I’m surprised it carried on as long as it did, it was the “brain child” of Derek Griffiths(?) who disappeared after only a couple of years, never to return…..

Sadly it wasn’t a club either, had it have been set up by a group of people , it might have stood a chance, but as Mark says, he was only the webmaster, and the problems were highlighted in the few AGM’s that we did have, because the then “club” members all wanted something (essentially for nothing).

Some wanted insurance cover for their exhibits, others wanted more events organised by the “club”, and some wanted a definitive answer to the question, “is my cockpit radioactive, and will I be arrested”; all of the above (and more) landed squarely on the shoulders of Mark.

I did suggest at the very last “AGM” that the members may want to pay something towards the costs of the website, but I think at that point, it was obvious, that it was (as a club) dead in the water, and so even that idea wasn’t taken up.

My thanks to Mark for holding the fort for so long; maybe now he can get on with enjoying his hobby, rather than feel obliged to help everyone enjoy theirs.

No probs; although what ever way you spell it, it sounds awfully like Britain(y)!

Historically,the British and the French, probably have more in comon than either country would like to admit, although deGaul was quoted as saying, ” us (the French) and the fritzes (The Gemans) will be reconcilled, the biggest threat comes from the Anglo-Saxon (The British & the Americans?) however when he is reported to have said that, he was at that time, hiding from the Germans, (in England)!

Because it was inhabited by Bretons from England in the fifth and sixth centuries.:)

The question was, “what do they call Brittany?”

Nope, they call it “La Manche”, which would translate to the arm (of a seater, for instance). Due to its narroness I suppose. So do the Germans: das Ärmelkanal. (same thing, but with “channel” added..

It’s the English who appropriated it :diablo:

What Do they call Brittany?

Apparently the Bristol Taurus also used the same size bore as the Aquila, these (together with the early Napier “H” engines) are thought to have been directly influenced by the paper published by Harry Ricardo (in 1927) on sleeve valves; it has been suggested that the offices of Harry Ricardo were adjacent to Frank Halford’s at this time!

The Sabre was prone to the sleeves seizing, and certainly the only Bristol sleeve valve engines that I have seen are all seized, which is slightly at odds with the main failing of the sleeves, which is to seal correctly,(when worn) and the associated high consumption of oil, but apparently the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

There is an interesting story (somewhere on the internet) regarding the Napier Sabre engine, basically Napier’s engine builders assembled the engines, in the early days of production, but a factory was opened somewhere in Liverpool, and the engines were then built by unskilled workers (mainly women).

It is suggested, that the very fine tolerances needed to make sleeve valves work, allowed for zero contamination, but alas the workforce were unable to maintain a policy of zero tolerance…(which is unusual for Liverpudlians)

The Sabre uses the same size sleeves as the Bristol, (probably designed by Halford specifically to use existing sleeves) but when asked, Bristols were reluctant to supply any to Napier.

Whichever way you look at it the sleeve valve engine will lose performance far sooner than a conventional IC engine , because the sleeves wear quicker than a coilsprung valve, exacerbated by ingress of foreign bodies (that’s dirt to you).

The sea fury does sound wonderfull, as does the Blenheim, with regard to the former, you might just have to take my word for it!

I can’t remember the point of reference, but I seem to remember that Andrewsfield had this form of “concrete”, and that because of the unlimited amount of mud, when a dip was encountered, the machine just filled the hole with the “mix”, and carried on; subsequent (postwar) excavation of the runway brought this to light.

I believe the Americans had a machine, that lifted the soil (dirt) and mixed it with cement and water, and laid it all in one go; I did read somewhere, that some of the sections laid, were upto 6ft in depth!