gnashings

I am sorry - the Spitfire was the star? I am not sure I understand...

HEHEHEHHEEEEE :D

Another beauty! I have to ask, after looking at this recent series of (admitedly gorgeous) images that appear to be from the same setting:

 

Were the golfers not pissed??? :)

 

The setting looks so perfect its almost surreal, with the luscious greens smooth as a baby's bum and apparently mowed with nail clippers! Is this a matter of shot selection or was this place really that manicured?

 

Anyhow, it makes for some really nice shots - it keeps the "natural" element for these airplanes in place while being a perfect backdrop. If this is some form of photoshop trickery don't tell me because I can't tell!

I love these photos, and although I never knew the gentleman who took them, I am grateful that he did and that someone is kind enough to let the likes of me enjoy them. In this photo especially I love the depth which conveys the awesome size of a modern carrier. It helps that I happen to love both the A4 and F4 - such characterful machines both!

I would be more concerned with the people on the ground - I don't know what the aircrews would put on their planes in the absence of any meaningful opposition.

As to the question posed in the title, I find it hard to pass judgement on the crew of that airplane for its kill markings - I assure you they were as likely to die as the people on the other side, and they too had kill markings. War is hell, no question about it. With a perspective of time its easy to draw the conclusion that there are no good guy, and no bad guys - just people thrown into a cauldron of horrible events... But lets not forget that the kids that went, those who came back and those who didn't, did it to ensure that we could sit here and question their actions in peace and freedom. That respect and gratitude should always come first.

Great shot - I can't think of a better aviation-themed object to have as background and to provide the context of setting and speed.

I suppose this is a better study of the airplane (which in the case of a Spi is never a bad thing!), but I think the other is a better image - more evocative, more filled with context and implied story (the open door, I think really gives you this impression). They are both great shots, but I prefer the one of the port side better.

This photo is almost surreal with how serene and manicured the setting is! Of course, the composition goes a long way towards making this a striking image rather than a more mundane one.

 

August - so true on the composition: I know I am guilty as charged! But in my defence, I have to say, its rare to have something that pretty behind the airplane!

Excellent! Great pictures, such an ability to tell a story (and your verbal one is not too shabby either - I love reading the background on these!). I am glad you are showing all of these pics of these airplanes - I think most people don't have an appreciation of what a work horse it was. For some reason it just wasn't a real "celebrity", yet it did such staggering work, and for so long! Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the last PR9 version just flew its last "mission" and was officially retired with a farewell at Fairford. 55 years of useful work. Remarkable plane - you were truly a part of something special, and I am glad you so generously share it with us!

Martin,

 

I think you really deserve some kudos here - its such a difficult thing to actually capture a person and a warbird at a modern airshow and not have one or the other look out of place, or rather - end up with an image that would have been stronger if you managed to keep some things out of it. Not the case here - a plane, a person, great composition and in my opinion, the perfect choice of exposure (with the pilot pretty much a silhouette). Lovely image.

Lovely.

Pat,

 

Have a good hard look in those archives - its always a pleasure to see the reults of such searches. Keep 'em coming (even if they are lesser forms of aviation art than the hallowed Spitfire!;) )

 

The MkXIV?! Ugh... sacreligious!!! Its not r e a l l y a Spitfire anymore, its like a water-cooled Porsche 911.... JUst joking (or so they think....yeah, that's it...) - cheers everyone!

I am sure glad at the theories that produced this wing. From what I have read most Spitfires did tip stall, but not violently so. I believe there was a degree of aerodynamic washout in most marks to help this characteristic.

I think appearance wise, personally, things stated going a bit down hill after the MkVIII, but I love the plane so much that I have to admit the Griffon does have a certain muscular purposefulness about it...

You can't go wrong except for one thing: the enlarged oil capacity models witht he ugly angular chin... what a crime!

Grom, thanks for the comments and suggestions. I am in love with my F1, the truth might as well be known :) It understands me.

