Post-War Aircraft Disposal (Dump/Landfill)

As regards the name of the company, I mentioned this place to my boss, who has lived in the area far longer than me, who said they were known as “Castings”. For those that know the area it was (and may still be) on the left hand side of the B4155 (Lichfield Road) leading out of Brownhills, with the Anglesey Branch of the Wyrley & Essington Canal bordering it on the eastern side. I’ll have to make a point of going over there one day and checking if it has been built on since – although the current AtoZ lists the site as the Gatehouse Trading Estate

Mark The Company name was Super Alloys. Castings is the Factory alongside. They purchased the site late 70s early 80’s for expansion though it seems that did not go ahead. I went over there every sunday as a kid in the mid 60’s and foraged for hours amongst the vast piles of ex RAf/Army scrap.
For certain there where Meteor sections (small by this time) as well as Boxes of spares. The site was ringed by mobile searchlights. Toward the beginning of the thread on scrapyards are a couple of pics taken around 1962 of Javelin fuselages at the front of the offices, along with Meteor F8 fuselages. I seem to remember a large white rear fuselage under a lean to. If memory serves me well I used to sit in a Tempest or Typhoon cockpit playing at fighter pilots. I am sure that particular cockpit was removed and is now preserved.
Sadly nothing left of the site and all was cleaned out many years ago.
Would be nice to see if anyone else has pics form there though.

… might I suggest that in future any comments made following removal of such posts be directed between forumites as PM’s rather than clogging up pages of the thread with ‘I agree’- ‘I disagree’ posts. That way we can all get on with reading the really interesting stuff and dusting off our ‘Indiana Jones’ hats and polishing our spades! A great thread being bogged down by long argumentative posts.

Here endeth the moaning!:D

You might suggest whatever. However a publicly posted libel requires public response and action. Thanks to Melvyn’s forbearance, the issue is, one hopes, dead. However, as I said before, people have been sued, and forums closed down for such things before. Don’t kid yourself that the ramblings of rumour of wrecks is the important part of this thread, however interesting it may be.

Thanks,

I know US Forces dumped lots of aircraft off a cliff on the isle of Curacau, the Dutch West Indies. Mainly transport planes and fighters as I remember.

The circular engines seen in the scrapyard were most probably Rolls-Royce annular nacelles as fitted to the (Merlin) Lincoln.
I rescued a batch of Merlin engines which were ex-Unimetals (though I acquired them from another yard that had processed some of the ex-Uni stuff on its closure) and these were composed of Merlin 35’s (ex-Balliol), two 20-series (ex-instructional) and Merlin 68A’s which were ex-Lincoln and which still had the engine bearers and cowling support remains attached.
This told me that at one time they had been complete cowled powerplants but the rolling around and handling had trashed the alloy skins.
So, the engines were probably ex-Lincoln units, not Shack.

Anon.

As I mentioned, I am in no way any sort of expert so bow to superior knowledge.

As pageno1 suggested, I think the cowlings were dark grey, and although I haven’t found any of the photographs that I took (can’t even be sure of the year) I have come across a “plate” (2 3/4″ x 1 5/16″ or 70x 34mm) that I believe was wired to one of the engines (removed by my colleague who was a possible purchaser at the time), which states:

SERIAL “CRU4359 RRB” (the serial is punched and the letters look to be RRB but may not necessarily be so)
Underneath (at right angles) is:
MOD Nos “47” “125” & “179”

As regards the name of the company, I mentioned this place to my boss, who has lived in the area far longer than me, who said they were known as “Castings”. For those that know the area it was (and may still be) on the left hand side of the B4155 (Lichfield Road) leading out of Brownhills, with the Anglesey Branch of the Wyrley & Essington Canal bordering it on the eastern side. I’ll have to make a point of going over there one day and checking if it has been built on since – although the current AtoZ lists the site as the Gatehouse Trading Estate

Back to Topic

The circular engines seen in the scrapyard were most probably Rolls-Royce annular nacelles as fitted to the (Merlin) Lincoln.
I rescued a batch of Merlin engines which were ex-Unimetals (though I acquired them from another yard that had processed some of the ex-Uni stuff on its closure) and these were composed of Merlin 35’s (ex-Balliol), two 20-series (ex-instructional) and Merlin 68A’s which were ex-Lincoln and which still had the engine bearers and cowling support remains attached.
This told me that at one time they had been complete cowled powerplants but the rolling around and handling had trashed the alloy skins.
So, the engines were probably ex-Lincoln units, not Shack.

