Thanks gents.
Oracal – is that an archive document? I’m in Australia. If it is elsewhere, I don’t suppose it would be of use unless it is digitised.
Terry – I’m having trouble with the txt file. I don’t think this forum is set up to allow viewing of attachments other than images. I’ll try another browser.
Fantastic!
10 Points to P&P for the ID of the Constaninescu gun interrupter gear reservoir for the likes of Hawker Demon. (He can’t sign in at the moment.)
Restoration photo is of NZ Hind.
Hello Phil.
My expression of interest is still current! What is the status?!
Thank you.
Nicholas.
Many thanks Ed. Pass thanks on to Mike. Cheers.
Beautiful. Definitely looks like a real aeroplane!
Not to worry. The question relates to head marking for those bolts. The back story is more complicated, and it would have been nice to have the A30 spec, but it is not essential. Thanks.
Thanks Oracal, thanks Dave.
Interestingly the CAP document is either too general or perhaps reflects later BS specs (who knows), as it doesn’t match what it says here for A26…
http://silverbiplanes.com/SPECIFICATION_PDFS/British_Standard_A_2017/A2…
Cheers.
Here it is:
https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/140142-more-treasures-from…
It is a much bigger number.
On second thoughts, probably not given that one of the parts is 82001… too unlikely to be the first drawing on the aircraft?
I think Air Ministry has a Seamew item in his MORE TREASURES(?) FROM THE GARAGE… thread.
Curtiss SO3C Seamew? This is Curtiss model 82 and has part numbers beginning with 82.
Would it help to consider actual examples of the earliest aircraft with two pilot side-by-side seating? And how quickly did they realise the need to put the one in command (presumably pretty obvious to them and possibly again following naval practice)? And how quickly did it settle to uniformity?
I don’t know much about these early aircraft, so can’t begin to answer these questions.
Also if some of these early aircraft were multi- (twin-) engined, presumably those who read left to right would have preferred numbers 1, 2 to read in the same way. Then the pilot in command would want the best visual on engine #1 to kick off the whole game. (I think engine numbering was another forum topic.)
Wow. Marvelous work, Denys.
The last two paragraphs are mine, not from Wiki!
Yes, Redux did continue. But it is just a polymeric adhesive that can be modified and improved, and it did evolve. The Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redux_(adhesive)) is helpful and includes, for example:
Redux Liquid 775/Powder 775 was joined in 1954 by the subsequent Redux Film 775 system, used from 1962 by de Havilland (later Hawker Siddeley and subsequently British Aerospace) on the DH.125 and DH.146. Other users included Bristol (on the Britannia), SAAB (on the Lansen & Draken), Fokker (on the F.27), Sud Aviation (on the Alouette II/III), Breguet and Fairchild, the film-form having the advantage of greater gap-filling ability with no loss of strength over Redux Liquid 775/Powder 775, allowing for wider tolerances in component-fit, as well as easier handling and use and controlled ratios of the liquid/powder components. Other Redux adhesives available included “Redux 64”, a solution of the phenolic liquid and PVF powder, used worldwide for bonding linings to brake shoes, pads and clutches. The Redux range was subsequently expanded to include the current range of adhesives, both in single and two part paste systems and film forms, for both aerospace and industrial uses.
In modern terms, Airbus uses a skin made of GLARE. From what I remember this is on the fuselage upper skin of the A380. It is alternating layers of 2024 and glass-reinforced epoxy.
My favorite all-purpose resin is 3M EC2216. This epoxy has been used since the sixties where it was used to bond 2024 facings to aluminium honeycomb (eg, possibly on the Bronco flaps), and is still specified for various uses on Boeing airliners for glueing things to composites. It is good for wood, aluminium and modern epoxy-based composites.