WJ244I think G-ALDG was used as a cabin trainer probably by British Caledonian. The Britannia sat down near the end of the runway and was easily seen as you turned fo take off if you were sitting on the correct side oif the aircraft.
WJ244In the model car world it is generally accepted that an exact scale replica often doesn’t look right to the human eye so models are generally fattened up or slimmed down in various places to make the proportions appear correct.
As an example there was a specialist kit and handbuilt modelmaker called Andre Marie Ruf who traded as AMR. He was regarded as one of the artisans of the 1/43 scale model car world and his models are highly valued. He made what many considered to be the definitive 1/43 scale model of the Ferrari 250 GTO BUT if you took a ruler to it and compared it to published dimensions it was way out in many areas but it looked right and captured the character of the real car. Diecast manufacturer Model Box made what they claimed to be the most accurate 1/43 Ferrari GTO and if you scaled the dimensions it appeared to be spot on but it looked way too narrow and a bit too tall in the windscreen. I know which model I preferred!
I suspect that exactly the same thing is done with model aircraft so 100% accurate dimensions take second place to capturing the character of the real thing and because it looks right to the human eye we all live quite happily with our “inaccurate” models.
WJ244The worst of the damage to the Argonaut appears to have been done in the late 70’s. She also appears to have been moved at some time because when I first saw her in 1968 she was clearly visible from the spectator areas on the roof of the Queens Building looking pretty complete and was standing on her undercarriage.
It seems a shame that so much damage was caused to such a rare aeroplane at a time when there should have been resources available to save her. What makes it even worse is that the aeroplane was virtually outside the maintenance base of the very airline that operated her for much of her life.
Definitely one that slipped through everyones fingers although to be fair it does seem she was the victim of a good deal of damage over a very short period not long before any thought was given to finding out if anyone wanted to preserve her.
Makes me wonder if someone thought it more expedient to render her beyond salvation with a view to getting her off site as quickly as possible once her presence was deemed to be inconvenient.
WJ244I think the Air Pictorial article must have been pre 1968 partly because I started taking Air Pictorial in 68 and have no memory of the article and also because 1968 was my first Farnborough visit and by then the dump area around the water tanks appeared to have little except the Comet fuselages, Avro Ashton and what seemed to be endless dismantled Percival Provosts.
I had wanted to see the early Comet fuselages for a long time and only had vague directions to the dump area. After walking around for ages I finally stumbled upon them – just a shame I didn’t have a camera.
WJ244I don’t watch it every week but do catch a lot of the older ones on Dave.
Seems to me it has turned into an excuse for 3 presenters with huge egos to cane the life out of other peoples machinery and then give back whatever is left after thay have done their best to destroy it.
I do appreciate that there is a fine line between hard and reckless driving but feel that Top Gear crosses that line way too often. Frankly I am amazed that anyone loans them anything to test. I certainly wouldn’t lend them any car that I owned particularly having heard the story of a historic racer lent to them some years ago that allegedly came back with the diff and gearbox needing a rebuild and the halfshafts tied in knots.
To me many of their antics are the automotive equivalent of attempting to fly a modern aerobatic sequence in a Spitfire and then wondering why the airframe has been overstressed.
It has all become juvenille and I am amazed that presenters who claim to be car enthusiasts feel that it is OK to treat other peoples vehicles with so little mechanical sympathy.
WJ244I don’t watch it every week but do catch a lot of the older ones on Dave.
Seems to me it has turned into an excuse for 3 presenters with huge egos to cane the life out of other peoples machinery and then give back whatever is left after thay have done their best to destroy it.
I do appreciate that there is a fine line between hard and reckless driving but feel that Top Gear crosses that line way too often. Frankly I am amazed that anyone loans them anything to test. I certainly wouldn’t lend them any car that I owned particularly having heard the story of a historic racer lent to them some years ago that allegedly came back with the diff and gearbox needing a rebuild and the halfshafts tied in knots.
To me many of their antics are the automotive equivalent of attempting to fly a modern aerobatic sequence in a Spitfire and then wondering why the airframe has been overstressed.
It has all become juvenille and I am amazed that presenters who claim to be car enthusiasts feel that it is OK to treat other peoples vehicles with so little mechanical sympathy.
WJ244The Gatwick airframe was the fuselage of Hermes G-ALDG which is now at Duxford.
It does seem unbelievable that the Argonaut lasted so long at Heathrow and it is really sad that as late as 1982 no one felt able to offer her a good home.
WJ244Planetrace:
The mere thought of two rare B-17’s going to way of the scrap heap is a bit hard to take. To bad the warbird restoration movement & Duxford wasn’t around then. Might have saved those airplanes for future generations to enjoy. BlueNoser352!
Ray Thomas told me that his dad was offered one of the B-17’s for Skyfame at the end of filming but HM Customs and Excise stepped in and said that he would have to pay import duty unless the aircraft was scrapped. As many know Skyfame was run on a very small budget and the funds to pay the duty just weren’t available so thanks to a government jobsworth the B-17 was axed. It must have hurt as Ray still seemed pretty annoyed / upset about it when he told me the story over 30 years after the event.