Anon.

I wasn’t !

i was just thinking the same thing

Missed all the furore – thank goodness

Have not been following this thread for a few days, but from the last 10 or so posts it is obvious that someone was very naughty. Whilst I applaud the moderators decision to remove offending posts might I suggest that in future any comments made following removal of such posts be directed between forumites as PM’s rather than clogging up pages of the thread with ‘I agree’- ‘I disagree’ posts. That way we can all get on with reading the really interesting stuff and dusting off our ‘Indiana Jones’ hats and polishing our spades! A great thread being bogged down by long argumentative posts.

Here endeth the moaning!:D

I cannot please all of the people….

As I am sure Melvyn, James and Mark will agree, I acted in what I felt was the best way at the time.

I closed the thread whilst making adjustments; it was for no more than ten minutes. I am not able to lock it away elsewhere to make the adjustments andthen return it, so I felt that this was the best way to do it, to avoid any more comments coming in while I did so.

The perpetrator of the comments has been banned from the forum; he had the opportunity to respond, but chose not to. That would seem to be proof enough.

There is no intention to sweep anything under the carpet; this is damage limitation. If I keep the original posts, there is always going to be an element of doubt in the minds of those that read the thread. If I edit the thread, that doubt is removed for any new readers.

As ever, there is no right or wrong answer; the lot of the jobbing moderator!

Bruce

Bruce and I have now PM’d and discussed this.

The fact that the person making allegations was given the right to answer was correct.

Action was then taken but not made public, I believe this should have been stated as action should have been seen to have been taken.

This has been stated and I now consider the matter to be closed

Melvyn, (and Mods)

This an interesting and serious example of Forum ettiquite and moderating, not withstanding the injury obviously felt on your behalf, and I strongly sympathise with your desire to remove this accusation against your reputation. I have been following this issue as it developed and understand your ongoing frustrations.

Mark, thanks for your comments. It was not entirely as you suggest as the article was clearly identified, and therefore me too as that article only had the one author, before I re-registered and made my comments.

Hiding behind a user name does not, as you suggest, absolve you from your legal resposibilities. Having a clause in the users code of conduct does not absolve Key from their legal responsibilities either. There are issues of data privacy but this goes a little beyond this. Hosting a libel is not a good place to be legally, regardless of a code of conduct, there is still responsibility.

I will answer Bruce’s comments directly and I would like to make it clear I have no argument with him, but there is a precedent for this. There has been a case where allegations made on this forum went way past the point that we are now and I understand it was not pleasant for Key. That situation was dealt with firmly and instantly, this one was far more wishy washy, that was my point.

As one of the audience of this issue, all I can say is that you have presented your case openly and convincingly, and his lack of responses destroys his credibility, I am not sure that is much consolation to your reputation.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Thanks also for that comment. As you state in your text, you do not hide under a user name (and I don’t wish to suggest that everyone with a username other than their own is trying to hide anything) but sicne I write for various magazines I felt it would be dishonest to post in any other way. I try to be open and honest and believe the turth will out in the end. As you say, his credibility is damaged yet he can be on here already with another user name and start all over again. I have no idea what his agenda is but at least I didn’t take his suggestion that I be buried as a real threat!

Melvyn Hiscock

Melvyn, (and Mods)

This an interesting and serious example of Forum ettiquite and moderating, not withstanding the injury obviously felt on your behalf,

I think Bruce did the right thing deleting his unsubstantiated claims,

I try and treat the forum like a virtual pub,

Hear hear (I use an alias only because I read and post while at work:diablo:!) but hear hear especially on the “like the pub” comment.

