RE: Beaufihghter control column ?

Gary

well here comes ‘Mr Sad’ the anoraks diagnosis! This type of column was fitted to Blenheim and Beaufighters as well as a number of other aircraft types. It would have had a rather nice pneumatic gun button in brass fitted in that hole but I am sure that would have soon be (quite literally!!) a pain in the A*&e!

The yoke was manufactured (or so I think) by Dunlop. Normally it would have had a Dunlop part number, however, the presence of a Dunlop brass gun button and Dunlop patent covering would suggest it was made by them.

I personally think your grip came from a Blenheim as the wheel on the bottom looks similar to a wheel (flap/U/C selector) to be found in the Blenheim.

WEll done with such a nice piece, even though it has been ‘doctored’ I would have been #####-a-hooop if I’d found it

regards

Tony Dyer

>I’ve had this ‘shooting stick’ for some time and thought its
>also about time I found out what it came from originally. I
>aquired it at the Beaulie autojumble a number of years ago,
>marked up for sale as ‘rear gunner’. My initial thoughts are
>that is from a Beaufighter. Clearly stamped on the reverse
>side of the gun button handle is the number B269 in a circle
>and the letters BRIS scribed also. This makes me believe it
>is of Bristol origin. There are four small holes about 10mm
>in diameter spaced around the central hole that have been
>filled in…brake handle mounting holes ??. If any-one can
>confrim that this is indeed from a Beaufighter, could they
>also confirm if the B269 number relates to a part number or
>a specific airframe,(hope so then I can find out the history
>of this ‘stick’….and no, I dont have any plans to part
>with it, its too damn useful at airshows)
>
>I also have to admit that I regard it as sacrilage to chop
>up something like this but saying so I also have to admit
>that it is very comfy to sit on and has a better pedigree
>than most shooting sticks (certainly fired a higher calibre
>round than your average shotgun!!).
>
>Any feedback from the ‘Guru’s out there greatfully accepted.
>
>Cheers
>
>Gary

RE: The best of British

Whattaya mean Neilly? At least it has character! What boring modern jelly mould do you drive?!

8O))

>Hi Ja,
>
>The Spifire I understand, but a Mini? – detestable little
>car!!!
>
>Neilly

RE: Cockpits for Tony D

Hi Jerry

my Pucara nose is 533 which is the famed aircraft that returned to base with 58 hits in the airframe (4 in one engine IIRC). There are photos on the ICC website. I don’t know if you can down load (best ask Mark G!) if not I can email them. I have only a photo of the airframe flight tested at Boscombe Down…not sure it show sthe fuse panel. I also have a few bits including a throttle box from an MB339!

regards

Tony
>
>hi tony
> As I read your post you have a pucara cockpit, any
>chance of the serial number ?
> I have a slight obsession with pucaras I also have a
>very limited budjet ( Wife/kids/cats/dog/mortgage etc etc )
>So all I have is the bomb ? fusing panel from a falkland
>wreck recovered at the time by a mate who was out there ,
>and a rpm indicator maybe pucara maybe aeromacchi ? and a
>few pic’s of wrecked a/c.
> And also a part of a wing ? inspection panel.
> I would be interested in a pic of the cockpit showing
>the location of the fusing panel, as i can find none.
> Pity the a/c was scrapped always strikes me as a
>modern day ‘whirlwind type’of a/c
> Cheers
> Jerry
>
>p.s. my e-mail jerry.brewer@virgin.net

RE: Cockpits

Nope Steve, no tosh there!

>I think a lot of it has to do with the space, time and money
>that people have got available. Restoring a complete
>aircraft, like a Hunter for example, is going to be well
>beyond the capabilities of most people, but a cockpit can be
>restored in your garage.
>
>You’re right – it does lose a lot of the impact that a whole
>aircraft has, but the flip side to the argument is that at
>least these people are doing something to save and preserve
>a small part of our aviation heritage. It’s worth also
>noting that some cockpit sections which have been shown
>pulicly in the past are parts of overall restorations which
>have been aired to give the public an idea of what’s being
>done.
>
>I’d guess also that if the general public were polled and
>asked which part of an aircraft they found most interesting,
>the cockpit area would probably come top, therefore by
>preserving these sections the ‘cockpitters’ are actually
>helping to make the aircraft themselves a bit more
>accessible, IMHO.
>
>TonyD – as our resident cockpitter, please put me straight
>if I’m talking tosh. 🙂

RE: The Prentice at Shuttleworth

Add an Anson Mk 1 and an Oxford to that list Dave and I will be very happy!

>Well Shuttleworth has stated it’a collecting policy to be
>the first hundred years of flight so stopping it’s
>collecting policy pre 1940
>would be seen by most to be premature.
> Regards the Prentice she is very much an ‘unloved’ type
>and I don’t have a problem with her. In the fullness of time
>I would love to see an early BN Islander based there ,a
>Dragon Rapide again and
>there is certainly room for a Proctor. The are many types
>that would only add to the character of Shuttleworth -an
>Auster being a prime example !

