dark light

682al

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 702 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: need help to identify of two a/c – parts #1399129
    682al
    Participant

    Hi Nils,

    Your brass item, 6D/527 is known as a Socket, Mk. IV. It would probably have been on the end of a length of rubber tubing, connected at the other end to a Mk. I or II oxygen economiser. The crew member would plug his mask into the oxygen system by means of a matching Plug, Type IV, Stores Reference 6D/526. The mask would be Type E or later.

    As for the crucial aircraft type, I think I’ll pass because I can see elements of numbering from both the Stirling and the Halifax….I’m sure an expert will be along soon to sort that one out.

    Regards!

    682al

    in reply to: Is this Themometer up to the top #1402033
    682al
    Participant

    It’s red to the top, but I thought the blue band in the middle represents the shortfall in cash terms? And it’s not moved in months which either means no-one is donating money or they just don’t update their pages that often.

    Or have I missed the point of your post – sorry?

    in reply to: Restoring old wiring looms #1402166
    682al
    Participant

    Another vote for the Classic Car scene. I recall seeing ads in the monthlies which should give you contacts worth pursuing.

    Regards!

    p.s. Elliott, I’ve lost my email account but I’ll be in touch when I find it again!

    in reply to: Equipment Ident Please #1406832
    682al
    Participant

    Apologies, should have added “expect to see it in widespread use in heavy bombers, from 1944 onwards”

    in reply to: Equipment Ident Please #1406965
    682al
    Participant

    14A/3208, Type 35 Control, No. 20. 24v version, operated by bomb release. Range 2 – 20,000ft. Night use, with F24 camera.

    Regards!

    682al

    in reply to: Vulcan plans fall apart #1409903
    682al
    Participant

    The debate is certainly going round in circles and, forgive me, but it’s starting to look a bit like the crowd waiting for the execution.

    I’ll post a message if I hear anything locally about the planning application, but other than that, I’ll take no further part.

    in reply to: Vulcan plans fall apart #1413229
    682al
    Participant

    Thank you David Burke for a laudible response which appears to sum up the attitude of the British Aircraft Preservation Council nicely.

    in reply to: Vulcan plans fall apart #1413498
    682al
    Participant

    British Aviation Preservation Council
    Director: Mr. Nick Forder
    Address: Museum of Science & Industry
    Liverpool Road
    Castlefield
    Mail code: Manchester M3 4FP
    Country: United Kingdom
    E-mail: [email]n.forder@msim.org.uk[/email]
    Phone: +44 (0)161 6060121
    Fax: +44 (0)161 6060186

    The BAPC, formed in 1967, is the national body for the preservation of aviation related items. It is a voluntary staffed body which undertakes a representation, co-ordination and enabling role. BAPC membership includes national, local authority, independent and service museums, private collections, voluntary groups and other organisations involved in the advancement of aviation preservation in Britain. A number of overseas aircraft preservation organisations have affiliated membership.

    Membership:
    Officers of Council : 16
    Member Organisations : 139
    Affiliated Overseas Members : 12
    Affiliated Organisations : 2 (Transport Trust, Association of British Transport Museums)
    Affiliated Non-Organisation Members : 6

    The activities of the BAPC include:
    1. Quarterly Council Meetings hosted by member organisations
    2. BAPC Logbook
    3. Organising a Parts Finder (Wants and Disposals) system
    4. Maintaining The BAPC Register of Historic Aircraft
    5. Producing The National Aviation Heritage Strategy
    6. Organising Stopping the Rot conferences and seminars
    7. Providing information about specialist help.

    Taken verbatim from it’s website.

    Any BAPC officials on the forum who may wish to comment on it’s role in this situation…?

    in reply to: Vulcan plans fall apart #1414987
    682al
    Participant

    I’m sure that the various Vulcan orientated groups, be it from Woodford, Southend, Wellesbourne, Bruntingthorpe wherever, are following developments as closely as we are. I hope they will be able to liaise with him to ensure that anything remotely useful can be removed from the airframe before the inevitable dismembering starts.

    They can also no doubt offer lots of advice on safely detaching the nose section, if he still wishes to go ahead with the idea.

    in reply to: Vulcan XL391 at Blackpool #1425263
    682al
    Participant

    682AL- is this potentially the most exciting thing to ever happen in Dukinfield?

    Well in terms of the Flypast Historic Aviation Forum, I guess it is. Unless you want the “Merlin engines disposed of down a redundant pit shaft when the scrapyard was cleared in 1969” story. But that belongs on another thread.

    Seriously, it’s yet another odd twist in the tale, don’t you think? Hoax objections to his planning app. Hmmm, wonder who’s behind it all?

    in reply to: Vulcan XL391 at Blackpool #1426322
    682al
    Participant

    Dark doings in Dukinfield?

    Just a small update, from th’Advertiser, Tameside’s free weekly paper.

    It seems that two objections submitted to the Planning Department have been proven to be false.

    One was in the name of a neighbour who died some years ago, and the other was in the name of a friend of t’landlord!

    Decision still pending as of tonight, though….

    in reply to: Locking Threads – A Dangerous Precedent #1431758
    682al
    Participant

    It’s not the subject matter that’s important, but rather that a moderator intervened in a thread that had turned ugly.

    I applaud the decision and look forward to prompt action in similar situations.

    in reply to: Scrapyard Photos; Any More? #1431952
    682al
    Participant

    if no ones interested

    4,804 views so far…and no-one’s interested???

    in reply to: Scrapyard Photos; Any More? #1432037
    682al
    Participant

    I hope this thread isn’t turning sour on us?

    Consul – I think the reason you’ve not received a response to your previous message is because you seem to be indicating that you are unable to post your photos until “later in the year”. I guess we are all resigned to waiting until an opportunity presents itself to you. I look forward to viewing them in due course!

    Steve Bond – You seem fed up because your photos have not produced the response you had hoped for. Neither do some of the ones that I post, but it doesn’t stop me from posting them – and I would not discourage others from posting theirs, either. This thread has one of the highest hit counts of any on the Board – that’s surely a sign that our efforts are appreciated, even if they don’t provoke many direct comments?

    And Dave T – I’m not sure I understand who your sarcasm is aimed at? Are you wanting confirmation that there are still parts in the yard in Frome or are you disappointed that no-one snapped them up when they were available?

    in reply to: Scrapyard Photos; Any More? #1433066
    682al
    Participant

    ^^^What he said!^^^

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 702 total)