I stayed away from the exchange earlier – but who would be a moderator:eek: and IMO (not being on the end of any comments) I think the best was done by Bruce to keep a good thread open, and remove what was clearly inappropriate material.

Bruce,

Obviously I’m not one who needs satisfaction in this situation, but I do think you have done all you can here, and perhaps more than I thought would be done, thanks for clearing up the locked thread being related to the post deletion process.

The strangest aspect of all of this is that PP was apparantly unknown to all forumites and could have easily offered an apology and withdrawal when challenged without any great personal injury or damage to his true reputation, it would have all been quickly forgotten, and he himself could have deleted the offending posts as part of that process?

Moderating is certainly a difficult task, thanks for taking it on and helping to herd the cats for us all.

regards

Mark Pilkington

I cannot please all of the people….

As I am sure Melvyn, James and Mark will agree, I acted in what I felt was the best way at the time.

I closed the thread whilst making adjustments; it was for no more than ten minutes. I am not able to lock it away elsewhere to make the adjustments andthen return it, so I felt that this was the best way to do it, to avoid any more comments coming in while I did so.

The perpetrator of the comments has been banned from the forum; he had the opportunity to respond, but chose not to. That would seem to be proof enough.

There is no intention to sweep anything under the carpet; this is damage limitation. If I keep the original posts, there is always going to be an element of doubt in the minds of those that read the thread. If I edit the thread, that doubt is removed for any new readers.

As ever, there is no right or wrong answer; the lot of the jobbing moderator!

Bruce

Bruce (and, I hope, the other mods)

Pushing the allegations made against me under the carpet does not alter the fact they were made and they were not “Potentially” libelous at all, it was libel, pure and simple. I was identified as the source of rumours that “I had made up”. I was identified by name.

Melvyn, (and Mods)

This an interesting and serious example of Forum ettiquite and moderating, not withstanding the injury obviously felt on your behalf, and I strongly sympathise with your desire to remove this accusation against your reputation. I have been following this issue as it developed and understand your ongoing frustrations.

Not that I am wishing to defend his actions but my recollection of his original posts dont include you being named, only being able to be identified via reference to a specific magazine article, as I recall it was others alluded to the journalist being a forumite and you then responded identifying yourself as the author of the article in question – obviously anyone familiar with the article could identify you from it – (I just wanted to make that comment as I cant view his original posts to confirm it, but that was/is my recollection).

Having said that I do think he should have responded to your reply rebutting his claims, he did suggest in his post that this was a long time ago and he was relying on memory, but has now had ample opportunity to tackfully retreat or step up to the plate and defend his claims.

Reviewing the forums rules I dont note anything defining the moderators actions in response to this situation, I think Bruce did the right thing deleting his unsubstantiated claims, particularly in light of your rebuttal and his lack of defence and sufficient calls for, and time to do so, but I was a bit surprised Bruce originally chose today to lock the thread during Moderator deliberation, as I couldnt see the benefit of that, while the original posts were left to stand.

You have been asking the moderators to do more, and I’m not sure they can or should do anything more other than deleting the offensive posts. At this stage despite the overwhelming evidence he is wrong and you are right I dont think they can unilaterally ban him or censure him any further than removing the offensive posts, legally it seems a case of “you” said and “he” said.

Obviously you are able still to PM/email him via the forum and seek a PM/email response and even request a public post of apology if he indeed responds or retains use of the ID ongoing.

One of the obvious issues is the fact that his use of a nickname rather than his own name allows him to slip off without any consequence of his actions, without even the obligation of ever defending or retracting his comments.

Where to from here? well the moderators have apparantly removed every vestage of the accusations, and in my mind thats all KP can do?

Can they disclose his identity? perhaps not due to privacy law? and in anycase may only have an anonomous email address or at best an IP location (which may represent his ISP’s server IP rather than his PC IP?).

It would seem to me some type of legal action in court would be required to compell KP to provide his identity and contact details, and that would probably require threats of legal action against KP themselves to cause them to “join” him into their defence?

For KP to provide his private details to you without being legally compelled by a court would likely open them up to other legal action from both he and the government?

All in all a very unfortunate situation arising from what was probably intended to be a throw away comment on his behalf?