RE: Cockpits

Hi Galdri….and don’t worry I do not feel insulted! I will attempt to answer your questions…..See below

When I was a lad, no-one ever let me sit in any aeroplane let alone a Spitfire or Hurricane….I always wondered what they looked like inside and what the pilot had to work with.

I started collecting aeroplane parts (wheels, props and sticks etc) when I was 11 years old. This was fun and (to me) far more fun than making kits or spotting aircraft. It encompassed all the parts of what I enjoyed doing…the hunting for stuff, photography and restoration. I was also able to provide parts to whole aircraft projects even back then.

I wanted to do more so started collecting Hurricane instruments in 1978 with a view to making a panel. It grew from there and is now credited as being one of the survivors and it was/will be made up like a Phoenix from other projects scrap.

Saving a whole aircraft is usually beyond all but few people’s resources and space. A cockpit can be saved more easily and can be kept in the average garage unless you have a Vulcan!

I do not class us as ‘headhunters’. It is extremely rare to find a cockpit that some collector actually chopped off a once complete aircraft. Most come from scrappies and old military units. In the case of scrappies the rest of the airframe pays for the cost of buying and scrapping the plane and the sale of the cockpit gives extra profit.

In many cases, these aircraft would now be less in number so I see cockpit preservationists as adding to the aviation heritage scene. One cockpit I own was the remains of a Swift F7 that had lain in a scrapyard for 30 years and if it had not been saved it would be saucepans by now. It had once been a demonstrater at Farnborough and served a famous flight test career. There are only 6.5 Swifts in the world…should I have let it be scrapped?

My Pucara cockpit is all that the scrappie would let me keep. Again should I have let it be scrapped?

You can get a great insight to the whole aeroplane by having a back up display of photos and models…..to give you some idea, I used to take aeroplane wheels in my displays as a boy, people could relate to them cos wheels are everywhere on cars etc. The model gave scale.

I took a Hunter to a display once and had 200 kids (age 4 to 90) sit in it in just a few hours. Each had a big smile, wanted their photo taken and wanted to know what all the switches were about! All were hugely grateful.

The CockpitFest was my favourite display of the year and I will continue to support it. No-one seemed to think it weird….all were delighted that someone was taking the effort and time to save aviation heritage for future generations. The cockpits allow people who would normally never be able to gain access to the pilot’s office the chance to experience it and dream. Flight is still a wonderful dream for many people and I am keen to give as many access as possible.

To answer Lancman’s point…..doing a panel is fun too…it is like filling an album with 3d stamps only more fun and difficult. However, if the panel will never be viewed or enjoyed by anyone else that is a pity. The chap you sold it to made it happen and finished it. I watched many great grandfathers showing their offspring the instrument panel from the aircraft they flew/flew in/maintained. My Hurricane panel did many displays over the years….if I had a pond for everytime someone pushed the gunbutton I would be a millionaire by now!

Sorry this is such a long reply but maybe it will tell you what makes me and a few others tick!

If that makes me ‘sad’ then so be it….however, Galdri the sheer pleasure I get from showing the young ‘TonyD’s’ of today what cockptis and instrument panels are like is priceless.

Regards

Tony Dyer

PS It would have been kinder if they had buried poor old Lenin.

>I do not mean to insult anybody by writing this, but I’ve
>been wondering for some time now what is so special about
>cockpit restorations?? I was leafing through a fairly new
>Flypast the other day and there was an article about the
>Newwark (spelling???) cockpit fest, where people came to
>show of their restored cockpits. Somehow this all looked
>rather sad to me. It really looked like somekind of a
>head-hunter show, where you could see only the heads of once
>warriors. Maybe this is a cruel verdict, coming from
>someone that is not brought up in the preservation movement
>in the UK. By looking at only the cockpit of an aircraft, I
>feel like I get very limited insight into what this aircraft
>was all about, how did it look, and how big was it, just to
>name a few points. Why not preserve the whole airframe???
>As I understand this hobby a lot of the cockpits come from
>the scrap-man, so why is it not possible to get the whole
>airframe from there, paying scrap value by the pound of
>metal. Once bought, the airframe needs to be sealed to
>prevent moisture from getting inside (fairly easy with
>todays eqipment and materials, I think) and from then on it
>needs a repainting every, lets say, three years. In that
>way you would have a cockpit plus an airframe, and can spend
>your time restoring the cockpit at your leasure, and when
>that is finished you can start adding bits and bobs to the
>airframe if needed. Is this a very naive thinking??? Maybe
>somebody can give me an insight into this hobby here, and
>correct me if this is terribly naive.
>Like I said before, it is not my intention to insult
>anybody, but this hobby just looks a bit strange when looked
>at from my side of the pond. And by the way I´m restoring
>an aircraft my self, so I know perfectly well how time
>consuming it is, so that is not an excuse for my ignorance.
>
>Regards,
>Galdri
>
>P.S. When the Sovets wanted to preserve Lenin for future
>generations, they preserved him as a whole, not just the
>head;-)