Reminds me of stripping the turkey a couple of days after 25th December!
Roger Smith.
Bet the guy wishes he had written the immortal line, “I reserve the right to withdraw from this auction at any time”
I read that it was his first transaction on ebay – he was an ebay virgin. Well he’s been de-flowered now !!!
Roger Smith.
Amazing piece of machinery. However I wonder why the designer(s) went for all that heavy structure to mount the rotors out on the wing tips rather than fore and aft of the fuselage a la Chinook?
Roger Smith.
Dustyone, I have two different cut-aways (presumably one of them the same as Consul’s) in my Q.6 file from the time when ‘FFD was acquired by the Midland Aircraft Preservation Society in 1973.
The ‘better’ of the two is by J.H.Clark of “Aeroplane” and was published in “Aeroplane Spotter” on Feb 12th, 1942. This includes a scrap section illustrating undercarraige retraction.
The other one by J.P. of “Flight” was published in that journal on Dec 16th, 1937 in an article entitled ‘The Percival Twins’ (the Q.4 and Q.6). This cut-away really only shows detail of the nose, undercarraige/centre section and a diagram of a piece of wing.
I also have 4 different 3-views.
Let me know if you want any of this – and how.
Roger Smith.
Perhaps it’s time to revive this thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56998&highlight=DAYGLO
and Papa Lima is no longer here to moan at you (about reviving it) this time Albert :diablo: :diablo: :diablo:
Roger Smith.
Is a T1154 in good condition a particularly rare unit then?
FB
I know the square root of bu**er all about radios but I do remember being told (by the aircraft radio man John Coggins I think) that the transmitters are far more rare than the recievers.
The reason – when all the mountains of WD surplus were being disposed of in the years after WW2 people would buy the receivers because they could use them to, well, receive thus plenty survived. The transmitters few people except, perhaps, radio hams wanted them so most were scrapped.
Roger Smith.
No! I hadn’t even heard of it. Not surprising considering it doesn’t physically exist right now according their website. I might contact the webmaster and see if I can get somewhere. Thanks!
True, Jet Age Museum don’t have an actual Museum – yet. However they seem a very active group and recently had the unveiling of their superb Gloster E28/39 replica/FSM and, I believe, have amassed a considerable Gloster Archive.
I have an e-mail (and tel. no/address) for Chairman John Lewer as published in their newsletter:
[email]johnlewer.kay2@virgin.net[/email]
Roger Smith.
Honestly I’ve struggled to find any pictures of the Gloster IVb..
Just a thought – have you tried the Jet Age Museum for Gloster photos?
Roger Smith.
I think I go along with the two-thread idea, sounds the most sensible course of action.
Roger Smith.
Just a thought – did Real Photographs do photos of other things besides aeroplanes? If so, and they HAVE been taken over, the takeover might have been by a company/organisation with no interest in aviation.
Roger Smith.
Wouldn’t it have been great to walk into the Wright’s bicycle shop… …If you sketched out the way the aircraft would develop, including its use as a mass killing machine, I wonder what they would have thought, and then done?
Moggy
Taken out a patent :diablo: :diablo: :diablo:
Roger Smith.
Long ago, when Coventry had it’s own, locally-run, Fire Brigade there was concern that it’s red fire engines were difficult to see (mainly at night). So it developed (with assistance I think of a local learning institute) a high visibility colour for ever-more known as “Coventry Fire Brigade Yellow”. It was, mainly, yellow but, in some lights, has a slight green tint in it.
I put this ‘historic’ note forward merely as a suggestion for a future colour scheme for RAF aircraft 😀 😀 😀
Roger Smith.
PS if you want to see the colour go onto evil bay and type in something like “Coventry Fire Engine”
Item number 3, not 3 of ’em.
Have to admit I was, momentarily, excited at the prospect of seeing pictures/film of 4 Beauforts back in the air 😮 😉 :p
Roger Smith.
I may have raised/asked this before but I remember being told many, many years ago that there was a slight element of radio-activity in day-glo paint.
Is there any truth in this?
If so how does it affect the large numbers of day-glo jackets now in use?
I remember when Humrol first introduced day-glo in their model paints range. You had to paint a white undercoat on first – this was, I found, quite thick and difficult to apply without leaving brush marks and hiding rivet/panel details.
I guess with spray-guns it’s all different these days.
Roger Smith.
LL – am following this thread with enormous interest. Delighted there is a re-invigoration at NEAM (although I wasn’t, previously, aware the museum was languishing) please keep reporting – it is appreciated.
All power to your elbows
Roger Smith.