Sky DancerHi TT,
Can’t tie down the serial number, but in that timeframe it (technically) would have been a Tempest VI.
Colour scheme in that timeframe should still be the wartime dark green/ocean grey/medium sea grey colour scheme, with a sky tail band and wartime Type “C” national markings. The overall silver scheme was introduced in late 1947.
This is only very generalised info – for specifics, Chris Thomas is one of the Typhoon/Tempest experts and I am sure he will be able to tie down a serial number, individual code letter (“JV” was 6 Squadron’s code) etc.
Think he used to be on here, he is certainly active on the Britmodeller forum.
Sky DancerI’m afraid BARG folded a few years ago. Another spotting forum, Scramble, which is run by the Dutch Aviation Society, released most of the BARG magazines on a CD format – I am pretty sure that most of the early editions covering the 1980’s sold out very quickly.
I think that your best hope for getting the information you require may be to join the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe) and post your question on the Military Aviation section. There are several Tornado pilots on that forum, and I am pretty sure that there is at least one, maybe two, Canberra pilots who served on 360 Squadron.
Hope that helps, wish you the best of luck in your quest.
Sky DancerIt’s a Miles Master Mk.I?
Sky DancerVega,
Apologies – was just checking for pics on this subject. The single finned Halifax was PN323 – this had no engines. Apologies for the false steer.
Like Ant.H, I remember the photo – I think it was in the reader’s letters section of Aeroplane Monthly, but cannot be certain. Think it was photographed at one of the Schools of Technical Training?
Sky DancerMaybe not what you are looking for, but the only twin-engined Halifax that I am aware of was one used for some sort of radio trials or ground instruction. However, this was fitted with a single large tailfin.
There were a few photos of it out in internet land somewhere, but typically I cannot find them.
Sorry!
Sky DancerHi again Jack,
Sorry for the late reply to your late reply! Hope things went okay at Hurn.
Re. your queries:-
1. If a Constable is using search powers under Sect.43(1) TACT, then YES – they must have a reasonable suspicion.
If a Constable is using search powers under Sect. 43(2) TACT, then NO – no requirement to have reasonable suspicion, as person will already have been arrested.
If a Constable is using stop/search powers under Sect.47A TACT, then NO – they do not require a reasonable suspicion – although Codes of Practice recommend only using Sect.47A powers if the threshold of “reasonable suspicion” cannot be met.
2. Yes, a Constable can examine digital images on camera or mobile phone.
3. No, a Constable cannot delete any images or require you to delete them.
Sect. 47A TACT is legislation to cover a “last resort”, e.g. Police have received information that “Location A” is going to be subject to a terrorist attack. If Sect.47 is authorised, this empowers Police to search anybody, and everybody, within a defined geographical area, in a specific timeframe, to prevent this attack without the need for Police to have a reasonable suspicion against every single individual.
It would be rare for Sect. 47A to have any effect on us aviation enthusiasts, unless the intended target was an airport.
The phrase “reasonable suspicion” is the one that will cause most angst and challenge, just being in a certain area does not make you a terrorist, it should/could be based on information received, your behaviour/demeanor etc.
Sky DancerJack,
Re posts 18 &25, with all due respect – if you are going to pick a fight with the boys in blue, make sure your “legal training” is up to date!!:)
Sect. 44 was repealed in 2012 & Sect. 43 was amended at the same time, both by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Sect.43 Terrorism Act:-
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261309[/ATTACH]
Sect. 44 Terrorism Act replaced by Sections 60 & 61 of the Protection of Freedoms Act:-
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261310[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261311[/ATTACH]
Happy hunting!!
Sky DancerThe USAAF used the F-6C/D/K for tactical reconnaissance, and these always retained “fighter” camouflage – whether it was olive drab or natural metal.
They used the F-5 (PR version of the P-38), Spitfire and Mosquito for strategic reconnaissance and these were painted in “Haze” scheme for F-5 (but this gave way to PRU blue), the Spitfire and Mosquito retained their RAF PRU blue colour schemes (although the USAAF Spitfires changed to natural metal late in the war)
Some of the USAAF tactical reconnaissance squadrons were very aggressive – the airfield attack scene (which was a real mission) in the film “Empire of the Sun” features Mustangs based on the 118th Tactical Reconaissance Squadron, which only had a handful of F-6’s, most of the squadron being normal P-51’s.
