Another Short Stirling fuselage with ACK ACK damage surfaces

frail undercarriage on the hali

Heres a question. Why can they not replace the replica undercart on the hali with much stronger gear legs etc like the Hali at trenton has. This way they could add more of the original parts to her…?

‘…look at the Halifax as a good starting point, that will be improved over the coming years’

Good point!

😉

Yakrider has made the best point so far – brings a tear to the eyes of the veterans.

At the end of the day, thats one of the primary reasons we do what we do. If the Halifax at Elvington can still have that effect on the men that lived through it, then it is serving a purpose.

Lancman, I can’t deny you are entitled to an opinion. I think what I was trying to say is that when you are involved with these things, you see the world through different eyes; you can appreciate the work involved in rebuilding and recreating these things.

I am not inspired to try an recreate a Hornet, Don or Albatross, as I don’t think I could do justice to it. Perhaps you should look at the Halifax as a good starting point, that will be improved over the coming years.

Cheers

Bruce

ok time for my comments now then….

Some good points made on the halifax etc sure it looks like a halifax and would look even beter if her nose section was redone as well as other parts that have been mentioned,

BUT (theres always a BUT)

What the H*** has this all got to do with my original post about the stirling. Nothing irks me more than to see an original post get totally twisted round and bashed up so that by the end there is nothing remaining of the original topic. Is it that hard for some to start a new topic??
Rant over

I recently flew a Halifax radio operator and a Lancaster rear gunner up to Elvington for Project Propeller.

Laurie had done a complete tour with 408 Squadron RCAF in Halifaxes. He had been over Friday the 13th before, and knew that it was a composite, but it still brought back memories for him.

Likewise it was pleasure to have Jim, who did 24 missions with 115 Squadron in Lancasters, explain the intricacies of turrets and air gunnery to me in the air gunners exhibition room.

I know some people dislike the fact that the Halifax at Hendon is not restored to pristine condition. But to me it is an evocative tribute to the watery end that met so many aircrew during the war.

In an ideal world we?d have examples of all these aircraft to view. Sadly, so many important types exist only in fragmentary form. At least the YAM has assembled some of those fragments into an exhibit echoing the real thing. I think they should be applauded.

YR

PS the pic shows Laurie on the left and Jim on the right on Europe’s biggest concrete apron at Elvington.

A rather typical reaction there-‘you’re not involved in aircraft preservation, so you have no right to an opinion’.

WRONG.

The ‘Halifax’ (I’ll use the name loosely) was put together so Joe-Paying Public (i.e, the likes of me) could see what one looked like. I wasn’t impressed, and have said as much. I think it’s a poor facsimile, and in no real way really represents the type as a whole.

If you want to see a Halifax, take yourself off to Hendon or over to Canada, where the only two whole survivors rest, end of story.

It’s a shame that yet again, comments that started out light-heartedly-or can’t you read the expression on the smilies faces?-has degenerated into another ‘discussion’ like this.

😉

Originally posted by Bruce
Before this degenerates any more, let me ask one simple question…

Who, in this debate is actively involved in aircraft restoration/preservation?? In other words, who has the right to criticise other peoples work, when they play no part in the preservation scene themselves??

Of the correspondents above, I know David very well; he is the oil in many many transactions throughout the preservation world. I also know that HP57 is working on a project of his own, to replicate a Halifax cockpit. Who else??

Those of you that don’t play a part should not criticise those of us that do, unless it is criticism of a constructive nature. I am afraid that is one thing that really winds me up!

That’s a fair comment Bruce. I think you’ll find that all those who have made supportive comments are either actively involved, have been in the past, or in Moggy’s case, operate a vintage aircraft of their own.

Certainly from my own perspective it’s only in recent years that I’ve come to realise exactly how much hard work goes into even a static. I really don’t think people appreciate that.

Sure, an aeroplane might not be exactly original, but what many people don’t realise is that the original bits just aren’t available, or if they are, they’re being offered at crazy prices. And then if you get original bits, sometimes they’re too far gone even for a static. Machining new parts to original specs isn’t always an option, as the set-up costs are huge (as I’m sure HP57 and Peter can testify for their panels), so a lot of the time there’s got to be a balance struck between originality and getting as close to the original as possible. Not a compromise you can really make on a flyer, but for YAM’s static Halifax, it’s perfectly acceptable. Especially if it’s close enough to the original to moisten an eighty-something year old veteran’s eyes.

That’s my rant over. 😀

One question for you Bruce, How’s TA122 coming along?

Before this degenerates any more, let me ask one simple question…

Who, in this debate is actively involved in aircraft restoration/preservation?? In other words, who has the right to criticise other peoples work, when they play no part in the preservation scene themselves??

