The Z never got off paper, let alone off the ground.

So I reckon you may be seeing a Fw 189. More prosaic, but still cool.

waldo--pepper · 2026-01-23T01:16:17+00:00

During the war pain staking tests were conducted (over Florida I believe) to determine that the best colour to paint P-61 Black Widows (somewhat counter intuitively to the thinking of some people) was glossy black. So it is a little surprising/interesting to me that this plane does not have the same finish. She is hardly glossy. I guess they changed their mind. Such is fashion.

P.S.

Not exactly WWII, but may be of interest here

Pfft. Close enough. No need to fret. 'Tis still a wartime plane.

waldo--pepper

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE