Correct Tony.

In ALSF survey detail the fabric remains were covered in more detail

https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/our-work/alsf-wrecks-seabed

Several pieces of textile were seen in different areas on the site. Some items were half-buried, while others were entangled in and around wreckage. The generally good preservation of the textiles suggests that it was buried until recently.

Most of the items on site were difficult to recognise. Strips of olive drab material were observed entangled around fuselage. White fabric, possibly parachute silk was also seen in several areas around the wreckage. A leather strap with buckle attached to olive or khaki fabric was stuck in a piece of aluminium fuselage on Wing 2.

To the west of the wreckage, a thin blue fabric with a white floral pattern lay half buried. This could be the remains of either a shirt or a scarf.

The most diagnostic item on the site was the orange lining of an olive flying parka. This was wrapped around Engine 1. A label attached to the lining is decorated with a floral border and reads “Original Snorkel Parka”.

This type of parka was not a standard military issue item during the Second World War, but looks very similar to the standard issue N-3 snorkel parka that was introduced with the formation of the USAF in 1947.

The N-3 snorkel parka or heavy flying jacket was based on prototypes tested from 1942- 1945. During the war it was common for military personnel to supplement issued clothing with privately bought items. The snorkel parka on the site could either be a test prototype, although the non-military label makes this less likely, or a private item bought by an airman to keep warm at high altitudes in the unpressurised and unheated aircraft.”

Ross

Bowden is pull. Teleflex is rotational.

With Teleflex the outside of the cable is flxed at both ends to the equipment (via the C clamps in the shown linkage ga).

The inside portion of the cable spins in a lubricated tube and the exposed helix at the ends is used to move a toothed wheel to give

Ross

put a bucket into basin.

Fill bucket to brim with tap water – making sure nothing spills into the basin.

make a cradle out of string/thread to support the lump and use a spring balance to check it’s weight in air.

Still on the balance lower it into the bucket so that it is immersed fully, note weight in water.

remove the bucket from the basin – taking care not to spill any more water.

finally measure the amount of water displaced from the bucket into the basin.

simple maths of weight in air – weight in water and volume of water displaced will give the specific gravity of the metal.

A trawl through the internet will give the best match for your measured SG against a specific material.

Ross

Desk for the D4 breaks down more if you want it to – overhead/top/two side cupboards and centre drawer.

Take the side steps off the fuselage – use jacking castors on the base and the fuse/octagon/base will pass through a standard door (may need to unhinge door if not clear opening.

One word of caution – moving complete unit is nose/tail heavy and prone to overbalance. I used specially built support dolly to nose and tail to cross rough ground.

Different weights/lumps of other trainer types (basically ANT and D4 has sliding cockpit roof – D2 hinge up like Bf109)

Ross

not over Howard.

Had personal experience of Heine’s methods before.

she will appeal – appeal will address and call for planning conditions to be applied on issues raised at council meeting.

Eventual argument she will use is unfulfilled need and inadequacy of council traveller assessments – 99% of councils have let these assessments slip due to cuts but Heine uses this “as get out of jail free cards”

Just do a google search on her name to see all the appeals she has done over England and the copy and paste impact statements used.

Ross

Both were tasked for Hach Patrol with take off on 9th at 22:20 for R3637 and 00:05 on 10th for R3881.

R3637 blew up at 03:00 on the 10th.

Ross

ORB is wrong and quoted time and time again by those who do not delve deeper.

I investigated for my book and had the details confirmed by RAFAHB before the release of the casualty files.

casualty files give correct info as does both F1180 at Hendon

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=AIR%2081%2F1065&_ser=AIR%2081&id=C16484

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_aq=R3881&_cr=air%2081&_dss=range&_ro=any&_st=adv

Ross

Geoff,

This MoD document on refurbishment/update of Type C Aircraft Shed may give some light onto the depth that MoD has put into considering reuse of wartime structures (similar reports are about for T2, Type E etc

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121019162221/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B8173EE7-AF3B-4B3E-988C-89BE2C20FD61/0/dmg24.pdf

annex I gives the cost comparisons for refurb work and a clear statement

“
….
Cost comparisons
No option for a solution can be given full consideration without some idea of cost
implications. Technical solutions on their own do not carry any merit unless they can be
proved to be economically viable.

Budget cost estimates are, therefore, given in this chapter for the basic work items in
connection with a typical Type C hangar, roof refurbishment. All costs are base
estimates, in that they are ‘raw’ costs without inclusion of risk additions, preliminaries,
VAT or professional fees. A site specific investment appraisal of the various options
should take all such factors into account.

All estimates will require validation for a particular project and updating to current price
levels. They provide a rough guide for budgeting and comparison purposes.
If for security reasons a dado wall is built around the perimeter of the building, then extra
over costs will be incurred.

The costs for a new build hangar are not provided. It is unlikely that the Project
Sponsor’s requirement would be for the same footprint or height of hangar. Experience
indicates that a rigorous approach to determination of space requirement dictates a
smaller structure with commensurate lower costs.
…”

Ross