682alWell, it ain’t WW2 for a start…:rolleyes:
682alI believe the series ran up to Volume 8, or something like?
I never got beyond Ghost Stations 2, the rest seemed to get increasingly bizarre and more padded out with UFO related stories.
Our own haunted airfields thread is a better read!
682alI’ve seen no sign of prices levelling off, so you must assume the market is not yet saturated.
There’s a noticeable “glut and famine” of certain stuff. For example, a couple of years ago I was always saying to my mate “You never see Turn and Slip Indicators anymore”. Yet, in the last twelve months, I’ve seen more than in the whole of the preceding five years. This is bound to depress prices a little but as soon as the glut turns to famine, they will go up again.
As for the eBay debate, well I guess it has it’s good and bad sides. I think, as a collector, I’d rather it had never been invented. I’ve bought relatively few treasures on eBay, but it has had a knock on effect on prices everywhere. Good if you are selling of course, but bad if you are collecting.
Then again, as the price of stuff continues to increase, there is the long term financial gain when you decide to sell up, or thin out the collection. My pal and I are just starting to consider this prospect. Part of the debate will be, do we sell on eBay or at the ‘jumbles.
Watch this space! 😀
682alNot certain when that particular ad dates from, but as a life long collector of this kind of stuff, I can tell you that Lance’s prices always bring a tear to my eye – and not of joy, either!
Oh for the days of the local Army Surplus store, crammed with all kinds of useless rubbish, at bottom dollar prices. My own, in Crewe, sold brand new condition, nos Type C leather flying helmets, still in boxes for two bob. That was just pre-decimilisation. Two bob = 10p for those too challenged to work it out! :diablo:
Whenever I’m in the more run down areas of pastures new, I always keep an eye out, just in case by some time warp miracle, there are still genuine Army Surplus stores to be explored. The last one I recall was in ——–* in 1995. It had sundry wartime Air Ministry equipment, including switches, still at almost pre-decimilisation prices.
* No, Nick Wotherspoon when you eventually read this, not the mill, this one was pure army surplus tat.
682alI have attached pics to show the difference between the 39 and later ASI.
The difference is more likely explained by them coming from different manufacturers. Check the face of the dial or the rear of the case for clues.
682alCame across a warehouse of boxed spectacle type grips a few years ago- thought they were lanc – close, Shack….
all sold to fund a house deposit!
TT
Sold on eBay? I think I must have bought one off you – complete, but disassembled. It went together beautifully.
I was once presented with a mint Beaufighter/Blenheim yoke. The chap who gave it to me said he and his school pals used to get them from a disused factory somewhere in Wales.
“There was hundreds of ’em, still in boxes” 😮
682al4. Finally, the grip has two small holes drilled into it at 12 o’clock on the top of the side facing the pilot. The holes are approx 2 cm apart and empty. Can anyone please tell me what they were for?
If the holes match those on the bracket of the grip here, then I’d say it’s almost certain you have a Harvard spade grip.
There’s been lots of discussion about Canadian made Hurricane and Harvard grips on the forum – try a search for more info.
Re the screw holding the gun button in place, it’s a 4BA thread if I recall. I’d be tempted to drill only as a last resort – I’ve had dozens of spade grips, most having spent years exposed to our corrosive atmosphere and I cannot recall ever having to drill one out. Just give the whole area a good drenching in releasing fluid.
And I wouldn’t worry about the missing “tread” either. It adds character in my opinion. I’ve only ever repaired it when it’s been a case of almost complete renewal anyway.
682alI have just aquired a 480MPH ASI but the thing is its dated 1939?? Can anyone explain this?
My guess is because it’s far easier to produce a new version of an existing instrument, in this case an A.S.I. Mk. IXF, rated to 480 m.p.h., than it is to produce an entirely new airframe and the engine that will power it. Hence, the lead-in times are rather different.
The Hawker Tornado was flying in 1939 with a Vulture engine. The original spec. called for a top speed of 400 m.p.h.
Your instrument may have been produced with this aircraft in mind.
In fact, and having checked my cockpit photo collection, I see that the proto Typhoon also had a Mk. IXF installed, and that was flying in early 1940, so it’s not really surprising that your ASI is dated 1939.
682alThis is the only one I’m aware of which fits with your pal’s time frame:-
682alThis is the only one I’m aware of which fits with your pal’s time frame:-
682alPerhaps they’ve all been to see Lance Corke.
