Bedknob and Broomstick question

[HareBrain]

I think this is unlikely too, but it might be easy to discount.

Not so easy, it turns out. Bedknob and Broomstick has only existed since 1957. It was a combining of the earlier The Magic Bedknob with Bonfires and Broomsticks. So if Danny's book has that title, it can't be earlier than 1957, so "Valiants" could be a revision referring to the 1950s aircraft. What we need is to check a first edition copy of The Magic Bedknob, of which three are available on AbeBooks.

Anyone got a spare £85?

 

[Danny McG]

Yeah, mine is the combined version.
As far as I can gather the first book Magic Bedknob was from 1943 but it's possible that version was revised when the Bonfire book was added

 

[Danny McG]

Update!
I went on the Open Library and found the relevant page from the original 1943 Magic Bedknob edition, it was indeed Spitfires.
(I don't see why she updated that line but left everything else as it was in the war.)

Screenshot.....

 

[HareBrain]

Good detective work, Danny!

And wow, OK, it looks as if @paranoid marvin 's bizarre (to me) idea was in fact correct. PM, I owe you an apology!

I am baffled, though. The Valiant, as far as I know, was the least iconic of the V-bombers; to me, the Vulcan would have made more sense in terms of recognition factor for kids. But I very much doubt either would have been seen flying in formation. And why a bomber to replace the Spitfire rather than another fighter like the Lightning? (In either case, the jets would have rather destroyed the "peaceful sky" idea before Charles looked up.)

Assuming they changed it to avoid it seeming dated, why not just "fighter planes"? Were they planning to update it every decade?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Thanks for finding out Danny, and no need to apologise HB. It sounded improbable - illogical even - but I couldn't think of another reason.

As you say, it's far more likely that low-altitude fighters would be spotted flying over Britain rather than high-altitude bombers, and you are not going to have anything like a 'peaceful sky' with several low flying V bombers tearing it apart!

But this is the problem when stories are 'meddled with'. What was a perfectly logical sentence is made a nonsense by a needless alteration. As you said earlier, any child is likely to know what was (even then) an iconic aircraft of WWII, whereas the Valiant has flown into relative obscurity.

And if future generations don't know what a Spitfire was, or why it was so important, and they then go away and look up the equivalent of a Wikipedia page about it, then that can only be a good thing.

 

[Snicklefritz]

Well that was an interesting course in WWII bombers. Nice research Danny.

 

[HareBrain]

British bombers did fly in formation during daylight.

In WWII yes, but (see above) we've now discovered that the original wording was Spitfires, and it was changed to Valiants in the 50s, which must have meant the nuclear jet bomber. These would not have been intended for mass raids like Lancasters, so I can't see that they would have been flown in formation (except maybe for fly-pasts etc). I could be wrong.

I did miss your earlier point about the Wellington's nickname, sorry. If we hadn't found the change in wording, that might indeed have been a decent contender.

 

[paranoid marvin]

In WWII yes, but (see above) we've now discovered that the original wording was Spitfires, and it was changed to Valiants in the 50s, which must have meant the nuclear jet bomber. These would not have been intended for mass raids, so I can't see that they would have been flown in formation (except maybe for fly-pasts etc).

I did miss your earlier point about the Wellington's nickname, sorry. If we hadn't found the change in wording, that might indeed have been a decent contender.

Considering the payloads they would be carrying, I would imagine that the risk of collision in close formation flying would cause the V bombers to fly as far away from each other as possible...

 

[THX1138]

@paranoid marvin Very true. If written in the 50's then the Valiant jet bomber or and other kind of plane could be the intention.
And Spitfires where in use by the RAF will into the 50's too. So like you pointed out, it could any type of war plane.

 

[Dave]

...this is the problem when stories are 'meddled with'. What was a perfectly logical sentence is made a nonsense by a needless alteration. As you said earlier, any child is likely to know what was (even then) an iconic aircraft of WWII, whereas the Valiant has flown into relative obscurity.

Just recently, I took the granddaughter to the Lookout café at Biggin Hll airport to watch the planes flying. We weren't there long but still saw several Spitfires and Hurricanes take off and land, just on a very normal midweek day, and a few commercial jets too. Saw zero Valiants or Vulcans, which you are unlikely to see outside of an air show. And you can recognise the noise of a Spitfire engine without even looking. I was born in the sixties, but somehow, from watching those old films it has become a familiar memory.

