hypersonicHaving mentioned this system, in my thread dated 30 Jan 24 – BBMF Flying Hour Totals. I didn’t expect to be talking about its actual use, in another thread, a few days later!
However, Dosman I note you are a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS). I’m a Member – could they help, in some way? By publishing your requirements/request for assistance.
Your RAeS membership gives you access to the National Aerospace Library either online or by personal visit. The library holds many books, documents and research papers. The RAeS HQ can get you access. Might be worth a try. ARC at Duxford might be another possible help – maybe they have copies in the bottom of a drawer in a filing cabinet. There are of course other warbird restoration companies out there. Finally, the AERADE database at Cranfield Uni might also be able to assist – if you haven’t already tried of course. I put “ARC R&M 1826” into the search facility and it through up 3500 documents. However, I don’t have a log-in so that was far as I could go.
The Aeronautical Research Council (ARC) closed down in 1945, I believe, so these specialist documents are going to be very difficult to track down I’m afraid.
Going forward I wish you well.
hypersonicThe Hurricanes LF363 and PZ865 are quite similar in age and as can be seen have very similar TT figures. Following the crash landing, of LF363 on 11 Sep 91, it spent 7 years on the ground awaiting and undergoing CAT 4 repair.
If you were to wind the clock “back”. By how much would you wind it back? To zero?
If so in the following 25 years, from return to service, (29 Sep 98) it has flown just over 122 FH per year – somewhat above the 100 FH annual limit.
I haven’t asked but I would draw the conclusion that the clock was simply paused. In my experience engines do tend to be zero hour following major maintenance/overhaul. But airframes don’t. Sometimes airframes have their Fatigue Index (FI) re-calculated but that is based on monitoring equipment data. At the time no such data was available.
As a matter of interest PZ865 was fitted with a system called Hurricane Load Assessment (HuLA) system. This aircraft has 96 strain gauges installed across the airframe all connected to a data logger. The system was installed just prior to May 21.
A few years ago, I was heavily involved in the CAT 4 repair of a Chinook helicopter. We didn’t wind the clock back on that as part of the process.
As far as the Dakota is concerned. It was used by the Canadian AF before being placed on the UK MAR in 1969. It was then used for trails until 1992 and joined the BBMF in Mar 93. Its low TT is probably due to its lack of “commercial” use.
hypersonicNow for the science bit…
If Mr Gillespie is serious about the location of Amelia and Fred – then where is his evidence?
I’m sure the surviving relatives, of the crew, would have been very happy to provide DNA samples. For him/or a specialist working with him to carryout a DNA check against the human faeces and bones he claims to have found in the past. You can’t argue with real science!!
I think the latest “sighting” is more likely to be correct than anything he has come up with thus far. But we must be respectful – what has been found may well be their final resting place.
hypersonicThanks for the link 1batfastard. You are quite right the owners have refused to maintain the hangar(s). Despite being warned by the local authority.
When former historic airfields are developed the history can be retained the former Filton site near Bristol is a case in point. Filton has listed hangars which will feature in the development of that site.
As many of this forum readers know I’m a strong advocate of the future use of the Scampton site. Where its listed infrastructure is currently at serious risk of loss. When development has to happen, it should be done sensitively without the loss of the history itself.
At the end of the day, with ownership comes responsibility.
hypersonicHaving just read this thread. Old Sarum Airfield (built in 1917) in Wiltshire is another area of concern. The site owners have been trying to get planning permission to build housing on the site. Planning permission has been rejected a number of times.
At least part of the hangar complex (if not all) is Grade 2 listed. But is not maintained by the owner(s). During recent storms serious damage was caused to Hangar 3. Including almost complete roof collapse.
I don’t know why but I can’t paste a link to this forum, on the matter. But if you type into your favorite search engine – “Old Sarum Airfield Hangar Damaged” it should bring up the story.
hypersonicHappy 83rd Birthday to the Lancaster… Designed by Roy Chadwick the aircraft design engineering genius, of course.
hypersonicI’m afraid to say I had never heard of Geoff until seeing this post. Having spent 3 hours going throu’ the data on his website I’m very impressed with the detail within. Pleased to hear it will be archived for ever.
RIP Geoff.
hypersonicRemarkable story – RIP Sir….
hypersonicWhy not contact him via his book publishers – Pen and Sword Books.
hypersonicBeaufighterVI,
I’m not an expert on Oil Coolers. But the Stores Ref “cell”, on the plate, has a/the Drawing No in it (at issue 3).
