dark light

powerandpassion

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,241 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Are these from a Mossie???? #840108
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Definitely Mossie, see similar at https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?139695-Historic-Aviation-Metallurgy-Exhausts&highlight=

    Your part numbers are overstamped, in a way that would have taken a lot of effort. Somebody did not want these used in the application.
    Yours is Inconel with carbon steel flange, made in Canada. I wonder if these were dropping off in service as the carbon steel rusted away, and were later replaced with Staybrite bodies and flanges, as per the Exhaust thread second sample. Somewhere will be a maintenance Amendment note for two stage Merlins saying Inconel/carbon flange stubs to be replaced with 100% Staybrite in the 1950’s….

    in reply to: 1930's metal protection processes #773683
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Do you know where US QQ standards are listed ? I have many historical standards that reference QQ substitutions for UK materials but no QQ to look at…

    in reply to: 1930's metal protection processes #773687
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Ohhhh

    Dave, that link to Dstan is amaaazing…

    in reply to: 1930's metal protection processes #773697
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Vega et al, great explanations of some of these processes, thank you. I think DTD 904 is part of another batch of 1000’s of material standards recently digitized that will be uploaded in the next month or so.

    I am sure some of these chemicals can melt your lungs…

    in reply to: Help ID Oil Tank? Lincoln? #773699
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    This is blatant, koala bashing, anti antipodeanism ! Australia did operate an A.I.D. There are numerous documents and logbooks in the ANAM Moorabbin Archives (in the state of Victoria, which Queen Victoria was named after) attesting to this fact, so the oil tank may be of Australian origin. I have no idea if it is a Lincoln tank. It may be a long range oil tank as similar ‘custom’ tanks were fitted to PR41 Mosquitos to extend range. I am off to feed some gum leaves to the koalas to try and calm them down ! A.I.D. British, strewth ! Now you are going to tell me the UK invented the Spitfire.*

    *rebadged Heinkel!

    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Good news, certainly helps with engineering heft behind the United Kingdom Mosquito, great that they were saved from the bulldozer. I wonder if there are weird things like DH108 in the mix.
    Aperture cards need an aperture card reader, ideally straight to digital. ANAM Moorabbin Archives have hundreds of thousand of CAC drawings on Aperture card scheduled for digitisation, I would be interested to see how these DH drawings are digitised or if anybody has insight into Aperture to digital methods.

    in reply to: Sískin #783435
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Great display. I presume all the bottles of whiskey in front of the cabinet are for punters to sit down on a comfortable couch, pour a snifter and study the display ! Good museum initiative !

    in reply to: Mosquito throttle materials #783437
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Thanks Jimbo !

    in reply to: Mosquito throttle materials #783886
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    AM, great images and yes indeed, a Mosquito throttle box conversation is always a good meal, particularly with a pint ! Nicko, your photos are brilliant, because they show the unique, twin lever mixture controls/ cutoff used only on the Australian built PR41. These are a feature of the Packard Merlin V1650-3-7 (renamed Merlin 69 when fitted with a SBAC instead of SAE prop shaft). These run from 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock on the throttle box, while every other type runs through a shorter distance, if there is a mixture control at all. Your photo is the end of a journey that started with finding these twin teleflex type controls in the bottom of a box of scrap, stamped with a 98 part number but absolutely no literature anywhere to show what they were. It took years to find out what they were, and all this time your photo was there ! The same teleflex control is used for High Power-Low Power control on the Meteor, so the Australian built PR41 was the duck’s nuts in latest available technology ! There were about 8 of these controls in the bottom of the box, which I finally learnt had been pulled out in Tocumwal in 1957, probably in anticipation of farmers wanting a tractor control. Tocumwal is where the last of the Australian Mosquitos, all PR41’s from 87 Survey Squadron, were retired to in 1953 and finally scrapped and burnt in 1957. So what we have here is in fact 8 PR41 Mosquito projects for rebuilding !

    in reply to: Mosquito TPM new build in Uk discussion link #784862
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    I grew up with the story of Johnny Appleseed – I think the CIA in the mid 70’s must have printed a few million of these books and parachuted them over Laos to convert Commies into right thinking people, and the pilot was rolling a joint and just carried on to drop these books over Australia. Anyway, in Johnny Appleseed, this guy with a pot on his head goes around the frontier planting apple seeds, so eventually good folks like the Waltons and the babes in Little House on the Prairie got to make apple pies. God, Guns and Apple Pies. Johnny Appleseed did a lot of walkin’ and plantin’ before the apple pies appeared, though. But he did. He walked, the sonofabitch! He didn’t do feasibility studies, budgets, he just put a pot on his head and walked out with a bag of seeds. This is the American way, and so far it’s got them to the moon.
    So due to Johnny Appleseed and the CIA messin’ with my head in the 70’s, I got this Ameri-Thort in my head. So what the TPM, which sounds like a North Korean initiative, want, is an Apple Pie, a Mosquito. What would Johnny do? He would jes walk out and start planting seeds. It would take a while, but an Apple Pie would be.