 

[Ursa major]

A change in the name due to a later edition may or may not be the answer...

...but there are some things that have changed, according to Wikipedia. For instance, it was originally two books: The Magic Bedknob (1944) and Bonfires and Broomsticks (1947), the first of these coming out in 1943 as a picture book. An omnibus edition of the two, Bedknobs and Broomstick (just the one broomstick), came out in 1957, with the s being brought back after the Disney film was released in 1971.

Given all of this, who knows whether or not the Valiants were originally Valiants or later became them (or not)...

...however (also from Wikipedia):

The Vultee A-31 Vengeance is an American dive bomber of World War II, built by Vultee Aircraft. A modified version was designated A-35. The Vengeance was not used operationally by the United States, but was operated as a front-line aircraft by the British Royal Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, and the Indian Air Force in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific.
[...]
In 1940, Vultee Aircraft started the design of a single engined dive-bomber, the Vultee Model 72 (V-72) to meet the requirements of the French Armée de l'Air. The V-72 was built with private funds and was intended for sale to foreign markets.

Later in the article, it adds:

France placed an order for 300 V-72s, with deliveries intended to start in October 1940. The fall of France in June 1940 stopped these plans, but at the same time the British Purchasing Commission, impressed by the performance of the German Junkers Ju 87, "Stuka" was shopping for a dive bomber for the Royal Air Force, and as it was the only aircraft available, placed an order for 200 V-72s (named Vengeance by Vultee) on 3 July 1940, with orders for a further 100 being placed in December.[3] As Vultee's factory at Downey was already busy building BT-13 Valiant trainers, the aircraft were to be built at the Stinson factory at Nashville[a], and under license by Northrop at Hawthorne, California.[2]

The first prototype V-72 flew from Vultee's factory at Downey, California, on 30 March 1941.[2] Additional aircraft were ordered for Britain in June 1941 under the Lend-Lease scheme, with those given the US Army Air Corps designation 'A-31'.

 

[HareBrain]

Given all of this, who knows whether or not the Valiants were originally Valiants or later became them (or not)...

Um, we do, don't we? They were originally Spitfires, as per Danny's post #23.

 

[Dave]

I thought Danny's quote was quite clear too. And very sorry that I restarted the argument, but I wanted to make the point: Spitfires make sense however old you are. Valiants just do not.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I thought Danny's quote was quite clear too. And very sorry that I restarted the argument, but I wanted to make the point: Spitfires make sense however old you are. Valiants just do not.

Nothing to be sorry for, I'm glad you mentioned it. Biggin Hill is now on my 'to do' list. Despite having seen Spitfires/Hurricanes/Lancasters in flight, and on display in RAF museums, you don't normally get to see them taking off or landing.

I agree that Valiants and Victors aren't iconic (or even particularly memorable) aircraft, but the Vulcan was/is. I remember seeing an Electric Lightning take off at a Paris airshow quite some years ago; now that really was a spectacular as it shot up almost vertically into the sky. I would love to have seen a Vulcan in flight.

 

[HareBrain]

I remember seeing an Electric Lightning take off at a Paris airshow quite some years ago; now that really was a spectacular as it shot up almost vertically into the sky. I would love to have seen a Vulcan in flight.

I've seen several. (Loud.) I'd swap you for the Lightning.

 

[Dave]

Despite having seen Spitfires/Hurricanes/Lancasters in flight, and on display in RAF museums, you don't normally get to see them taking off or landing.

Despite what I said, don't expect to see them every day, but there are several in private hands there, and I think I got lucky that day.. There is a museum open on Sundays (by appointment only) and a Spitfire hangar/factory where they do restorations which is also open on selected weekdays and weekends. I haven't done either myself but I talked to people at the Lookout café who had just come from the tour. There are also Spitfire flying trips available too.

Biggin Hill is also a busy working airport. The RAF buildings are abandoned and decaying which is very sad. If you want to see what a WW2 airfield would have looked like then I'd recommend nearby Kenley (the third fighter station was Croydon). Kenley is now only a gliding school, so you can walk anywhere when open. Unlike Biggin Hill or Croydon, Kenley is still largely intact as it was, and still has 10 of its 12 'fighter pens' or Blast Bays.

Another piece of history that I only recently worked out was the reason Churchill had such a soft spot for Biggin Hill, and mentioned it in his speeches. This was clearly because he was driven past it almost every day. It lies on the most direct route between 10, Downing Street and his house, Chartwell near Westerham.