He’s been selling off his aviation stuff for a while now.
682alHi Alexander,
I cannot make out enough detail on the first photo, but the device on the second appears to be a hand operated bomb distributor. The bombs are released in a sequence dependent upon the rapidity of movement of the (hand operated) lever across an arc of contacts connected to the release slips in the bomb bay.
This is based upon supposition, as I’ve never seen one of these devices in 35 years+ of collecting this sort of stuff!
682alEddie has reminded me about http://www.lancasterrestoration.com/ and their searchable database of Lanc drawings (I’d not been to that site since they added the preview feature).
Ed has found the downward vision blister, as re-produced here and I’ve tracked down what I think is Mod. 925.
This shows what looks to be a .5 in. Browning firing to the rear and below. It tallies with the description I already gave above, based on a crew member’s recollection. I’ve enhanced the picture ever so slightly since many of the drawings from that site have not survived too well.
The seat looks to be fixed, thus limiting the arc over which the gun could be traversed (if it does at all), and there isn’t enough detail to tell whether it can be elevated, but if it can, I guess by only a few degrees?
682alRight, where to begin?!
1). The original window was installed in all Lancasters from Day One. R5868 S-Sugar at Hendon has this and so does W4783 G-George in the Australian War Memorial Museum:-
http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/photos_lanc/p_w4783.jpg
2). I think I’ve convinced myself that the blister illustrated by me in a previous post is officially “Mod. 913 – Introduction of downward vision blister”, and applicable to both Lanc I, II and III. Volume I for the Lancaster II actually tells us that this mod. was one of those authorised in August 1943 – so perhaps Bomber Command wasn’t as slow to pick up on attacks from beneath as we tend to think???
Strangely, I cannot trace a photo of a Canadian Lanc with this mod. Perhaps, as Ed suggests, the Canadian Production line lagged behind and it never made it onto their machines.
Taking it at face value, therefore, Mod. 913 is to enable downward vision but with the advantage of a more panoramic view than the previous flat panel, which was in all Lancs from Day One.
It does appear to have either an open rear face or else an optically flat panel. I guess this is to improve the view rearwards. Perhaps this confirms the idea that Intelligence still felt the attacks were coming from the rear and beneath, rather than directly below?
It’s also interesting to note that just a little way below Mod. 913 on the list is “Mod. 925 – To improve the under defence”. This adds 1 lb. of fixed weight to the Lanc and 251 lb. of removeable weight. My guess is that this is some kind of gun installation, but I have never seen anything definite about it. Interestngly, Mod. 925 doesn’t appear on the list for the Lanc II – is this perhaps because many B. IIs had the FN64 under turret anyway?
I’m also fairly sure it is not meant to be a Window release chute given that the Lanc in the pic I have uploaded has both items. (This chute is one of at least three different designs I’ve seen on Lancs. The Lincoln at Cosford has one, as does G – George at the Austrailian War Memorial Museum. See above photo link for frontal view of the Window chute.)
3). The third type of window described by contrailjj is, I believe, merely the deletion of the blister but retention of the modified framework that it fitted in, and it is usually seen on late wartime and post war Lancs such as B.I (P.R.) PA474, B.VIIs NX611 and NX622. Perhaps this indicates that Mod. 913 was thought of as a temporary “fix” until Fishpond was fully deployed – it certainly seems to have disappeared from Lancs before the war’s end?
http://www.adf-serials.com/gallery/Lancaster-NX622/NX622h
Back to the wartime blister, for a mo, I said the same thing could be seen on Halifaxes in 1944. I made a small contribution to this thread discussing the same thing. The illustrations are not mine but they do show how similar the blister is to that on the Lanc and in my opinion, it strengthens the idea that it was intended for the same purpose, i.e. a look out against attack from below and behind:-
682alThere was always going to be high level resistance to removing H2S, to allow the re-introduction of downwards defence, so I assume a variety of measures were taken instead.
I am still uncertain about these perspex blisters, which began to appear on Lancasters and Halifaxes in 1944.
Are they to allow the bomb-aimer to scan the area below the aircraft, or are they window release chutes (a confusing subject in it’s own right). Note how the rear of the blister appears to be open, or flat faced. Observation blister, window chute, or both?
Sign In
