dark light

robstitt

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Mossies of Spartan Air Services #835859
    robstitt
    Participant

    Dave:

    Could you make contact? Am writing a book about Spartan and would like to include some background on Kenting’s B-17 operations.

    There was actually a third company conducting high-level photo surveys in Canada during that period (1950-1962): Aero Surveys Ltd. of Vancouver. They operated the orange P-38 in your photo, CF-JJA, and provided around 4% of the high-level survey coverage in Canada. Spartan provided 55% while Kenting provided 41%.

    Kenting acquired two P-38s but ended up standardizing on the B-17, trading the pair to Spartan for their Sea Hornet. P-38 CF-JJA went to Spartan’s operation in Argentina but was lost when the pilot took off with the radiator doors closed.

    Robert

    in reply to: Mossies of Spartan Air Services #835865
    robstitt
    Participant

    Topspeed:

    The P-38 was a fine aircraft and easy to fly but it had a serious limitation in that at the operating altitude of 32-35,000ft it flew nose-high when fitted with the two external fuel tanks. This meant that the camera in the nose was not pointing vertically at the ground, as required for photo-mapping. So Spartan flew them without the tanks which greatly limited their endurance and therefore time ‘on line’ taking photos. In addition, the P-38’s liquid cooling system, with aluminum piping going back to radiators in the tail booms, was prone to leaking following overnight ‘cold soaks’ during operations in the northern latitudes. The intake ducts were also vulnerable to sand abrasion when operating off gravel strips, resulting in loss of engine performance.

    The Mosquito reached operating altitudes quicker (25 vs 40 minutes), was faster once ‘on line’ and could carry the required state-of-the-art Wild cameras.

    Robert

    in reply to: Coley's scrapyard #809812
    robstitt
    Participant

    Remember now that we used to climb the fence adjoining the railway yards someone mentioned earlier. Scary stuff… but we were never ‘caught’.

    Rob

    in reply to: Coley's scrapyard #810066
    robstitt
    Participant

    Ah, the memories. Recall cycling to Coley’s from nearby Whitton, climbing the fence and hiding in a pyramid of Hunter or perhaps Swift fuselages when the watchman was heard approaching. Distictly remember the Hurricane with its exposed tubular fuselage truss and coming upon the TSR-2 fuselage sections during a later visit with their pastel markings and translucent, magenta coloured sealant on the inside of the fuselage skin – something from an another era entirely. I had a piece that included part of the serial XR227 but it’s long since lost.

    Another piece of the wonderful, carefree planespotting days that were the 60s.

    Rob

    in reply to: Mossies of Spartan Air Services #1077705
    robstitt
    Participant

    Curious who your Kenya contact is or, perhaps, was
    Cheers,
    Robert Stitt

    in reply to: 206 Sqdn RAF B-17 (Azores) piccys #1199296
    robstitt
    Participant

    Hello All:
    I tried the site http://www.linhadafrente.pt but it does not appear to be working. Do you have an updated address?
    Would also be interested in knowing who posted the original request in the tabloid.
    Regards:
    Robert Stitt

    in reply to: Civil Aircraft Markings: Which year? #546523
    robstitt
    Participant

    Many thanks.
    Robert

    in reply to: Temperate Sea Camouflage #1258008
    robstitt
    Participant

    Thanks for the last three replies.
    True enough re the lighting. My artist has demonstrated this by adding a trace of red or blue to the colours and then turning the images into black and white. The colour bands then reverse completely – what was darker is now lighter! So if one takes into account paint variations, lighting, film type etc, interpretation becomes very challenging. And of course these are camouflage colours so it makes sense they would tend to be ambiguous.
    The AMOs are:
    – For the period 1940/41. Upper Surfaces – Temperate Sea Scheme consisting of Dark Grey and Extra Dark Sea Grey. AMO A.926/40 to AMO A.687/41
    – For the period 1942/43. Upper Surfaces – Temperate Sea Scheme consisting of Dark Slate Grey and Extra Dark Sea Grey. AMO A.664/42 to AMO A.1246/43.
    – For the period 1944/45. Upper Surfaces – Extra Dark Sea Grey. AMO A864/44 to A.P.2656A
    Colour photos would of course be ideal. Have only come across two so far: FK186 ‘S’ over Benbecula and FL462 ‘W’ in the Azores, invariably incorrectly identified as being at Benbecula. Also have one of FL461 in PNG but this was US-applied paint, another complicating factor. Does anyone have another….?
    Many thanks for the thread. Will follow up on the Warpaint series.
    Kind regards:
    Robert

