I too agree with WebPilot. Don’t see the relevance of an Ardvark in what is, essentially, an RAF Museum – albeit a Cold War one.
And yet, the very same museum saw fit to get rid of the only complete surviving example of one of the RAF’s unsung nuclear bombers. An aicraft that stood nuclear QRA during the years at the height of the Cold War. An aircraft that shouldered the UK’s nuclear response stance while the V force was working up. I think Cosford’s policy decisions must be made by people with degrees in social or business studies and little empathy with the significance of certain military hardware from the UK’s recent past.
I’ll leave you all to guess the aircraft I mean.
.
Is it going to remain ‘grey’ for weather-protection purposes, although Gannets were never grey. This one should be silver with yellow training bands, or could possibly have been in the standard Gannet scheme of extra dark sea grey top and Sky Type S (duck egg green) undersides?
Albert, as I understand it, as an interested bystander, the scheme replicates as far as possible that which the Navy left it in. It is only on loan to MAM I believe and in the absence of cogent Navy wishes (or help) MAM are putting a “weather-protection” coat on it (as you correctly surmised).
And it really needed it Albert, ’twas a bit of a mess externally, scruffy with dings and dents – even more so in the cockpit and crew areas (some green mould etc). MAM know the thing should be silver really but at this stage, I’ve heard, they haven’t the time and manpower to produce a good enough silver paint finish. A silver paint scheme is very easy to get wrong unless there are good spray-bay and drying facilities, silver looks really naff if brushed or rollered on.
The idea of duck-egg green and dark grey was broached generally, not least by myself, but I understand no suitable (and readily available in sufficiency) paint could be uncovered within the resources afforded. Personally I would have liked to see it in those colours as that’s the way I “remember” Gannets, but it’s not to be at this time. If nothing else, MAM’s Gannet will have a “make-over” (as with the Hunter lately) which, hopefully, will see it through the next couple of years.
My own thoughts are that this airframe seems to be a lower priority than the Argosy in resource and manpower terms. I guess they have to slice their bread accordingly.
.
bloodnok
Yes, know that site. Have previously submitted some details to him for his Canberra listing.
.
The anti-det mix used on WF922 at MAM – (the PR.3 Canberra – remember?) – consists of 80% WD-40 to 20% cheap motor oil (Tesco’s type). This seems to work admirably.
This smidgen of gen comes from a series of ‘Thoughts’ in a new article by Malc about setting up and looking after static display aircraft. This is due to go public on my web site on Wednesday. 😉
wv838.
Wouldn’t recommend too much use of that power-wash thing. Apart from the jet being abrasive it can force water into cracks and crevices like nothing else.
.
As for your comments Les – the BP can be moved -.
Fully understand that, don’t think we need to get into moving detail here. But yes I know it is possible to move it, a TallBoy crane hired for the day would also do the job. However, the method and timing of any move are, in my view, the responsibility of MAM. I suspect, such an event would be conditional on funds and available space.
that MAM’s amateur effort back in 1973 saved her to begin with. I am passionate about the type and those who appreciate Britain’s delta aircraft should note her part in it all.
It’s my view that if those early “enthusiasts” at MAM had not managed to get the BP away from Cranfield it would not be on public display today. It would, no doubt, be subject to one of this forum’s Scrapyard threads with people exclaiming loudly when bits of it were uncovered under other scrap. As a country we do not appreciate enough our past in terms of aircraft history.
So, on reflection it was maybe a tad churlish of me to write what I did. But this, and other airframes, have been the subject of many words over many years by many people, and yet . . . the state of most of those airframes remains the same. Must be a reason for that. Maybe it’s space, maybe it’s money, but I somehow doubt it’s complacency.
.
Thursday Rob. “New” hyd bits being fitted in 922’s airbrakes system, that and to see the progress on the Gannet.
😉
TMN
That first pic in the lane is crying out for a Caption Competion.
:rolleyes:
DavidB, you are, I guess, pretty well know in preservation circles and rightly post here a lot of good gen. In the case of MAM’s BP P.111A, you have been given background, in this thread and previously, regarding the disposition and thinking of the museum’s directors.
Essentially, as I understand it, they know of the predicament and are working on a solution. Suggest that you get personnally involved at MAM, lend your expertise and, maybe, some funds towards having the ‘frame moved.
If you feel you cannot . . .then live with it.
.
…….would have been the perfect and relatively cost effective replacement for the soon to retire Canberra PR.9’s……..
Uh . . . ???
.
. . . but its not in display condition it is a shame someone could not restore it.
I understand it’s a spares asset, the USAF dismantled it for delivery, with a chainsaw. Doubt it will ever go together again.
.
PL
Excellent pix. Handy wide-angles in 922’s cockpit, don’t have that wide for my kit . . . yet! 😉 Hear you had a good visit. Great crowd aren’t they?
Curly
Which F-4?
Here’s both of them for you.
Chris
Outstanding work on 163. Staggering the amount of hassle you’ve all been through to get to this stage, but I’m sure you consider it worthwhile. I’ve no doubt the CAA will too. Hope you don’t have the same CAA trouble with the Blue One.
Rob
Unfortunately only one of 922’s Avons would spool up, the other is pretty much solid. But you’re right the other systems work, well . . . don’t know about the undercarriage, haven’t checked that for some reason. :rolleyes:
DaveJ
Had a bit of a crash here, lost your last if you can recall it. Re-send possible?
.
1954 Hunters, both engines, suffered instability, which was fixed, and Aden efflux blanking intakes. That was fixed by Sabrinas – only the very old understand this.
Thought the Sabrinas were cartridge collectors to prevent ejectants entering the intakes. They are certainly not an aerodynamic device. Unless that’s what you mean by Aden efflux. And yes, I’m very old and remember Sabrina as a lady who would never fall flat on her face.
.
Point stays the same though. There’s a difference between ‘zapping’ another unit with a fly-by-night paint-job and the unit painting a ‘secret disgrace’ marking on its own machines… Who would do it and why? Clearly they wouldn’t. Hence my attitude.
Totaly agree. No squadron I know of would willingly apply such markings to their aircraft indicating some past “disgrace”. Just wouldn’t happen.
‘Zapping’ on the other hand is (or was) widespread but in my recollection (and sometime use 😉 ) was never used to point out any dark secret. Was always humourous, sometimes very pointedly so, see here, but never malicious.
.
What a load of tosh is being circulated by some here.
So it would certainly seem.
I’ve yet to see any attempt to explain who would be responsible for adding ‘yellow’ to a unit’s badge, . . .
The subject of the thread is a squadron’s markings, not the badge. Completely different thing altogether.
.