Of the correspondents above, I know David very well; he is the oil in many many transactions throughout the preservation world. I also know that HP57 is working on a project of his own, to replicate a Halifax cockpit. Who else??

Those of you that don’t play a part should not criticise those of us that do, unless it is criticism of a constructive nature. I am afraid that is one thing that really winds me up!

Of the list above, all airframes contain significant parts of original structure, and we are content to accept them as they are. The Halifax may be a bitsa, but it does have a lot of original parts incorporated. From memory, the rear fuselage is real, the tail section and turret was constructed using original drawings by BAe, spritual successor to HP, the centre section and outer wings are converted Hastings – broadly the same design – thats a lot of original HP parts!! Even if you took the view that the nose needed to be redone, along with the engines and props, you have a lot of original aeroplane to start with!

The Canadian aeroplane is a whole different kettle of fish – It is being restored using a complete original aeroplane as a basis. It will incorporate many new parts, such as skins and so forth. It is no less a Halifax because of this.

Rant over

Cheers

Bruce

Surely the Hendon Southampton fuselage counts as original? Yes, some of the wood in it was replaced, but it was done to original methods, with original type materials-unlike the ‘Halifax’. It’s not like they’ve strapped on the wings from a Sunderland and said ‘Oh, that’ll do if you squint a bit’!

Likewise, their Battle may be a put together job, but at least it was put together from genuine bits of Battle! THAT’S the difference in my book.

Ah well, ho hum! :rolleyes:

David,

You are correct in that the wingspan of the Hastings is larger compare to the Halifax. This is caused by the intermediate section which is wider. As you say the outer wings and centresection are identical.

But, I’m under the impression that whatever someone says in defense of the YAM’s Halifax, others don’t care about it and just keep on dismissing it. A hopeless discussion if you ask me (but who is).

Well, in that case the following scale 1:1 Airfix models are on display at:

Brooklands : Vickers Wellington
Yeovilton : Fairey Albacore
Hendon : Supermarine Southampton
Hendon : Bristol Beaufort
Hendon : Fairey Battle
Hendon : Bristol Bulldog
Canada : HP Hampden

Under construction using a lot of glue are

Douglas Boston by Steve Milnthorpe and the Fairey Barracuda at Yeovilton, and not to forget the Short Stirling and AW Whitley. You need your ceiling reinforced and a very thick steel cable to hang those.

Some people do anything to make sure that at least an example of an extinct aircraft type will be available for the future generations. Others just keep on ranting.

I don’t think I qualify enough for this forum so I will shut up and leave you to it.

Cheerio chaps

Cees

Cees – I believe Paul actually considers the cockpit section i.e centre fuselage containing a cockpit as the identity of the aircraft.
The remains recovered from Scotland consisted of a rear fuselage
section and some Merlins from a Halifax. It’s often mooted that the wing is the same – that simply isn’t true. The wing centre section of the Hastings is six feet wider than a Halifax. The outboard sections are ok in size and shape.
The simple facts are that the team involved have produced a fairly pleasing representation of a wartime Halifax . In all fairness if they now choose to put right some of the details which are a bit lacking well thats all to the better.

An identity

Well, the centre fuselage of the Halifax originates from HR792, and if we use the religion from our warbirdguru Paul Coggan, the identity of an aircraft is determined by the centre fuselage of an airframe, then the Hally has a definite identity. Apart from that the wings from the Hastings are actually adapted Halifax wings with even the partnumbers beginning with 57… just like they did with the York.

So with an original set of wings and the majority of an original fuselage that would make it a bloody authentic Halifax!!!!! Now, all we need is to go to our local MP’s or whatever and pressure them to have the IWM donate their nosesection to the project (as requested by YAM a decade ago) and we are nearly there. Non standard engines and undercarriage do detract from the appearance of an aircraft but are not a means of dismissing the work done to restore a Halifax or any other type. That would be (dare I say it) an insult to the hard work these people have done. I take my hat off to them.

Suppose the Stirling boys reconstruct a full size Stirling built from reconstructed drawings with the odd original part in it ( I have a Stirling tailwheel with tyre in my shed destined to be put under it) will that one be shot down in flames time and time again??

Come on people,

Freddy AKA Cees

I’m sorry but the YAM Halifax is not a real Halifax any more than those damn fibreglass replicas are Spitfires or Hurricanes.
I know that there are numerous rebuilds that are only original as far as the makers plate, but at least they are made from original materials
Fibreglass u/c, Hastings wings, Wooden cockpit section, lancaster type props that rotate backwards for Pete’s sake.
I went to see the chimera twice during its building and was disappointed then.
At least the Canadians seem to know what they are doing

‘most people don’t even know that the props turn the other way, did you Lancman?’

Actually, yes I did.

