olly-s
Depends what you define as “lost”. If you take the trouble to read the link (provided by Scotavia) to the official statements, they claim it was indeed tracked (see extract below). The statement also mentions that a Royal Naval vessel responded to a request to assist with the salvage of the wreckage.
… “From the moment of the first radar observation to the eventual disappearance of their aircraft off the Cherbourg peninsula one and a half hours later, the Hercules was continuously tracked by British radars. Information about its height, course and probable future track was provided to all air traffic control authorities concerned or likely to be concerned, including the Continental radar system. There is no truth in the suggestion that it was at any stage before its final disappearance lost to radar surveillance or that any of the traffic control authorities concerned were without information about its course and height.” …
… “It may be worth adding that vessels of the Royal Navy and a Whirlwind helicopter of the R.A.F. took part in search operations and at sea, later, a naval vessel responded to the request of the American authorities for assistance in salvaging the wreckage.” …
The use of the nose section by MB is mentioned in this detailed commentary on the V bomber crew escape arguements.
https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A49097307
SimonBrown in your thread title you refer to “… Hercules 63-6679”. Wasn’t the C-130 involved actually 63-7789?
There are indeed two nose sections reportedly owned by Mr Hall. The one is a reconstruction and includes the extreme forward section of 976 (previously stored in Dick Richardson’s garden) but is a long-nosed example. The other is the one (which I had thought was a replica) that seems to be the item illustrated in the press article linked by the OP. The article now claims it is ex RAF and was found discarded in a field! Is it based on a genuine aicraft and what is its provenance?
This might be of interest:
http://www.avro-lancaster.org/filmtv.html
There is a photo of the two noses together if you scroll down in the following link. (There is also a picture of the one nose at Scampton in c2014):
http://www.timefadesaway.co.uk/strathallan/kb976/kb_976_11.html
According to W&R 25th edition there exists a Lancaster cockpit section replica which, at that time, was on loan to Scampton. It was on loan from a Jeremy Hall. The reconstruction was reportedly created for the TV drama Night Flight. Is this the item being referenced?
According to a post on a thread within the Britmodeller site back in 2013 this was the reason it was introduced (initially on the Wessex):
“I think the single yellow blade was introduced about 1989, as a conspicuity measure for the SAR ac. At least, the paperwork and first blades were at Finningley by mid-1988, when I left SAR. The one blade was highly visible – you could see the single blade going round well before you could see the yellow fuselage in many cases.”
Safe storage and Duxford don’t always go together. I am thinking of what happened to the fin and rudder of the Hermes.
In this instance my images of the Dakota were not copied without authority. I supplied them to the aircraft owner who, as expected, used them as part of their project publicity. I was just mildly bemused by one of the Indian newspapers which published the story but disappointingly credited my images as their own. That doesn’t detract from my delight at helping the project.
I now gather that BCCL is the publisher of that newspaper. The newspaper should not have credited themselves as the image source, but I have no issue with the owner of the DC-3 using those images which I provided as part of the project’s publicity campaign.
I took all of the air to air still photos shown in those links of press reports. Surprised to see one of them credited to “BCCL” when I hold the copyright… still I am happy the owners of the DC-3 found them useful.
Scotavia
The Dragonfly you mention was WG661. It moved by road to Baginton still in full RN colours. Shortly after it went to Woburn where it was to have been installed as a plaything. I assume it was eventually scrapped. I do have a b&w image I took of it at Coventry (Baginton) but presently that material is in storage or I would share it here. Here is a link to images of it when it was at Blackpool then another at CVT:
http://www.edendale.co.uk/GO/BPL.2.html
https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/registration/WG661
Tim
A couple of seconds searching revealed the answer. Here is a link to a site where you will find a drawing and a description of when and where the Typhoon was adopted this for aerodynamic research. Scroll down to the relevant entry and click on the drawing for an enlarged view.
It looks as if the modeller has depicted an aircraft fitted with tufts to give an indication of airflow over the airframe during trials. If it is a genuine “scheme” then the lighter coloured areas would have enabled better evidencing of the movement of the tufts.
Yes it is a dummy static representing a WWI aircraft used in a film. It was at one time reportedly owned by Visionair and decades ago was stored dismantled at Coventry. IIRC. It surfaced again with an antiques company up north and was then sold on. Some folk have suggested that it was meant to represent a Sopwith One and a Half Strutter