Quoted:
The line is broken into periodic sections, some of which overlap. For example, the first part of the line, 1780 to 1918, covers the major events of aviation history during those years and features the major political events that influenced the shape of the flying services, leading to the formation of the Royal Air Force.
Quoted:
The line is broken into periodic sections, some of which overlap. For example, the first part of the line, 1780 to 1918, covers the major events of aviation history during those years and features the major political events that influenced the shape of the flying services, leading to the formation of the Royal Air Force.[/quote]
Awesome, My original thought was that the RAF was established in the First world war but then i heard it was establised in the 1800’s now my thoughts have totally changed…i was originally right heh heh :lol:
Thanks though Dani thats a cool site. 
Thanks to RAF, not thanks me…
Edited: It is quite logic that you have to check the RAF site if you want to know more about RAF
Sure
Did you google it Dani ?
I googled only for Royal Navy aircraft, of course.
I don’t have to google on RAF, come on!!
Haha quite true, the Royal Air force are quite well known.
Have they produced any new planes these days ? e.g 1990’s-2000’s
RAF never manufactured aircrafts!!!
Check constructor’s websites!!
Typhoon (Eurofighter) is now entering in service.
Bit silly to just make up your own interpretation of information Jord. Could lead to disputes.
RAF were formed in 1918 as stated. They can however trace their lineage back through time to the Royal Flying Corps (part of the army that split to form the RAF and the Army Air Corps) and the Balloon Corps.
However the RAF were only form up in 1918.
Off topic.
Up until this point two ribbons were available for the Victoria Cross. A Purple one for Army, a Navy Blue one for Navy, when the RAF was formed it was debated about adding a third ribbon but instead they adopted a single ribbon. The one being chosen being the Purple of the Army.
On topic.
No i got it off websites mate, if its my information then theres no links.
Not another “which do you like the most” thread! While they aren’t entirely without use, since they can provoke discussion, there are better ways of achieving those ends!
It doesn’t help that the question is posed such that what you’re really choosing is which of the following floats your boat most:
- single seat interceptor
- heavy bomber
- dive bomber (wtf? Are my eyes deceiving me? Honestly? Who was ever likely to give a shit about Curtiss Helldivers?! If you mean the Curtiss Cleveland (in RAF service) they got a handful destined for France, and they didn’t see much use. If you mean the later SB2C (in US service) “Helldiver” aircraft it only served with the FAA and even then, briefly and without seeing combat as it was something of an abortion)
- twin engine fighter-bomber
- Troop transport
- Torpedo Bomber (as others have pointed out, again FAA)
I mean, why bother!?!!
Why not have a really juicy topic… pros and cons of P-47 versus Typhoon (any thread in which we can pour adoration on both of these two marvels is a Good Thread, in my humble opinion). Tempest versus late mark Spitfires (ditto!). Lancaster versus Halifax versus B-17 versus B-24. Meteor versus ME-262.
Britain has a marvellous history of aeronautical engineering genius, as well as a marvellous history of making do with what they can get from elsewhere, as well as really putting certain American designs “on the map” (e.g. P-51!) and giving them decent names instead of horribly awkward and impersonal numbers!
Maybe one day, when I can find the energy after having waded through threads like these, I’ll start a thread to aid US-UK forum relations, about some of the fantastic but too easily forgotten US aircraft the RAF and RN put into service.
Lockheed Hudson eat your heart out!
Wtf… :shock:
What are you talking about man ?
I’m talking about the seriously ill conceived nature of the poll at the start of this thread. Clearly. 
Seems to be perfectly clear to me - it’s a bit like asking “what’s better - the spitfire or the lancaster?”
Clearly the Lancaster is better because it’s like… four Spitfire’s lashed together into one big four-Merlin airframe…
This isn’t anything personal against the people who create these polls, I know they’re just trying to start something off, and it’s not the “let’s say which planes we think are cool” that’s the problem… it’s as good a way to tease discussion out as any, but rather the bizarre way of doing it! People seem to feel compelled to add a poll with the most unrelated and irrelevant options they can think of: in this instance including a Submarine Spitfire, and two options that weren’t even in RAF service: one of which didn’t even see much, if any combat with the Fleet Air Arm who operated it.
Why can’t these threads just be a “What do you like, what about it do you like, and why” instead of a poll with 1/3rd absurd options!
Maybe I’m just sore because no poll of favourite WWII RAF aircraft should leave out Typhoons and Tempests and Wellingtons and Lysanders and…
Good point there, but ive always liked the Spitfire more then the Lancaster and other planes of choice.