dark light

pagen01

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 9,672 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The "Wot Plane" Thread. (Game rules in Post #1) #1114857
    pagen01
    Participant

    Is it the cabin version of the Miles Hawk Major, not sure if it had a seperate name?

    in reply to: TSR2 photos #1114897
    pagen01
    Participant

    There’s three flippin threads going on this at the mo, thats more than the amount of TSR.2s that flew!

    in reply to: Lightning XG332 Crash escape photo #1114906
    pagen01
    Participant

    Likewise, hopefully XM175 will be able to talk to George aswel and post up some details.

    in reply to: Confiscated WW2 Aircraft Instruments #1114339
    pagen01
    Participant

    It would also be good to have a general guide as to which instruments contain what substances.

    in reply to: Confiscated WW2 Aircraft Instruments #1113843
    pagen01
    Participant

    Yes, for an example ther might be huge differences saftey wise between a Spitfire, Hunter, and Harrier cockpit re levels.

    As a basic question though, can an instrument panel really push out as much radiation as some houses have existing within them naturally?

    in reply to: No better place to crash? #1113858
    pagen01
    Participant

    Thats been covered in another thread, with all the usual jokes!

    in reply to: Confiscated WW2 Aircraft Instruments #1113871
    pagen01
    Participant

    We need to know what is and what isn’t acceptable, it appears to be a secret to the knowledgeable on this forum as this question has been asked on other threads and avoided.

    Exactly, and it keeps being evaded here.

    I have, however, taken the time to study the subject and have built up a fairly extensive knowledge through research. I reckon I can tell most “hot” instruments just by studying them: the geiger counter is there simply to demonstrate this to others less knowledgable.

    Why haven’t you done the same?

    Because some of us haven’t a clue how to.
    That is what we are trying to ask, some of you do seem to know the relevent details but there is this real reluctance to pass around the info.
    There is mention of ‘safe levels’, ‘guidelines’, ‘knowing what is right’, ‘recent actions’, and ‘the authorities’, none of this means anything to me or some others here.
    The real grey issue seems to be actual materials used, and the date ranges they may have been used.
    Don’t forget guages are collected by alot of people from teenage boys upwards, and we don’t all have the gen and geiger counters.

    On another note, I’m guessing there could be severe claims repercussions by opening up and allowing the public to sit in our cockpits?

    in reply to: Confiscated WW2 Aircraft Instruments #1113777
    pagen01
    Participant

    That is what I’m trying to get at, time and time again this subject has been raised, and it always decays into mystery.
    Some basics will be a good starter, just to point us in the right direction perhaps.

    As for working it all out for ourselves, well if we all had that attitude it would be a fairly baron forum!

    in reply to: Confiscated WW2 Aircraft Instruments #1113228
    pagen01
    Participant

    XF940, thanks very much for that, it at least presents a datum from which to work or try and protect ourselves and our ‘weird’ hobby.:)

    Rocketeer, can any of your earlier findings be posted here, or is a case of rather not?

    in reply to: Confiscated WW2 Aircraft Instruments #1112732
    pagen01
    Participant

    As I posted in another thread previously, specifically relating to radiological ‘risks’ in aircraft restoration …
    http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/rpnews/rpa21.htm#a12

    Just read that link through in some detail, it is interesting that it was published eight years ago, and that this ‘grey area’ still exists around instruments and switches etc.

    in reply to: Lightning XG332 Crash escape photo #1112759
    pagen01
    Participant

    A suggestion…ask Jim how much per copy a run of poster prints would be. There is always a discount for a longer run and he may be ok about mailing out the poster prints in tubes to those who want to buy. It is such an iconic image that a run of 100 should sell out and he could number and sign them.

    This all assumes that Jim, the photographer, owns the rights to his picture, if he sold it to a news syndicate he probably dosen’t. A few crafty print offs from the original is one thing, producing posters for sale could be something else.

    in reply to: Bitteswell, Engine testbeds and Farnborough '54 #1112012
    pagen01
    Participant

    The belly landed Gannet is AS.1 WN345 which was the test bed for the ASDM.8 version D.Mamba that was fitted to the AEW.3 Gannet, accident 21 Nov ’58.

    I can’t se the DH.110 pictures that you allude to, that accident was in September 1952.

    Cracking shots by the way.

    in reply to: Bitteswell, Engine testbeds and Farnborough '54 #1112014
    pagen01
    Participant

    I think it’s the B-88 / Y.B.1 WB797, with the Double Mamba engine.

    in reply to: Bitteswell, Engine testbeds and Farnborough '54 #1111882
    pagen01
    Participant

    Yes see it now, that is WG240, it was WG236 that crashed at Farnborough in ’52.
    Your pics are definately Farnborough ’54, the surviving DH.110 that you see was gradually modifed for naval requirements as one of the Sea Vixen prototypes.

    in reply to: Lightning XG332 Crash escape photo #1111908
    pagen01
    Participant

    i have just ordered this from the Daily Mirror archives (picture # MP_0018484)

    http://www.mirrorprintstore.com/

    and an A4 size print was £13.28 and £2.55 post. will let you know about actual quality when it arrives

    What an excellent resource, some really nice and unusual aircraft pictures in there – love the flight crew with Brabazon pic.
    Who’d have thought it from the Mirror!!

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 9,672 total)