hypersonicOh happy days… Marching up and down the hill at Halton.
I know the publicity film was made 15 years before I signed up, but was it really normal practice to wear your beret on the flightline?
hypersonicAnybody got the phone number for Elf and Safety?
hypersonicA couple of weeks ago I was informed by a reliable source that plans were bring put in place to display the Lancaster at RIAT 24 (19-21 Jul). Reviewing RIAT 24’s attendance list shows the Lancaster confirmed and the single seaters cancelled.
The Coroner has already confirmed the cause of Marks death (which I’m not going to repeat here). It is that and the continuing investigation(s) that mean the single seaters are not likely to be “seen in public” again this year – the source further stated.
hypersonicI decided not to watch the programme. However, I have watched many of Guy Martin’s documentaries which overall have been very good.
According to my records, yes I’m a Lancaster fan, ED603 of the PFF set off that fateful night from RAF Wyton – a place I know very well.
I have known for many years that the Dutch Armed Forces have a specialist, full time, unit carrying out this work. They seek the support of the next of kin as well as the UK government throu’ the War Graves Commission. The Netherlands was of course invaded during WWII and the work carried out here and similar is seen, by the Dutch nationals, as a debit of honour.
We in the UK see the disturbance of a final resting place as a criminal act. Unless carried out by Court Order of course. Therefore, the MOD is obliged to accept the fact that its support for such actions is somewhat limited. However, in the case of ED603 the MOD did provide some support (see below).
My reason for not watching lies with the fact that I have a family member (Catalina pilot) his final resting place is in the North Atlantic – exact location N/K. Past generations of my family have said they do not want to know any more details – he should be left in peace. I fully support that decision.
However, reading previous posts here it would appear that the work was carried out very professionally by the Dutch and UK War Graves Commission. I would have expected nothing less!
The BBMF didn’t carry out a flypast because of the timing. The flight would have been on Winter maintenance as witnessed by the document date.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ww2-lancaster-recovered-from-the-sea-bed-after-80-years/
hypersonicWell done on the loan. I have to say this unique aircraft has not been as welcome at Cosford, in recent years, as it should have been – that is maybe where Ken was coming from. It’s a shame he won’t be editing W+R 30. Where he could have commented on its move East.
At one point, the RAFM, described the airframe as a duplication!!!
But congrats to all at Winthorpe for the move and placing on display.
hypersonicYou are almost certainly correct about the MR2. However, the AEW2 had a F/F 30 Sep 71. The 12 so uplifted airframes started to arrive with 8 Sqn (RAF Kinloss) by Apr 72. Remarkably quick by today’s standard.
hypersonicTyler,
If you are in the Alconbury area – then you also have Upwood and Wyton close by.
The “outer” surface indicates some sort of camo colour scheme (green tint). Or is that caused by weathering?
There is no indication thus far that it is WWII vintage. It could just as well come from the 60’s or 70’s.
The oval shaped cut out would possibly indicate it comes from the wing root area, of the fuselage. If that’s true then a shallow wing root is being observed. That would indicate a relatively small sized aircraft.
As an avionics engineer I find the “V” shaped frame assembly, attached, slightly unusual. Most frame assemblies, in my experience, are vertical in their attachment to the skin. In this case they appear to be part of the structure of this section – no sign of cutting to aid removal from the airframe as a whole. This unusual design could poss be an aid to its identity. The sections flat profile (as apposed to curved) causes me concern. Flattening it out, surely would have pulled the rivets. I can’t see any evidence that has happened.
As someone has already said a Drawing No or Part No may well start the ball rolling at speed.
hypersonicThanks Prop Strike,
Excellent summary of the incident and works carried out …..
We don’t call it BER – rather CAT 5. Although I understand that BER is a widely understandable term. This airframe was very much boarder line CAT 5 (but latter downgraded to CAT 4 – return to Design Authority for repair). Or sub contractor there of. We used the front end and rear ends of a former US Army CH-47D. These two sections were “grafted” onto the original centre section of ‘671. The MOD had obtained that whole airframe, from Boeing (US), for the cost of $1.
It was not planned that ‘671 would enter the the HC4 upgrade line in this timeframe. However, a combined repair and upgrade was supported by me as a sensible way forward – ‘671 therefore jumped the queue.
‘671’s recovery back to the UK (via RAF C-17), post incident, was a useful training exercise for the “smash and bash” guys also.
Its the only time such a complex repair has been attempted on a CH-47 anywhere. Hence the title the second most famous Chinook in the world. The legendary ZA718/BN being the first of course.
Having moved on, I no longer work in support of the Wokka force. But it was a pleasure to have done so.
hypersonicChinook HC6A ZA671 flying over the Bristol Channel, Southbound as SHF501 at 20.45 UTC this evening.
