Bird’s eye view of the ‘new’ Heathrow

Harefield Gazette - - OPINION - WIL­LIAM C F PIERCE Mase­field Lane Hayes K ROW­LAND Hilling­don

No air­craft, just an in­crease in toxic traffic and trains, also proves my point. HAV­ING been beaten to the punch by your cor­re­spon­dent Mr Sher­wood (Gazette Nov 30) by his ex­cel­lent facts in re­la­tion to the ab­so­lute rub­bish con­veyed by Mr W Pierce on Heathrow etc (Gazette Nov 16) I would like to put my twopen­neth worth for­ward.

First, the cause of pol­lu­tion pre war and in­deed well into the 1950s was that al­most ev­ery house­hold had a coal fire which, to­gether with in­dus­try, caused the ter­ri­ble smog.

Next the start of Heathrow was, as stated, 1944. I had a bird’s eye view of this from the open cock­pit of a Tiger Moth trainer out from then RAF

Den­ham, af­ter my in­struc­tor in­di­cated ‘we will go down and have a shuftie’.

Word had it that it was go­ing to be a long range bomber base. Next, Mr Pierce’s ob­ser­va­tions on six run­ways are, to­gether with the fol­low­ing, a load of ab­so­lute twad­dle. I re­fer to the Brabazon, which was the brain child of the great avi­a­tion pioneer Lord Brabazon of Tara.

It was a six en­gined gi­ant to com­bat the Amer­i­can dom­i­na­tion.

It was a lame duck from the start Only one was built, which man­aged the grand to­tal of 383 air miles on test mainly over wa­ter. It may have flown over or near our area but never landed at Heathrow and never car­ried a sin­gle fare-pay­ing pas­sen­ger. It was scrapped in 1953.

I would sug­gest Mr Pierce is get­ting mixed up with Con­corde as re­gards noise, as is his other views on the ex­pan­sion of the air­field to grat­ify the deep pock­ets of the few at the ex­pense of the area and pop­u­la­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.