does anybody remember the Hornet Moth that used to fly from Doncaster Aero Club. Drivng out the the M18 one day over the East Coast main Line I well remember running parallel with it for a while following take off (the plane not my car)

I think it was owned by a lady Consultant at DRI IIRC

Remember it? I was banned from washing it! 🙂 Our head groundsman was in charge of looking after the moth, the young spotty herbert that was me was only allowed to look at the plane, not touch. I got to spend two days washing and polishing a C206 for the new parachute school.

The Hornet Moth’s owner was an elderly doctor, lovely lady, very friendly and I think retired at that time. She flew quite regularly and loved the plane. She flew everywhere at 800 feet – both she and the moth were happy at that height – which is why you would have seen her so clearly. The ATC at Finningley knew her callsign well – I think it was everybody’s favourite in the area.

I should have some photos somewhere, but probably in the files in my parent’s attic.

As well as the Moth, there were a couple of airworthy Austers – lovely planes, and a little single seater homebuilt monoplane at the back of the hangar painted red with German WWI colours. I never saw it fly and I’ve no idea what it was but the fuel tank was just in front of the cockpit. There was a wire sticking through the fuel filler cap and below, in the tank, the wire had a cork fitted so it would rise and fall with the fuel levels – the world’s most reliable fuel guage.

On the subject of fly in or airshow – I suppose the distinction is an airshow doesn’t involved landing but a fly-in does. I’m not sure the racecourse would be suitable for landings but I can’t see why an air show should be a problem.

🙂 The camera says 13 ,i’m not sure whether that’s how many left or how many taken.
Cheers 😀

It was on 15 when I had it so it must be counting down.

Get the wheels in line, get the wheels in line – and then slam yer brakes on or we’ll be in the cabin.

Dont believe all that stuff about the EU and shapes of veg etc its all urban myths.If the EU had not helped with grant aid a lot of Scotland, Ireland and Wales would still be waiting for Whitehall to pay up to do such things as improve roads, build new harbours.

I’m just back from a trip along a road in a remote part of Europe which is being widened from single track with European funding. Now two vehicles travelling in opposite directions can pass without pulling into a layby thanks to the EU.
The road? The A830. A main road here in Britain.

Now back on topic

It takes time to sort out many aspects of operating any aircraft when regs change. Just because an aircraft is grounded does not mean it is forever.Many piston and turbine transport aircraft spend months seemingly abandoned and within a few weeks they are flown away on a new contract.

There was mention on WIX that she would find a new home in a base with a runway too short to get out of – so it could be permanent. Isn’t this the same issue affecting the Sea Vixen? Is there anything we enthusiasts can do, any campaigns we can lend our support to or is it down to the groups operating these aircraft to track down the extra money?

I got stopped in the Lake District by a nice American lady who asked me if I spoke English – I put it down to jet lag but then she asked me for “the bathroom” and I realised I didn’t speak her language at all. 🙂

“Two nations divided by a common language” George Bernard Shaw.

But surely u/c designed by specialist company (messier / dowty etc.)?

I’ve always understood that the undercarriage was designed by Arthur Gouge – Short Brothers’ chief designer and he who invented the Gouge Flap.

I’ve sometimes wondered if the oddity that was the Stirlings undercarraige might have been due to Shorts having made a series of large aeroplanes without undercarraiges for quite a while.

Gouge’s main experience had been in designing aircraft without wheels and the Stirling was the first retractable undercarriage aircraft for the company. But then again, how many, at that time, had experience of retractable gear on large aircraft? When considering the Stirling you have to remember it was the first four engined bomber in service.

CH Barnes in the Putnam book on Shorts Aircraft states that “without doubt a one-piece forged chassis, like that of the Halifax, would have stood up to the side load [of L7600’s accident] but Gouge, aware of the long delay in obtaining large forgings and castings, and the milling machines suitable for reducing them to final proportions, had insisted on a built-up chassis using separate forged oleo legs.”

The bodge on the Stirling I think was referred to as a crate, fitted between the top of the legs and the attachment points.

I guess it all leads back to the Air Ministry’s insistence that the wingspan be less than 100 feet to fit into existing hangars. With a bigger wing the take-off run would presumably be reduced. It would have had a better ceiling too.

The change always reminds me of the last minute change to the Sunderland. By adding a tail turret, the CofG was moved back far enough that the rear wing spar had to be shortened to give slightly swept back wings. This is why the engines on the Sunderland all point slightly outwards, rather than straight ahead. And yet it was never considered necessary to correct this in the development of an aircraft which was in service over 20 years.

Allan

Really interesting topic – thanks Bruce.

The Vulcan effect is going to be interesting to watch but I’m not convinced that it will really translate into much benefit for other types. Spitfires, Lancasters and Vulcans have all captured the public imagination but – apart from Concorde – what else does in the UK? Will we really see a halo effect which means the Supermarine Walrus will join the Vulcan on the airshow circuit soon?

Isn’t there a French Concorde kept sleeping with the systems still functional, just as XH558 was? I fear it is the only aircraft which will generate the passion we see for the Vulcan, although I do think the Vulcan in flight will inspire a new generation to want to be involved in historic aviation. That has to be good, but I remain to be convinced that cash will follow.

The press coverage on the day was not that bad but I think they missed a trick when Sky News said it was restored by the RAF. That was the moment for publicity for the sponsors.

The amount of coverage so far might make it difficult to get the story “done again” but they have other opportunities. One that I would make sure went to one of the main channels – once they get CAA approval – is to get a film crew airborne. Might be best to wait until Spring to publicise the forthcoming airshow season or to announce a major sponsor, but she will be back in the news again – unless something unexpected and bigger happens that day.

Allan

I always try to imagine what kind of work the crew did at the workbench during flight.

Urgent.

However, there were a few crews landing away from base with a troublesome engine etc who found having a workbench compete with vice very useful. Conversely, on flying boats a dropped spanner was a lost spanner – unless it was tied to the engineer’s wrist.