Sky DancerHi,
It was definitely their weapon of choice in Northern Ireland, but not sure what Lynx crews carried in Iraq and Afghanistan – Apache crews seemed to carry the L22A1/L22A2 (but that was unavailable when Northern Ireland was “in progress”)
Sky DancerHi,
Think its for the HK53/L101A1, muzzle down.
Sky DancerHi there,
This painting seems to be of G-ATHD/WP971 as it looks now.
This Chippie is painted silver (which would have been correct for the 1950’s). Airframe would have been silver, the bands would have been “Cambridge Blue” – I’m afraid I don’t know the British Standard BS381 code for this.
There was some debate both here and on PPRuNe about Chipmunk colours a while ago.
Here is the link to a PPRuNe debate:-
https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/491287-paint-scheme-dhc-1-chipmunk-3.html
It should have some colour photo’s of G-ATHD towards the end of the thread.
Here is a link to a thread here:-
https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135967-A-really-odd-RAF-Chipmunk
Unfortunately, the “Curse of Photobucket” has struck.
The thread ” A really odd RAF Chipmunk” listed here was also being debated on PPRuNe, and I think it was also on Britmodeller (a modelling site)
There was definitely some debate on one of these three Forums concerning the markings shown on G-ATHD/WP971 – with at least one poster stating that while the fuselage band was blue, the wings bands should have been yellow. IIRC, it was stated by someone that the wing bands of RAF College aircraft were never blue, until someone produced a photo of an RAFC Kirby Cadet with blue wing bands….. (think it might have been on here actually?)
There was also some debate concerning a film taken at Cranwell in the 1950’s which appeared to suggest that the wing bands were blue too, but I’m not certain of this.
Of course, the painting by Chris French may be intended to show how G-ATHD looks now, rather than being a historically accurate scheme. I think the white canopy frame only came into use with the Light Aircraft Grey/Dayglo scheme rather than the silver scheme.
Hope that helps,
SD
Sky DancerScotavia,
I’m afraid I am not a firefighter – I’m nowhere near brave enough!!
Moggy,
As far as I am aware Beaufort and Ballyclare are separate companies:-
RFD Beaufort – Commercial division is listed at Kingsway, Dunmurry, Belfast BT17 9AF.
IIRC, they also have premises at Birkenhead.
They are part of the Survitec Group. Interestingly, photos on their website show some very high tech flying clothing; photos are taken at Newtownards airfield in Co. Down!
Ballyclare Special Products Ltd. – address was 44, Ballynure Road, Ballyclare, Co. Antrim – not sure if they are still there?
Ballyclare’s website states about their current aircrew flame retardant coverall, which appears to be a MK.16, – “NOMEX® brand fibre cannot be washed or worn away; as proved by durability tests which showed no deterioration of performance or durability (fabric strength, dimensional stability, and appearance)… even after 200 washes*.”
While this may be true of the current design and materials, the same may not apply to older versions. Another reason not to buy obsolete ex-military kit….
Our suits (which gave far superior protection than a MK.16) were dumped, compulsorily, after 25 washes, whether they were damaged or not…..
I should point out that I am in no way linked to either company; I just want to ensure than people are not lulled into a false sense of security by buying second hand kit (with an unknown history) that has been discarded by the military.
Sky DancerHi Folks,
It’s not often that I am moved to reply to a thread, but this is one of those rare occasions.
Firstly, thoughts are with the pilot and his family.
Secondly, I may be able to add some info that may be of benefit.
Back in the early 1980’s I had to opportunity to log some hours in Bulldogs, and very agreeable it was. At that stage the Mk.14A aircrew coverall/flying suit/grow-bag was starting to become widespread issue. One article I read in “Air Clues” really struck a cord with me, and was an article on the Mk.14A flying suit and compared it to its predecessor, the Mk.11. Very alarmingly, it was stated that in tests the Mk.11 suit had shown resistance to fire for 1.3 seconds.