    in reply to: Temperate Sea Camouflage #1260577
    robstitt
    Participant

    Thank you both. I was leaning towards DSG being the darker colour in B&W photos but take your point about the fading etc. My inclination was based on photos I took of a Fortress still marked in the RAF scheme at the time – FL461 in PNG – and tying those in with B&W photos of other examples.
    Would be very interested in any other documents related to Coastal Command schemes for period 1942/43, especially related to code and serial colours. My understanding is that there was a brief period after the introduction of the Temperate Sea and white scheme where codes were Dull Red and serials Night.
    Thanks for the colour samples – alas, unless one’s monitor is precisely calibrated, these subtle colours can be way off on the screen. My artist and I are going through this at the moment and it takes sending proofs by mail to ensure that the colours are properly understood at both ends.
    Thanks again and kind regards:
    Robert

    in reply to: Largest Calibre gun #1290981
    robstitt
    Participant

    Vickers S Gun in Fortress FK185

    The ground and flight test reports for the gun were satisfactory and there was no damage reported to the airframe (which had been reinforced in consultation with Boeing). By the time of the tests, Coastal Command had already cancelled the requirement as the more capable Liberator was available in growing numbers and there were already too many weight-building and resource-absorbing mods proposed for the Fortress but for some reason, the Ministry of Aircraft Production still wanted to proceed. FK185 was ex-220 Squadron (‘NR-E’) and the trials were conducted by A&AEE at Boscombe Down. The aircraft was subsequently converted back to standard configuration and served with 251 (Met) Squadron in Iceland in the meteorological reconnaissance role.
    Cheers:
    Rob Stitt

    in reply to: Fortress Aerials #2120646
    robstitt
    Participant

    FK209

    Have since learned that FK209 is known to have been shot down on March 23, 1943, while serving with with 59 Squadron.

    in reply to: Fortress Aerials #2120655
    robstitt
    Participant

    Fortress Aerials

    Technical indeed! Means nothing to me but I agree: the upper wires are for R/T and I would deduce are for an HF command radio, the VHF command radio and associated aerial coming along a little later. I’m still stumped on side wire aerial but maybe this is part of the HF system too with the upper wires for tranmission and the side wires for receiving… thanks for all you input.

    in reply to: Fortress Aerials #2121442
    robstitt
    Participant

    Fortress Aerials

    Thanks, Ian. Any reference to ASV arrays for the Fortress in the book? In the meantime will try and find a copy. Assume the Sterba arrays are the rigid rods in the second photo I posted. Which brings us back to the wire aerials in the first photo… which I’m again thinking were not ASV-related.

    in reply to: Fortress Aerials #2121672
    robstitt
    Participant

    Fortress Aerials

    I can see this is going to take as few exchanges to sort out! Thanks for your reply. Have attached a later photograph showing the defintive rod fuselage aerials to which I referred. These did use the fuselage skin as a reflector for transmitting and receiving for LRASV. The underwing aerials were the receivers for the forward-looking looking comonent, the tranmission aerial for which was in the nose cone on the Fortress. One Fortress IIA was fitted with the dorsal transmission masts for trials at the RAE but these were discarded in favour of the dual-purpose aerials in this photo. My understanding is that LRASV was simply a switchable, sideways-looking enhancement of ASV II (by switichable I mean the operator could only select forward- or sideways-looking). How are we doing so far?

    in reply to: Fortress Aerials #2121689
    robstitt
    Participant

    Fortress Aerials

    Thanks, you two.

    My understanding is that the definitive sideways-looking Long Range component of ASV II radar used rod-type dipole aerials to receive and transmit using the aircraft’s skin as a reflector – eight of these were mounted on each side of the rear fuselage in two rows of four some time after the first Fortress IIAs were delivered to the UK. But is it possible that these wire aerials could be an early configuation for ASV II? My feeling too was that the upper wires were for R/T but early versions of ASV II had separate aerials for the tranmit and receive functions so the upper wires could be an early form of tranmission aerial. They seem to have insulators at regular intervals suggesting they are segmented in some way. Other types like the Liberator I, Whitley and Wellington were fitted with tall masts with four sets of rods for the transmission function.

    Yes, it is FK209, phtographed at Dorval prior to delivery. However, it only served with 59 Squadron from Chivenor. It was lost without trace while with 59 Squadron on March 23, 1943.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)