I’m away from my files so can’t give the full reference but the source was an Air Ministry file at the National Archives. It was a directive for BOAC on how to paint their aircraft.

Don’t know about international agreements, although clearly schemes had to be recognised by neutrals. BOAC, concerned about making their aircraft more obviously British, were given approval to place Union flags on the nose.

AK

The two wheeled contraption does not look like a trolley acc. more like a trolley to move a flying boat?

Good spot. Yes, I see your point, there are similarities, although it lacks the cradle on top which is normally seen on the UK-built trolleys. See these:

Empire Flying Boat – courtesy of Seawings.co.uk

A Sunderland trolley (well, in this case the Sandringham at Solent Sky)

And for completeness, certainly not a Catalina (Courtesy of http://www.adf-gallery.com.au)

So, that leaves two questions – is it a modified rear beaching trolley? Or was it built by somebody as a handy trolley – possibly by somebody with flying boat squadron experience? I’ve seen trolleys with bigger wheels than the examples I’ve just posted but if pushed, i might lean towards the home-made origin.

I like this thread too – good detective work. Hopefully it will pay off.

AllanK

There is some mention of the factory in Geoffrey Oakes book “Aviation in Doncaster 1909-1992” – although not great detail.

He notes the factory was a prefabricated building on the north side of the airfield near St Cecilia’s Road, assembly starting pre-war (although one of the two pre-war hangars was used initially while the building was completed.)

After the cancellation of the Lysander contract, Phillips and Powis in collaboration with Miles Aircraft planned to use the factory to build the Miles Master. However, after only one aircraft was made, the factory was taken over by Brooklands Aviation and used for the repair of Wellington bombers.

There are only a few details in the book but interesting nevertheless.

From my experience, the Doncaster factory fits a pattern seen elsewhere. Although it is a bit of a generalisation, during rearmament the Government invested in building factories (moving production away from the SE), then in building aircraft and, part way through the war when there were large numbers of aircraft needing repair, converted some works to repair contracts.

I would be surprised if Doncaster only assembled aircraft from kits of parts made elsewhere – there is little benefit in the insurance of a dispersal scheme if the daughter works has to stop production should bombing affect the main works. But starting up these sites from scratch with untrained workers might explain a slow start and therefore low numbers produced before the switch to CRO work.

Interesting – I wonder if more details are out there anywhere.

AllanK

Oxford English Dictionary:

That answers the question of “When?” but not the one about “how widespread”

Presumably it is a natural extension of seamanship ( Eight pence )

I think you may be on to something here.

Backed up by this from Flight archive – see note at the bottom about Alan Cobham which states:

. . . if they were to judge airmanship by the old standards of seamanship, i.e., skill, ability and experience in navigating craft in any part of the world, he thought they could claim that, Alan Cobham was the greatest airman in the world.

Hope that helps

A very interesting summary. I do agree with your assessment – far more likely to be simple politics (small p). Giving projects to those seen likely to be able to do them, bad boys like Short Bros who couldn’t manage Stirling and couldn’t design the new flying boat to spec, put in the naughty corner. Why would you give a big development project to a firm who had so recently been great but currently couldn’t prove they could stay on spec and meet production targets yet?

Yes, agree, no US conspiracy, just everyday reactions of people.

As for interim types, remember the G-Class jigs were destroyed and recycled back into the war effort. Short Bros had to be stopped from building one last C-Class boat (the un-named G-AFRB) and told to ramp up Sunderland production.

So for an interim boat, surely easier and cheaper to either convert what you had (Sunderland to Sandringham and civil Sunderlands) or use the jigs and tooling still extant – Sunderland IV/Seaford to new build Solents.

And a lot of technoglogy had developed. When G Class was first drawn up it needed six engines but Bristols made a four engine boat possible. Arthur Gouge had made huge steps (pun intended) in streamlining the flying boat hulls – so why go back to old tech when the world was moving so fast? Just a couple of examples.

One little thing – why criticise only Oswald? I think the problems at Shorts came from his not being there and the board not being capable 😉

AllanK

Just found this document linked from Wikipedia:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2016%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Air%20Leadership%20in%20War.pdf

See p108 – Loraine is buried at Bramford Church, Bramford near Ispwich, his home. Interesting and very detailed bit of research.

Ah well – it went for more than my bid but thanks for highlighting it.

The difficulty with bidding remotely is not seeing the item and being too cautious with the bid. I hope the new owner enjoys them

Some maybe, others no.

Aircraft straight from service, kept indoors and properly conserved should be capable of return to flight, while those extensively rebuilt or restored are not going to fly. For example, the Duxford Sunderland was sliced horizontally. Look closely and you can see the join, and one of her wing tips is certainly non airworthy – the original was donated to a flyer so she’ll never be capable of flight.

But the question rather misses the point of museums which are to conserve examples of these aircraft as examples for future generations, not to hold a stock for eventual return to flight. Restoring for flight destroys originality and despite our best intentions, any restoration is only the current generation’s interpretation of what is original.

Ask a curator what they think of a restoration done 20-30 years ago and you’ll see what I mean. Maybe in another 30 years aircraft will be restored differently again and current standards dismissed.

Museum curators like aircraft pulled straight from service – such as the Harrier recently acquired by the FAA Museum. They are truly original and are rare.

While those aircraft might appear to be the easiest to fly again, perhaps that originality is the reason they should be left in these national collections where they can guide standards for restoring future flyers.

Allan