I would have expected to see the Sect Ref or OEM Part No for the item in there.
hypersonicI hope everybody is keeping up with this.
It’s possible, of course, that my training notes are using the term guns – as a piece of inter-trade banter. There are other comments within the notes that seem to support the point. I can’t say I ever heard the term cannon used at Binbrook. However, the term did arise on the Tornado (Mauser 27) at Cottesmore a few years later.
The reason why the cannon (I will use that term from here) was removed from the nose of the Lightning was smoke would often be sucked into the engines with a loss of performance being observed. Placing the cannons underneath the airframe and slightly further back resolved the issue.
Hunters often had complete flameouts when firing their weapons.
In the timeframe you appear to be talking about the F1 was being removed from service, from its TFF (not TTF) role. That role didn’t need cannons any way of course.
hypersonicOk Terry, I have never worked on the Vulcan – but I have sat in many “front seats” of the type. However, I have never sat in any of the rear seats. I’m a bit of a V-Bomber geek who is now confused as to what the counters would be for (as per my previous mention of the subject).
Clearly, you have a better chance to inspect the panel than we have via a photo.
But thanks.
hypersonicTerry, you are of course entitled to present your information. This is at the end of the day a process of elimination. I don’t know but maybe you didn’t know your AEO panel is a B1 example as opposed to a B1A/B2 example.
For those not that familiar with the Lightning….
Whilst the F2 and F2A had guns/cannons fitted. The F2 came with a smaller ventral tank and guns/ cannons fitted in the nose above the air intake. The F2A had the guns/cannons fitted in the front of an enlarged ventral tank (directly below the pilot).
The F3 saw no guns/cannons at all. As well as the smaller ventral tank.
F3A saw a larger ventral tank with the guns/cannons installed in the front of the ventral tank – in much the same way as the F2A variant did.
Some F3’s and most of the F3A’s were later uplifted to full F6 config. It is a matter of record some ex F3’s initially didn’t carry guns/cannons (despite being called F6). However, in my time they had acquired guns/cannons. I don’t remember any single seaters without that capability.
F6 saw larger ventral tank with guns/cannons installed in the front of the ventral tank (as per the F2A). In this config the pilot was sitting directly above the pack. Sitting directly on top of the pack was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part.
My training notes (yes, I still have them) refer to the guns/cannons as Aden guns.
The F2A variant continued until 1977. So yes, it is a contender. My personal experience lies with the F3, F6 and T5. So, I “ignored” the F2A altogether.
Happy new year to all.
hypersonicTerry Parker – you have edited your thoughts. Originally saying “Window” (now called Chaff) to Electronic Warfare Control Units. Along with your photo of a Vulcan AEO’s panel.
The counter’s Sect Ref No seems to support the theory that it is/was a generic use item – that is to say a commodity item.
My thoughts are – Vulcan B1 used Chaff for defence, and I suppose the AEO would like to know how much of the stuff he has left. However, the last operational B1 was SOC 08 64 which predates the STI date. Incidentally the correct marking should have been “Satis” and not as per. By 08 58 we had the B2 in the air. It came with ECM gear mainly installed in a bulbus tail cone complete with “warts”. The AEO’s panel would have been re-worked as part of B2 production. I can’t see why there is a requirement for an electro/mechanical counter in the ECM system. Additionally, the remaining B1’s were uplifted with ECM and referred to as B1A. But they had gone by the time of the STI date.
In Terry’s photo there seems to be 4x counters along the bottom of the panel. Whilst the counters do look similar I’m convinced, as I said above, there is no purpose for the subject counter to have been used in a Vulcan B1A/B2 and therefore not the latest use of the counter. But possibly B1?
Lightning F6 – the pilot sat directly on top of the armaments pack 2x missile and 2x guns. Just to the right of your lower right leg when sitting in the seat is a rectangular box containing 2x counters looking very similar to the subject item. In my time on the Lightning, I never saw a box being removed or its contents being examined.
So, in an attempt to draw a conclusion, I believe the last use of the subject counter is a Lightning F6. This type saw operational service post the STI date of course. The counters previous use, to that, may have been on a Vulcan B1.
Canberra 341 is an ex-RAF PR9 (XH166). The PR9 just happens to be a project I’m working on at the moment – small world!!
hypersonicI can’t speak for Pink Lady. But Sally B has a USAAF D/D of 19 Jun 1945 – just to late for WWII.
Sign In
