dark light

DaveF68

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 901 through 915 (of 1,578 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Royal Navy Lancasters, info required. #1058725
    DaveF68
    Participant

    A slight aside – what is the correct designation for ATDU? I’ve seen the ‘A’ listed as Air, Aircraft, Aerial or Airborne!!

    in reply to: Largest postwar Royal Navy aircraft? #1058775
    DaveF68
    Participant

    I don’t think any photos of the RN Lancasters have turned up (yet) but I have seen pics of RN Wellingtons and Whitleys.

    in reply to: Carrier Conundrum #1058890
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Just trying to imagine the hydrodynamics of a vessell that large!!

    in reply to: Staff Sgt. Richard Hubert Victor Wilson RFC #1058893
    DaveF68
    Participant

    I think the engine is supposed to be an early Gnome – note the 7 cylinders

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome_Omega

    In the CCI book on Nieuports in British service, S/Sgt Wilson is noted as an expert on the Gnome engine – he flew with Capt Loraine on that flight as the latter had reported trouble with his engine on an earlier flight.

    The aircraft was a Nieuport IVG which belonged to Capt Loriane’s brother, Robert, and had not yet been allocated an RFC serial as it was still undergoing acceptance trials.

    This accident was one of a series which led to the War Office banning the Military Wing of the RFC from flying monoplanes.

    in reply to: Largest postwar Royal Navy aircraft? #1059764
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Ohh!

    in reply to: Largest postwar Royal Navy aircraft? #1059872
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Nimrod?

    in reply to: Updated pictures of the Avro York survivor #1060524
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Such a fascinating site – the fact that those wrecks have sat there for so long is just amazing.

    in reply to: I've lost a Bell 47…. #1062497
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Still doesn’t answer where G-ASOL ended up though…

    Probably in a shed somewhere keeping Sabre XB733 company!

    in reply to: Facebook revives 1969 crash. #1062621
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Maybe not as macabre as you expected? Part 3 and finale.

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/taylor-319652-patty-nannes.html

    Indeed not. Interesting story.

    in reply to: The most decorated survivor? #1062805
    DaveF68
    Participant

    http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Markings/Kozhedubs_White27/index.php

    Interesting article from Erik (I’m assuming that’s NII VVS)- I do love your comments on previous interpretations of Soviet colours.

    It is worth noting that the TsKB-19, which was photographed hanging above “27”, disappeared from the TsDAK collection and has never been seen again.

    I wonder if the roof gave way and dropped one on the other…?

    in reply to: UK Museum admission prices, visitor numbers and VAT #1062950
    DaveF68
    Participant

    In the IOM the charity rules don’t require us to have a separate trading company, which simplifies things a bit.

    They don’t have to be in the Uk either, but there are tax reasons for doing so – I’m a trustee of a small charity, and our Treasurer (who is pretty experienced auditor in the charity sector) explained it thus:

    A charity has two main types on income – Donations and Trading Income. Of the trading income, it can be split into Primary Purpose Income and Fundraising Income. Primary purpose trading is where the trading is carried out in furtherance of the charity’s objects (e.g. admission fees to the Museum?). Any trading which is not directly related to the Charity’s aims is fundraising income. Profits from this can be liable to tax if total income exceeds a certain % of the charity’s overall income.

    By having a separate, but wholly owned trading company, it’s profits are subject to tax on their own, and the contribution to the Charity is a donation towards primary purpose. That way, the income can be kept below taxable level for both.

    That’s a simplistic view, and whole books have been written on the subject, but that’s the main reason for having the separate company.

    in reply to: RAFM Ki-100 back to Cosford #1063820
    DaveF68
    Participant

    It gets stranger and stranger maybe the meteor was moved to make way for the EAP but it seems an odd trade.

    Maybe the KI100 is better at Cosford but moving it to make way for another replica seems like a waste of resources I mean when Hendon took on the eurofighter model they knew they were getting a real one sooner or later can’t see the same happening for the F35 for a very very long time if at all.

    Curlyboy

    Although the RAF might not have much use for the VSTOL one they have on order……

    In someways, DG202 is one of the most appropriate aircraft for Milestones of Flight – far more significant than the Ki100, and makes an interesting comparison with the 262. Short of dusting down the Whittle from the Science Museum, there is no earlier British jet.

    in reply to: Facebook revives 1969 crash. #1063984
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Thanks Dave. Part 2 below, part 3 tomorrow.

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/patty-319530-aunt-kristen.html

    And pieces of the airplane weren’t the only things scattered about in the melting snow.

    I can see where this is going….

    Be interested to hear about the Facebook side of things – does seem a bizarre way to go about it.

    in reply to: I've lost a Bell 47…. #1064521
    DaveF68
    Participant

    Has it ever had a positive location since being withdrawn from use ( in 1983 according to G-INFO)?

    in reply to: Facebook revives 1969 crash. #1064524
    DaveF68
    Participant

    But the crash is genuine although it is recorded as a C-49.

    http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19690218-1

    Which was the designation given to impressed DC-3s so this was an ex-civillian (NC30052) ex-military aircraft

Viewing 15 posts - 901 through 915 (of 1,578 total)