The new, super-duper Mk.14A, the RAF’s first NOMEX suit, lasted 3.2 seconds.
A flying career was not to be, ending up in a different line of work. This later led to me wearing a one-piece, fire resistant coverall, and very comfortable it was too. It was a double layer garment, consisting of Gortex inner layer and a Nomex outer layer – specifically designed to repel flaming fluids. It was stated as being resistant to fire for between 8 and 10 seconds, if worn with the compulsory long sleeved top and bottoms, which I wore religiously.
On one occasion a colleague and I became engulfed in a fire ball which literally burnt the suit off him. His body armour saved him from injury, but I received minor burns even though my suit remained relatively intact.
At the time, our suits were regarded as being state of the art. I tried to obtain some Nomex thread from our supply people to repair small rips etc. in the field when deployed, and was given a small 7 inch length of nomex thread which was stated to be worth about £12.
Having worn Mk.14 flying suits for about 3 years, and more advanced FR clothing for many years I would make the following points:-
1. Aircrew flying suits are not as protective as you think. They are definitely not stitched together with Nomex thread.
2. Wearing at least two layers of clothing is ESSENTIAL, i.e. a fire resistant outer, and a fire resistant underlayer too. I was wearing a full cotton underlayer when I burned, and will NEVER wear a cotton underlayer again. There are plenty of companies out there who produce tactical clothing, and offer Nomex underclothes (long sleeved shirt, bottoms, undies & even socks – all in a light weight to prevent dehydration). This is definitely the way to go.
3. Never purchase a used, ex-military flying suit. It has been disposed off for a reason – it is obsolete. The original Mk.14/Mk.14A/Mk.14B was made of Nomex, later versions like the Mk.16 were made of, I believe of Nomex III, a more modern, improved material. (I don’t know which fabric the new FACS in made off)
Beaufort & Ballyclare, who produced the Mk.16 suits for the RAF, do the same suit in navy blue and black, which I believe offers a smart appearance, giving you a degree of fire protection (if worn with suitable underclothes) without making the wearer appear a total Walt like wearing a used, worn out, green ex-military suit would.
A U.S. company, Gibson & Barnes, produce suits in the U.S. military CWU-27 style, in a wide variety of colours. Just be aware than Nomex is available in three weights, and the lightest weight should be immediately ignored unless you intend to fly in the Middle East.
All this sounds expensive, and it is, but what price do you put on your own safety?
Sky DancerFolks,
Just a quick query, as I seem to be missing something, but surely the identity of the unfortunate pilot could have been established by his ID discs/’dog tags’.
Despite his catastrophic head injury, they should still have been in position – assuming he had been wearing them. Bearing in mind that he was in combat, I can see no good reason for not wearing them.
Would the recovery crew have been so lax as not to check? I seriously doubt it.
I am reminded of the case of Machinist Mate (Gunner) 2nd Class Loyce Deen of VT-8, who was buried at sea in his TBM, after receiving a similar injury in combat. Despite the squadron knowing who was in the crew, and the pilot being able being able to identify who his gunner was, they still fingerprinted Loyce Deen before burying him at sea.
Just my viewpoint…
Sky DancerFolks,
Thanks for posting this – first time I’d seen a close-up of this.
For what it’s worth, my interpretion of these of markings, from top left:-
1. “Cat” design – 74 Sqn RAF ‘zap’
2. Large sponsor design
3. ‘Noddy” zap
4. French Sqn badge
5. Lynx head and dagger – 13 Sqn RAF ‘zap’
6. RNZAF ‘zap’
7. Large “M” zap
8. RAAF stencil
9. “C” Flight, 60 Sqn RAF stencil
I think designs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 would have been applied using fluorescent orange tape/sheets.
Now my main question – can anyone identify design 7, the large “M” shaped zap?
It possibly looks like a marshaller, with ‘paddles’ – was this from an aircraft servicing flight? Any ideas?
Sign In
