Turbo – Wot?

Got our aircraft in order now.

G-APNT First Wot built in the U.K. believed still current.

G-APWT Second Wot built in the U.K. and the subject of this thread. That is Viv Bellamy walking to the plane at Oxford. Looking at the flying photo, bet he isn’t wearing a seatbelt!

http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-APWT&imgname=G-APWT001&imgtype=jpg This shows ‘PWT before installation of the turbine.

Please keep us updated Chipmunkey!:)

OK i will! actually the first two where destroyed!:eek: 🙁 than two more where made and they where G-apnt and G-apwt! 😎 and i Will make a thread about it!:p (the restoration of it that is!:rolleyes: )

Ahh Viv Bellamy eh?

Got our aircraft in order now.

G-APNT First Wot built in the U.K. believed still current.

G-APWT Second Wot built in the U.K. and the subject of this thread. That is Viv Bellamy walking to the plane at Oxford. Looking at the flying photo, bet he isn’t wearing a seatbelt!

This shows ‘PWT before installation of the turbine.

Please keep us updated Chipmunkey!:)

The Wot name as been very famous over the last 20 odd years with the RC Model flyers .
there WOT designs have been at the top of the Model areobatics for many years . with WOT 4s / Uno Wots/ Wots wot/ to name but a few .
a google search will turn up a good list and pics of the many designs .and various scales from wee rc motors to large cc engines.

As the title of this post states… I started this thread, and quite honestly, I am curious, as to any and all information, simply because, I’d never heard of the aircraft nor its development.

I will agree with Moggy, in the sense that replying to a reply on an old thread may perhaps upset and/or be deemed ‘insensitive’. But given the international scope of this forum’s membership, there stands a very good chance that many of us would (A) never have know any particular individual who has posted, and that (B) that particular individual may have passed away.

While I may not reply to every post, I am saddened to see the thread title changed to ‘Zombie’ (understandable as it is in some circumstances). As I see it, if there is relevant information to share (relating to the original post on the thread), then please do share.

James

OK! well lets see… we own it here in Georgia and my dad bought it way back and my grand dad well whenever dad went on trips he came back and it was in pieces so… its about to fly again! so and its here on rust airstrip :rolleyes: dad was offered the turbo engine but (dad knowing nothing about this airplane) did not get it:( and… lets see… why? because dad saw it in the museum and cold not take his eyes off of it! 😮 and they sold it to him because they where working on a new project and needed the money! so… yah… we might start a project thread on it:) if so… do you mind me linking you? thanks!

missing photo

sorry about that – seems I got a little ‘aggressive’ whilst thinning out my uploads… here’s the original shot I had included with the thread.

The Rover gas turbine was originally intended for automotive purposes. It was first fitted in a Rover 105 as I recall (anyone remember them?).

I once met the elderly and very distinguished head curator of the Kensington Science Museum. He told me that when the Rover gas turbine car was presented to the museum, he accompanied the driver who delivered it.

Sitting in the car, he noticed the rev counter hovering about the ‘5’ mark and assumed it was idling at 500rpm (being used to petrol engines). The driver exclaimed “Good Lord No, that’s 5000rpm!

Memory may have that number wrong, but you get the drift!

No doubt it will be corrected. :rolleyes:

Bri 🙂

The missing photo from the first post?

http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1084627/

Ahh Viv Bellamy eh?

I agree with what (wot!) you say Contrailjj. As your initial photo has disappeared, here is another of the ‘prototype’ which I assume is the aircraft we are talking about. Technically it is the prototype as it was the first one built in the U.K. but it is actually the third Wot that was produced.

I would be interested to see up to date photos of the reconstruction as I watched it being built at Eastleigh.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot

well, I started the thread…

As the title of this post states… I started this thread, and quite honestly, I am curious, as to any and all information, simply because, I’d never heard of the aircraft nor its development.

I will agree with Moggy, in the sense that replying to a reply on an old thread may perhaps upset and/or be deemed ‘insensitive’. But given the international scope of this forum’s membership, there stands a very good chance that many of us would (A) never have know any particular individual who has posted, and that (B) that particular individual may have passed away.