I spent the latter half of 2012 through to early 2014 putting it back together again (as a desk based engineer) following serious damage in a crash landing. It’s the first time I have seen it “live” on FR24 since. For those who don’t think it is historic it has a D/D, to the UK, of Nov 1980. Which makes it nearly as old as me – I wish. It’s also known as the second most famous CH-47 in the world.
I’m also proud to say I did my bit, also as a desk based engineer, to uplift it from HC2 to HC4 and then later from HC4 to its current baseline of HC6A.
hypersonicIf I were a betting man – which I’m not!!
I would say it was easier to dismantle, on site, and road out. Once the AAIB had released it back to the operators.
Don’t underestimate the amount of work required to get it back in the air. All must have been completed before the AAIB/CAA would allow it to take to the skies again. If you look at the video, carefully, you can see a shock wave run throu’ the airframe as the tail wheel hits the ground. The pilot and pax would have felt it. Hence the requirement, in my view, for a heavy landing check.
“Back at base” would provide weather proof facilities, power for lighting etc and easy access to dedicated support equipment as well as tooling to carry out the required checks. There is no doubt the support team techies had to work long hours – as I said before.
OOPs I forgot – the engine frame is designed to support the weight of the engine not the entire weight of the airframe and two persons. Having supported the airframe for a few moments it then saw the weight twist through 90 degrees as the airframe dropped backwards onto its three “legs”. Removing the engine and fitting a spare (if they had one) would have allowed access to the frame for inspection and negate the need for a shock loading check on an in-use engine. If they didn’t have a spare a shock load check would have been required.
As an avionics engineer that is about the limit of my knowledge.
hypersonicI think I’ll retract what I said at 13 May 24 # 21.09. It looks like he turned to the right to avoid the hedge. Having tipped it up on its nose and then fall backwards onto its three “legs” was very lucky – it could have gone right over and finished upside down!!
The techies must have worked their socks off to get it back in the air so soon – new prop, engine change / or engine shock load check and a heavy landing check all required.
However, the AAIB must have cleared it for active duty. Post those checks and repairs.
hypersonicR6915, you make an interesting point about the Spitfire Society. They are in essence the DA for the Spitfire. However, your Spitfire is non-flyable. So not subject to CAA regulation. It is not a replica either because it has been built using non-original designs wooden frames for example.
Bradburger, I fear you don’t understand what a DA is and the legal responsibilities they have for the continual airworthiness of their design(s). There may have been limited comms between BAe and the Mosquito builders – but it is quite clear to me that they, BAe, wanted nothing to do with it. Extensive comms between the builders and the CAA would have taken place and stage checks included during the build as a risk reduction measure.
As I said previously, the term replica is a legal one – it is designed to provide a firewall between this build and all the other DA built machines.
The Mk designation has nothing to do with the situation (as you stated and then sort of dismissed).
New build wouldn’t work either – all DA machines were new builds at one point.
As far as facsmile is concerned I find that less acceptable than replica. I Can’t see the CAA the regulators, in this matter, changing their minds re a new term any time soon.
I find it strange that they have been able to register it as a “DH 98” thou’. Another legal term Trade Mark this time.
As far as the project is concerned I wish them all the best going forward.
hypersonicI was going to say, but Oracal has said some of my words, that the term replica is a legal term. Used to describe a one-of-production (or limited and clearly defined production run) in the form of an exact copy of the original by an authorised third party. That is to say authorised by, in this case, the CAA.
The only organisation that could build a non replica is BAe, who by default are the authorised Design Authority (DA) for the Mosquito. But, they could appoint an agent to carry out the build on their behalf. That agent must have a full understanding of the continual airworthiness requirement of their work and be registered as the DA, by in this case, the CAA.
The DA of Vulcan 558, BAe, appointed a third party agent to handle the DA activities during the build up to and subsequent civil flying activities.
However, the result here is we have a replica built by an authorised third party. Which I as a Senior Aerospace Engineering Manager are very happy with.
hypersonicWhile “WFH” today at 17.10 GMT spotted the Canadian Lancaster C-GVRA, on FR24, at 2000 feet over Toronto.
Is it really 10 years since Vera spent a season with us, here in the UK? Attending many events with the BBMF – happier times.
hypersonicIt is not surprising that the Flight is grounded. We must allow the investigators to do their job.
There will also be a Service Inquiry involving a number of the engineering staff to cover of the “admin” side of things.
Mark, was a “senior” pilot on the Flight and due to take over as the Boss this Autumn. His death has now brought about a management gap, in what is a very specialist part time roll – leading him into a full time job as the Boss.
Not to mention a period of mourning and a funeral to come of course.
Sign In