    Now Ameri-Thort does not understand British Thinking. BT is based on a see-saw. On one end is an eccentric, on the other end is a civil servant. You need both to make the wibble-wobble magic work. If you only have the eccentric, you get fabulous chaos. If you want an apple pie you get a mess of flour mixed with acorns and absinthe. If you only have the civil servant, you get delay and paperwork. If you want an apple pie you get feasibility studies, proper budgets, lists or prerequisites and no actual baking.

    Now of course Ameri-Thort originated in BT, but was modified by Lutheran Germans, mad Scots, excitable Sicilians, Adventuring French and Spaniards and Hungry Polaks and Irish. You can never re-inject this mess back into Great Britain, it won’t work. You have to go back to the see-saw, and see that it is properly loaded.

    So what I am sensing is too much civil servant and not enough eccentric. Lots of moaning, lots of infatuation with prerequisites, no baking.
    You don’t need money, that’s not the problem. For the last ten years the EU has been printing Euros and the US has been printing greenbacks and there is too much money in the world. It is getting duck shoved into all sorts of exotic crap far weirder and ultimately crueler to our children than a flying Mosquito project. You just need to start jumping and catch some of it as it flutters by, before the printing presses close.

    Start being eccentric again, doing crazy things, feeling the bit of the civil servant in your teeth as you drag him along.
    Want to see a flying Mosquito in the UK?
    Just pay for a little flap actuating hydraulic cylinder mounting bracket and send it in to TPM, put a pot on your head and do a Johnny Appleseed. From little things, big things grow.
    There are 20,000 parts in a Mosquito, just cover one, or five, if you can.
    Get the see-saw wibble-wobbling, get momentum, catch some of the fluttering notes along the way.

    I must say I am not happy with a Commie, Kim Jong Il sounding thing like the ‘TPM’ though, Johnny would have his doubts.
    Just call it the UK Mosquito, the United Kingdom Mosquito, that will do it.

    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Google has come up with a set of ‘transparent’ googles that allow the display of computer generated simulations next to real life objects. So you GPS locate your bomber on the museum floor and have a GPS tracker on the goggles the punter is wearing. You then film a real life actor against a blue screen, say man-handling a .50 cal. You then ‘place’ that ‘virtual’ actor in the crew station of the bomber, so as the punter walks around to the crew station, they see the 3D ‘actor’ shooting out the door of the bomber or turret. GPS location as well as other sensors allow you to view the virtual image as a ‘real life’ image, without bumping into the bollards, which you can still see. The punter then turns around and sees a fighter plane swooping down on the bomber, while the googles provide sound affects. Far less complex would be to walk around the bomber and see the crew strapping on chutes at the base of the crew ladder, ribbing each other, and for effect, making the virtual crew semi transparent, ghost like. So you would be able to see how young the crew were, and connect with their story, rather than seeing antiquated,cold machinery. As the crew get ready, a ‘plane’ or screen could hover in the air over them, showing black and white footage, or you might actually climb into a crew station and ‘look down’, 25,000 feet below.

    These goggles and technology already exist, so it is entirely possible. It would require compelling direction and story telling, so talented, creative people would be required to make the technology sing. You could do this with only one aircraft, because the possibilities to weave magic and changing content around the one object are almost limitless. I would like to walk into such a Museum one day, soon.

    I am also a fan of mini Museums, as much as Grand Museums. Grand Museums are of course mandatory, but mini Museums often result in the richest, most delightful experience. By this I mean the private, small collection of some eccentric, in a hidden pocket of the world. A John Smith of Mapua or a Lincoln Nitschke of the Barossa. Because it is small and because it is curated by a selfless eccentric, you are often allowed to sit in the cockpit, and get one on one explanations, while in the Grand Museum you must stand bowed at a distance, glared at by guards who might know very little about the topic. The tendency of the Grand Museum is to dismiss the mini Museum as ‘unprofessional’, and, on the wings of institutional arrogance, expect to absorb the contents of the mini Museum into the black hole of its stores.

    I would like to see a different model, where the contents of the mini Museums are aggregated only onto a website, so you can plan a Noddy trip in your Noddy car across strange landscapes, to see extraordinary things in extraordinary places curated by selfless eccentrics. The objects stay scattered, but are made more accessible in the virtual sense. In return some of the budget of the Grand Museum is dissipated to the mini Museum network, where one dollar does the work of four, to ensure roofs do not leak. The Grand Museum will resist this, of course. But I would like to walk into one Grand Museum, one day, driven by a management alive to the possibility of networking with the surrounding geography of mini Museums, so that it becomes not one site, but many. In the end, as the selfless eccentrics die out, their precious objects may flow into the Grand Museum, because it is an empathetic space, but this is not mistaken for ONE SITE. In other words a precious Spitfire can pass into public ownership when an original custodian dies, get a grease and oil change in the Grand Museum, then get passed onto a mini Museum within a network. So an energetic, reaching, friendly octopus Museum, with a Grand Head, and many tentacles, with maybe a single Spitfire placed for a few years in a country town with a long dead pilot son’s name inscribed on a memorial in the town square.