WJ244Many years ago, I recall reading a review of a book about some young English guys buying a couple of Ansons wanting to participate in the Bafria mercy flights.
IIRC, one made it to Africa, the other was abandoned on the way.
Anyone have any details as to what became of those aircraft?
Just found this thread which links quite neatly to a thread I started while ago.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=87766
What is also interesting is that the Percival aircraft link in this thread states that Tippers Air Transport used Proctor G-ANZJ as a crew ferry for Anson pilots. The Proctor was abandoned at Southend still painted Maroon and Cream along with Anson G-AVVO and both landed up at the Historic Aircraft Museum although the Anson later moved on to her current home at Newark.
It is also amazing how many of these “operators” and their aircraft link back (one way or another) to Tony Osborne – founder of the original British Historic Aircraft Museum.
WJ244About 15 years ago both my parents passed away. I was still living at home and other members of my family decided to ignore my parents wishes and try to make me homeless. As a result I was forced to dispose of a lot of items which I would have liked to have been able to keep simply because I had nowhere to store them and no money to rent storage.
Many of the items were of value to a collector but with no Ebay I had no way of turning any of it into money so I made sure I gave it all away to a good home.
I don’t regret passing them on to a good home but must admit that there have been times when I have been in need of the money that the items could have generated had I been able to sell them on Ebay.
I also regret being dissuaded from buying my uncles 1939 Rudge Ulster together with 75% of a second example when I was a teenager. Asking price in 1973/4 was £75 for the lot but Mum couldn’t imagine why I needed yet another motorbike.
WJ244Is that likely… i thought it was reported to of having serious corrosion issues.?
I have mentioned this in previous posts but when the ex Southend CASA was being worked on at North Weald around 10 years ago Ray Thomas told me there were serious corrosion problems with the spars. I have an idea they even did some beefing up to make sure the wings would be OK for static display.
Nothing is impossible but if anyone was looking for a flyer I would have thought that sadly (for G-AWHB) there must be better airframes around to use as a starting point than this one.
WJ244Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year and a massive thank you to everyone who spends their time and money on vintage aviation and bring so much pleasure to those of us who have neither the time or money to be heavily involved.
WJ244I think the problem in the UK is that the public understand gliders even less than they understand powered aircraft. I have often heard the remark “Oh that’s only a glider” implying that because it has no engine it is entirely useless and completely incapable of being used to travel anywhere.
While Gliders are in general used simply for sport flying the public do seem completely unaware of how far it is possible for them to travel in the right conditions.
There are some very beautiful vintage gliders out there and some not so beautiful ones that have still made a big contribution to aviation and I really enjoy vintage and modern gliding displays on the rare occassions that they appear at airshows but I don’t believe that a museum dedicated solely to gliding would be successful in the UK simply because the public have no real understanding of the contribution they have made to aviation over the years and most just don’t understand how they manage to stay up in the air without an engine.
WJ244My personal view is that I would want to see a replica incorporating original parts where possible that would accurately replicate a Stirling both internally and externally. I appreciate that this is a huge undertaking but to me a full scale model is exactly that and it doesn’t matter if it is built from wood, plastic, fibreglass or anything else it just doesn’t do it for me.
I fully accept that others derive a lot of pleasure from owning fibreglass Spitfires etc and I admire them for spending time and money on their projects. I also accept that it is possible to take these replicas to places where a full size Spitfire could never venture (not an option with a 1/1 scale model Stirling) and hopefully this will help raise general interest in vintage aviation among Joe Public.
I think Elvington did a great job with their Halifax but I think I am right is saying that this does incorporate a lot of original structure and I believe that the Hastings wing was very similar to the Halifax wing anyway so this was a good compromise when no original wings were available but a big plastic or wood Stirling just doesn’t seem right as the sole representative of the aircraft.
WJ244As Mark 12 said the Spitfire moulds were made by taking casts from an original airframe. With no original airframe available you would need a full size master model to make the moulds for a Stirling.
A brass master model or pattern for a dinky toy size car for limited production white metal model car costs around £3,500 to £5,000. The moulds are rubber so their cost is comparatively low.
Quite apart from the sheer cost of carving or building a full size Stirling from any material (wood would probably be the easiest option) the cost of the moulds, even if the wings, fuselage etc were each split into several parts, would be huge partly because their sheer size would mean that there would be a high cost for materials and also because such large moulds would need a lot of bracing to prevent distortion.
There is then the cost of materials to actually produce the fibregalss / plastic parts for the replica airframe and a lot of expensive time and fabrication to produce design and produce the internal bracing to allow the finished item to stand on its undercarriage and withstand being moved around.
Yes it is all feasible but I suspect that the costs wouldn’t be far removed from the cost of building a static airframe by gathering surviving parts and fabricating the missing bits and I am not convinced that there would be much difference in the time involved either. The other bonus of a real airframe is that the interior can also be rebuilt and we would land up with a complete Stirling rather than a big model built from a big Airfix kit.
Sign In