While I may not reply to every post, I am saddened to see the thread title changed to ‘Zombie’ (understandable as it is in some circumstances). As I see it, if there is relevant information to share (relating to the original post on the thread), then please do share.

James

It’s a thorny topic.

In some ways it is quite nice for an answer to emerge to a topic that had been discussed a couple of year’s back. Having quick access to what was said at the time adds to the interest.

One of the sadder issues is the number of times that those of us suddenly see a posting by a contributor / friend who has died. It still gives a jolt, which is one of the reasons why the mods will often add a ‘Zombie Thread’ warning to the title.

Mostly it works fine, the vast majority of posters seem able to make the ‘Should I open the old thread or should I start a new one with “This was discussed a while back“?’ decision quite reliably. I’m afraid Chipmunkey’s post just didn’t.

Moggy
Moderator

OK so someone has died? or the thread? i just want to give this to this thread because NOone knows where it is… so sorry if i made a bad post:(

Mod……….

Please can I make a couple of comments. I have been trawling around among some of the old threads, many are interesting and it is very tempting to add a few words. I will own up, have done it a couple of times, if I have confused anyone……I apologise !!!!

Re. the other part of your reply to Chipmunkey, I entirely agree.

Oh yes, Chipmunkey, the words are spelt “Exactly” and “Really”.

Great Forum, by the way………..!!!

Planemike

OK sorry for being vague and for spelling errors:o … anyway! to the point we own it right here in fayetteville GA! its been in the shop for a long while but… its about to fly again! if you have any questions about it feel FREE to ask we would be more than willing to help!:D thanks chip!

The Turbo Auster looks quite sleek but would still look better with a Gipsy or Cirrus in place of it.

It’s a thorny topic.

In some ways it is quite nice for an answer to emerge to a topic that had been discussed a couple of year’s back. Having quick access to what was said at the time adds to the interest.

One of the sadder issues is the number of times that those of us suddenly see a posting by a contributor / friend who has died. It still gives a jolt, which is one of the reasons why the mods will often add a ‘Zombie Thread’ warning to the title.

Mostly it works fine, the vast majority of posters seem able to make the ‘Should I open the old thread or should I start a new one with “This was discussed a while back“?’ decision quite reliably. I’m afraid Chipmunkey’s post just didn’t.

Moggy
Moderator

Mod……….

Please can I make a couple of comments. I have been trawling around among some of the old threads, many are interesting and it is very tempting to add a few words. I will own up, have done it a couple of times, if I have confused anyone……I apologise !!!!

Re. the other part of your reply to Chipmunkey, I entirely agree.

Oh yes, Chipmunkey, the words are spelt “Exactly” and “Really”.

Great Forum, by the way………..!!!

Planemike

Errm,

Welcome to the forum.

Before you get too into browsing the contents of the forum, please read the notes in the sticky at the top of the page. Dredging up old threads is considered bad form, and gets confusing.

Secondly, replying to questions with another question is not terribly helpful. If you have something useful to add to the discussion, then by all means feel free.

Regards

Bruce (Moderator)

i know!!!!!

i know EXTELY where it is 😉 do you REALY want to know? 🙂

The Rover gas turbine was originally intended for automotive purposes. It was first fitted in a Rover 105 as I recall (anyone remember them?). There were rumours around at the time that they were going to compete at Le Mans with it. That might have been quite amusing for the punters if it had happened.

Close – a much modified Rover 75.

Rover gas turbine cars here
http://www.rover.org.nz/pages/jet/jet5.htm

More notably the ’63-’65 Rover-BRM project that competed in Le Mans

Here

Thank you for putting me straight. Blame the fact that I’m getting old and was a very long time ago for me getting it wrong.

More notably the ’63-’65 Rover-BRM project that competed in Le Mans

Here

The Rover gas turbine was originally intended for automotive purposes. It was first fitted in a Rover 105 as I recall (anyone remember them?). There were rumours around at the time that they were going to compete at Le Mans with it. That might have been quite amusing for the punters if it had happened.