I can understand your annoyance at having such accusations made, and the implications on your character and journalistic proffessionalism and more so that the accuser has chosen not to withdraw or defend those accusations in light of your response and invitation to do so.

I have for a long time considered the ability to hide behind nicknames and anonomous identities creates the ability for people to make comments in forums with impunity and say things without any thought of, or actual risk of consequences, ie even a ban of PP could result simply in a new ID/Nickname unless his IP is unique enough to be banned at that level.

Perhaps the answer is for forums to require membership details to be public, ie name/address and email address so that nicknames do not hide the underlying real identity, and the consequences of ones actions.(or even require posts to be under real names and not nicknames in the first place?)

I try and treat the forum like a virtual pub, and try to consider if I would be willing to make the same comments to someone face to face before I post them, especially if they are in anyway adversarial etc, of course I can still offend someone unwittingly, but equally I can apologise for that, (even if I consider I am correct).

I always post under my own and real name, for better or worse I own the stupid and poorly thought comments I post out there into the wide web and world, and I think that is the heart of the problem here, you are publicly identifiable through the article reference, even if not publicly named, while he is simply an anonomous accuser.

As one of the audience of this issue, all I can say is that you have presented your case openly and convincingly, and his lack of responses destroys his credibility, I am not sure that is much consolation to your reputation.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Could they have been RR Griffons in anuallar style cowlings, ie off a Shackleton? Date ties in nicely with Shack retirement from service. Would have been painted dark sea grey (dark blueish grey) if they were.

Still sounds like Unimetals.

Mark

2 X Daimler SP250 darts…….. easy to confuse a non car fan like me…. last seen there 10 years ago, physically intact, just parked and left there.

GRP bodies. They could lie there for a hundred years. 🙂

Mark

Daimler….. close !

Really a Riley.

Oh! Really

O’Riley

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/rileyrob/images/index2.htm

2 X Daimler SP250 darts…….. easy to confuse a non car fan like me…. last seen there 10 years ago, physically intact, just parked and left there.

Inside an outbuilding were 4 Merlin type (not an expert, but thats what they reminded me of) engines on supports and inside cowlings (therefore could not see “Rolls-Royce” or any other logo), which I didn’t recognise. The cowlings were more rounded than I expected, I seem to recall that the openings at the front of the cowlings were reminiscent of radial engines, which threw me a little. Unfortunately I don’t think I took a camera with me.

Could they have been RR Griffons in anuallar style cowlings, ie off a Shackleton? Date ties in nicely with Shack retirement from service. Would have been painted dark sea grey (dark blueish grey) if they were.

As you say cars are not the topic but who remembers a few years ago the finding of a rare one in Walsall of all places, tucked away in the back of a butchers yard shed since just before the war.
Eventually the roof fell in and when they were clearing it they found the old mans Mercedes 540K rusted and rotting but restorable, one of only twelve right hand drive 540’s built it sold after restoration for four million.
If we the interested people dont chase things up and investigate rumours which doesnt take a lot to do usually we will lose a lot of artifacts and even complete aircraft that are part of our history.
A few years ago a news item on some subject or other was on the TV to do with the American airforce or something that took the reporter into a aircraft graveyard, it wasnt what he was talking about that got my attentions but sections of ex-lend lease B50 Washingtons in the background still in RAF markings,

regards, Terry

The Liberty engine (licence built in the UK) was used in the ‘Crusader’ cruiser tanks – apparently it was thoroughly unreliable as it was unable to cope with the rigours of off road use and used to leak coolant everywhere.

Ironic that the (Nuffield built) Liberty engine should eventually see (limited) service on D-Day in Centuar tanks!

As for its unreliability it was certainly underpowered for its later usage in tanks and as you say probably not rugged enough either…..as for coolant leaks you could write a book about the number of tanks that have had cooling problems (and air filtering problems in the desert).

I’m always surprised that there aren’t more Liberty bits around given the numbers that were produced, the range of manufacturers and the length of time it was in production.

Still two previously unknown Liberty engines have just been discovered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2504563/D-Day-tanks-found-on-seabed.html