 

August,

Quite honestly I agree with the "make it look like..." sentiment you hold, but sometimes I think its fun, especially with "period pieces". They almost look out of place in the clinical antiseptic museums and the like.

But I have to come out with the truth: I liked the potential of this neg, but when I shot it I only had a one camera, one lens - a 50mm - on hand. It was either shoot and crop, or not get the pic. The straight print was uninteresting, so I decided to play aournd with it. Given the enlargement and the crop from a fairly grainy 35mm film... well, my options were either forget it or go for a "look". I knew the sky would have to be a part of the image or else it would be very bland and empty, and after several prints this was not the most correct, but the most interesting result I got. I wont bore you with the straight print, or the lighter version I have - I simply thought that as depictions of an airplane they were too poor and without the drmamtic sky they, frankly, lacked any merit.

 

As to the dust, yes, its a devil and it gets in there - but I think the scanner has some spots on the glass, because not all of these are on the print.

 

Alas, here it is - and I truly appreciate the input, thanks as always.

Tried to go for that old, moody look. Took some printing to get it

to look like this, most of which is ruined by the scan, but hey - I

wanted to share.

Thank you Pat. Yes, you are feeding my disease, but I think its a pretty harmless one - so you can be guilt free with loads of gratitude from me! :)

 

On the canon vs no canon, I am a MkIX guy myself and a great majority of them had the "c" wing, and all had canon. Personally I prefer the early slender canon bulges and the ealry oil cooler intake. But those are small factors.

I also have to say that my preference is far from objective - and the most elgant pure shape would have to go to a MkI or MkII. The MkVIII was really pretty, had all the "interminess" of the MkIX polished out of it... but it was almost too pretty!:)

 

To pose another question: Griffon - vulgar or muscular? Discuss.

 

And thanks again, Pat - you made my evening.

 

 

PS Is there are a support group for people like me?

So in-your-face, so raw, so gritty! I feel like I can smell it! I suppose you can all guess: I LOVE IT!

Got milk?

How can anyone have an impartial critique of this!? Hehehehe - I call "not FAIR!"

 

Great shot, lovely subject!

Re Hornets - not as far as I know, and a shame that is. But there is some really pretty Dragon Rapide pictures I saw here the other day. That plane is a jewel.

 

Of course, nothing comapres to the supreme beauty of the most gorgeous object ever created by human hands: the Spitfire. I like the composition - but how about some real accentuation of those gorgeous wings?

 

 

I am SO glad Pat started this trend! I am absolutely loving these shots. you just don't see one of these PR's every day, and this photo has that unmistakible flavor of authenticity. I love it, keep em coming - its sad that the author is no longer with us, but I am sure he is smiling down on the grins his photos are placing on the faces of aviation fanatics like myself!

Why would its 1966 date have any impact on its quality?

I wish you got both wingtips, Pat, but even so this phot had me looking for a long, long time... its wonderful. I think I got cold just looking at it! Its hard to believe how long this airplane served - especially that you could trace its roots all the way back to a WWII legend! I said it before, these "archives" of yours are a gold mine! Gotta go look at the other one I saw before this one cought all my attention:)

Very interesting. When you go to airshows in Canada, you see the CF18 and the Harvards so much it almost... loses some of its charm, so seeing a picture of the two that really grabs your eye really says something. Way to go!

This is the only airplane where the background being completely still actually works with the photo!:) OK, not the only one - but Ihave never seen a Yak 37 pic on here:)

I too like the way that engine heat works to set the airplane apart from the background. Normally I would say less depth of field would be better - but in this case, you have the heat to help you set the subject aside, yet you get that clarity that gets across the point: this jet is hovering! Good shot.

I've been absolutely LOVING these "archive" shots you're posting lately! I am green with envy that you got to be around these planes when they were in their prime! Lovely stuff, and good photos too! Keep 'em coming!

Perhaps the most under-appreciated jet in the world. Somehow all the praise was heaped on all its peers :) Good to see a photo of a few earning their keep after all these years.

Photo-wise, I really find this composition quite striking - I wouldn't change a thing.