‘p.s. Lancman, did you know that there are drawings showing the Grand Slam installation and the Upkeep bomb in the Halifax?’

And?!

‘Only thing I wonder about is why I keep finding so many Lancaster wrecks in Holland but only a few Halifaxes……mmmmmmm.’

Ridiculous statement.

:p

In defense of the YAM’s Hally

Here we go again,

What is it that makes the YAM’s Halifax such an easy target to have a go at?

Come on Lancman, even you should appreciate all the hard work being done over more than a decade to bring back a Halifax to Halifax country Yorkshire.

Through hard labour and with minimal resources (at least in the early days) YAM have managed to recreate one of the unsung heroes of RAF Bomber Command. OK, I agree that it isn’t a fully 100 % reconstruction with some short cuts along the way and I do not like those myself but what do you see when you stand in front of it?

A Handley Page Halifax standing on its own wheels, now that hasn’t been matched for a while has it (look out for NA337 in the near future), but for the UK warbird fans this is a huge achievement.

I have had the privilege to have a look inside when the airframe was almost completely bare, but things have changed since, just take a look on the website on Tarrant Rushton airfield where there are a lot of excellent pictures of a fully fitted out Halifax interior.

OK, YAM was advised by BAe not to overstress the airframe with all sorts of fittings etc, but that’s exactly what they have done, and the result is nothing but fantastic (OK, the nose section should actually have been painted black but who is nitpicking? I won’t ).

If a set of original undercarriage legs are not to be found then what to do? Ok make some new ones from steel with a fibreglass covering (the legs are not from fibreglass, the covering is but moulded from an original undercarriage leg from the RAF Museum).

It has been carried out very well and is functional so that the aircraft can be moved around .

About the construction of the “Airfix” model, well the cockpit is made from wooden frames (alas) but with metal stringers en skin giving the correct appearance of a wartime Halifax. I do have a video showing the reconstruction showing retired workmen working hard on its construction. It is amazing how such a non-existent piece (the IWM wouldn’t want to give theirs up) could be made. I also agree about the noseglazing which looks terrible, but YAM does have an original Perspex nosecone which was sent to Canada (I have seen it ) and as far as I know has been sent back to the UK. YAM is working on a solution to have the noseglazing fixed, same goes for the tailplane as Peter pointed out. The short cuts are being corrected which is a sensible thing to do. I don’t like the engineinstallation or the props but until better looking items are found or donated this is the only possible way to show a complete Halifax and besides most people don’t even know that the props turn the other way, did you Lancman?

So, to conclude my rant, could we please stop making easy remarks about the Halifax and admire the aircraft as a fitting memorial to the many airmen who flew in her and who died in her as well. It is very easy to do the same on the Lancaster but why? Only thing I wonder about is why I keep finding so many Lancaster wrecks in Holland but only a few Halifaxes……mmmmmmm.

Cheers

Freddy AKA Cees

p.s. Lancman, did you know that there are drawings showing the Grand Slam installation and the Upkeep bomb in the Halifax?

😀

Originally posted by Paul Cushion
I know the props they fitted were used to reduce weight, butwhy on earth did they just not make the structure stonger in order to fit real ones……? Also, why is she not fitted out internally properly?

I would imagine it’s a combination of cost, availability of parts, and the desire to get the thing completed quickly so that as many veterans could see it as possible.

halifax

Paul
I know for a fact that they are limited to the amount of original equipment that can be installed due to the fact that the landing gear assemblies are fibreglass and as such can not take the weight. Once the taiplane is done, then maybe they will fix the plexiglass as well. The props were modeled after a lancaster blade and as such are the frong type for the hali. lanc engines rotate anti clockwise when viewed from the front whereas hali engines rotated clockwise when viewed from the front.

Well I don’t think anyone should knock the Halifax at Elvington….. it is representative of a type and should be regarded as a bone fide aircraft…. indeed are’nt a lot of airworthy spitfires e.t.c. more or less new builds??? they are made up in the majority, of new parts and no one complains about those….!

No one says “oh there’s that replica spitfire SL??? again” do they, to us and airshow goers in general, it’s still a spitfire is’nt it?

I do agree though that they could have done a better job of the Halifax. If you look at the ‘plexiglass’ it is obvious that it is in fact very cheap and thin plastic….

I know the props they fitted were used to reduce weight, butwhy on earth did they just not make the structure stonger in order to fit real ones……? Also, why is she not fitted out internally properly? I think they shoudl make it as representative as possible, inside and out……. elsan included!!!!

Paul.

sure it is not a true hali

At least it is intact and on her wheels. I am pleased to hear that they are now redoing some of the hasty work that was done originally. The creation of a brand new tailplane recently from drawings is a good start. I just wish that they would replace those props with the correctly angled ones!

Tee hee!