    Also the self same wonderful Grand Museum working with the taxation authorities to generate a tax effective Gifting Program, so asset rich, cashflow poor eccentrics who saved scrap a lifetime ago have a financially attractive exit option that also delivers public ownership. Even a Grand Museum might not have millions available to transfer a private asset into public ownership, and a man with not much time left might not be able to find a ready and generous buyer to perform this function. So you find a big Corporate who must pay tax and under the Gifting Program the Corporate is able to purchase the asset and Gift it to the Grand Museum in a tax effective way. In other words, they were due to pay $1 of tax, but they instead pay the $1 to the old eccentric (tax free income to him) and are able to claim a tax deduction of $2. It is a no brainer for the Corporate and would make for positive press. This is a rort, but a rort that delivers unique, historical artifacts into public ownership. The rort can be controlled by limiting the amount that can be Gifted/claimed, say $10 million. It would not be used that often, as the combination of rare aircraft, exiting eccentrics and Corporates with tax obligations and community or historical mindedness would not occur often enough to seriously hurt the public purse. So what I am after is a Museum sensitive to the inter generational transfer of unique, historical objects, that doesn’t put all the acid on the selfless eccentric to be guilted into donating his assets for free and burning his childrens’ inheritance.

    Also one that is not a black hole, an aggregator and storehouse, that seeks to create relationships and a national network of displays, that might put a Spitfire in a shopping centre with a table of Google 3D glasses around it, and see the chewing gum filled jaws of some hitherto ignorant teenager slow down and go slack as they watch a Messerschmitt dive on them from the sky…

    in reply to: Mosquito TPM new build in Uk discussion link #785602
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    TPM are great because part of the process of educating the public about the achievement of the Mosquito in 2017 is exemplifying to a new audience the negativity and discouragement that de Havillands met when they first proposed the design seventy odd years ago! The re-enactors of Air Ministry doubt and discouragement are very convincing ! But I think TPM have now spent enough money employing Air Ministry re-enactors, popping them into social media like the Russian government trolling the world. It’s been great, really dismal !! Good show ! I am convinced the aircraft will never work and never fly and is a waste of effort. Now let the engineering re-enactors have a go. Give me a Geoffrey de Havilland re-enactor with stern countenance and beetling eyebrows surrounded by a table of urgent, sleepless, smoking men, plans and sketches and calculus strewn about. What can I do to help ?

    in reply to: Mosquito dataplate & constructor numbers #785745
    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Nicko,
    Thank you for the great info on Vampires and pictures of dataplates.
    I concur that the DHP stamp is not linked in any way to the UK – a owe it to the scholarship of the late John Hopton in Australia who corrected me that it in fact stood for De Havilland Proprietary, the term ‘Proprietary’ describing a term for an Australian business entity more familiar to the world in the example of the mining company BHP – Broken Hill Proprietary.
    Hopton also had pictures of Mosquito production at Bankstown which showed, in numerous example, the painted code MNXXX (Machine Number XXX) painted on the fuselage under the canopy. The painted MN number could then be matched to the painted RAAF serial on the same fuselage within the series of photos, supporting a list generated by Hopton matching MNs to RAAF IDs. Hopton had the advantage of speaking with folk who were there in the day.

    I have been to HARS and their Archives are both magnificent and accessible, with volunteers only too keen to help.

    After all this time I would posit that the Vampire dataplate was a postwar DH/DHP practice, and the Mosquito had no singular dataplate carrying a constructor or service identity.
    So no dataplate new build Mosquitos ! You have to start with something else, like Guy Gibson’s instrument panel clock, with attestations from the ebay seller !

    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Cheetah into Air Compressor

    The engine that was converted into an air compressor reveals its ingenious conversion secrets. Each piston was drilled to accept a bolted disc on top of the piston crown, to radically increase the compression. Each exhaust valve was replaced with a one way diaphragm type valve, which actually made for a quite efficient, high capacity air compressor. It is a wonderful example of turning a ‘sword into a ploughshear’. Unfortunately, a new set of pistons are required !

    powerandpassion
    Participant

    Not twins

    A number of Cheetah IX and X engines and remains lifted from the mud have been disassembled to generate enough material for a test and control engine. The Armstrong Siddeley technical manuals say the guts of the IX and X are the same. But in respect of the crankshaft and reduction gearbox they are most definitely not. Forward of the throws the prop shaft is quite different and the various bits and bobs that fit to it are different. Of course the accessory drives at the rear are different between the two so probably only the crankcase and cylinders offer any opportunity for mutual donor material. Below is a picture of the respective, marked crankshafts and reduction cases.

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,241 total)