I can answer a few of these queries. You father was a Flight Mechanic, that’s the F.Mech. After further training he became an engine fitter, that’s the Fitt.2E.

He must have attended a Propeller course at Rotol Airscrews – I think their main factory was at Cheltenham.

The BAFO PHU was the British Air Force of Occupation Personnell Holding Unit. This unit is where personnel posted to Germany immediatley Post WW2 would have been administered from if they had not gone to a squadron.

AP 938 Para 210 is Air Publication 938 paragragh 210

It was probably an administrative publication, which I don’t recognise.

The rest is a mystery to me!

KeithMac

The risk of being targetted in uniform was really never an issue. Most of the service personnel murdered by the IRA were in civilian clothes and on the continent where we were not allowed to wear uniform off duty anyway. But the Security Committee at MOD were overly sensitive to public opinion and brought in a ban which many of us looked upon as a victory for the “Enemy”.

I served in the RAF for the best part of 40 years, I was (and still am) immensly proud of my service and I’m proud of the generation who now wear the Queens uniform.

Like the original ban on wearing uniform, I think the motivation for changing the rules is wrong, but I would nevertheless like to see our servicemen back on our streets in uniform.

The creaking door quoted Kipling, how little has changed!

Ah Britchford, you should well be ashamed – burger,fries,Coke – YUK!

Laviticus – Curry, well thats better, many years ago in a place called Singapore, stood an RAF Flying Boat Base called Seletar, just yards from the main gate on Jalan Kayu (Woods Road to you) stood a small shack in which simmered a cauldron containing CURRY! No One knew what was in it, (or how long it had simmered) it just got topped up each day. As we made our way back to camp at night we would visit the shack and partake of the curry- wonderful. You would have been in paradise!

However no paradise is ever what it seems, we dreamed of pints of fresh cold milk, unobtainable in that part of the world in those days!

Right now I crave a large Speyside Malt, perhaps a Glen Farclas or a Strathisla, so I shall now leave you and indulge myself!!!:)

The late 60’s/early 70’s was a bad time for the owners of wooden aeoplanes. Around then I was involved with RAF Cranwell’s Tiger Moth. It was Due CofA renewal and the CAA insisted on complete removal of the fabric covering so that inspection of every glued joint could be carried out. The aircraft passed with flying colours, but the expense of recovering commercially was immense. Fortunately the RAF glider overhaul section at St Athan did the job for considerably less than the commercial rate, and the aircraft was returned to the sky. It says a great deal for the standards of production at both DH and Morris Motors that many Tigers, built with a life expectancy of months are still flying nearly 70 years after they were built.

When I had charge of museum aircraft the RAF regulations for aircraft actually standing on wheels was to inflate to the correct pressure with Nitrogen. Aircraft where possible were to be jacked and the wheel rotated 90Deg every 6 months. If this could not be accomplished then as far as possible aircraft were to have axle stands manufactured, and the aircraft was to be supported on these, with tyre pressures sufficient to give the appearance of full inflation. For many of our aircraft we had a spare sets of movement wheels which were kept for when the aircraft was to be moved.

You have to remember that aircraft tyres are manufactured to withstand forces far in excess of anything the aircraft has to contend with sitting in a museum, and although they deteriorate with age, I never had a tyre blow on me. The surface cracking you often see on old tyres would render then totally unacceptable for flight use, but the underlying re-enforcement is sufficient to keep the tyre together under static and towing conditions provided that acceptable minimum turn radius limits are observed.

Keithmac

The RAF used a 6 Volume system for aircraft. However lots of equipment, ranging from Aero Engines to nuts, bolts and washers fell outside this system. Aero engines had their own publications. But things like magneto’s, fuel pumps, Prop control units, brake units, radiators, oil coolers etc were covered by other publications like the 1464 series.

Dunlop Brake components were classified as “General Engineering Components” and would have been in the 1464 Series. They would of course be fitted to many different aircraft types.

To save the cost of printing the same information in each aircraft type publication, they cross-refered to the 1464.

After WW2 when aircraft began to become more complex, servicing errors were often caused by the information in the general AP being different to the information in the aircraft AP’s. Some of the old hands still went back to the “Good old 1464” instead of using the aircraft specific information. As a result a lot of potentially conflicting information was removed from the 1464 series. The amendment procedure required you to remove and DESTROY the old information, so by the 1970’s many of the surviving 1464 series contained little more than 2 covers!

I think it must have been around 1974/75 that the mass withdrawal of the 1464 series along with many other survivors from the WW2 era took place. That was when the Technical promotion system was changed and the need for the 1464 and its like finally disappeared.

These days there are virtually no “General” technical publications within the RAF, it is much less risky to have all the information contained within the aircraft publication and control and amendment is much easier.

We seem to have drifted way off course with this thread, perhaps it’s time to start a Historic Aviation Persons Forum!!!!!