Occasional visit by USN COD aircraft were even more daunting, not much clearance on the wingspan of a Greyhound.

How much clearance would you say the C-2 Greyhound had?

Re the COD, it was an S2, IIRC, and here are a couple of shots of it on a wet Ark flight deck:

I didn’t know the S-2 was ever used as a COD plane. I guess I’m used to seeing the C-2 so it didn’t cross my mind.

Just to be an utter pedant for a moment, the aircraft pictured, and serving in the COD role at the time, is a C-1 Trader, derivative of the S-2 Tracker. The larger C-2 Greyhound being a derivative of the E-2 Hawkeye of course.
These are the first pictures I’ve seen of one operating of a British carrier

Fantastic images, I’ve always enjoyed the pictures of John Eacott (does he still post here?) so glad to see this thread resurface!:)

You going along Rob?

Don’t forget that the FAAM Reserve collection is open to the public next Thursday, might be a chance to see this fantastic project in the metal.

Always enjoy this event as Dave Morris and the gang really make it a special day for visitors.
Nice to see the collection of Barra bits coming together.

I realy shouldn’t even try to answer that post BB, but I am incensed to be honest.
You want to get all quotey do you,

I did not deny that there was a hanger per-se, as for a start there is clearly something resembling one in the picture so where did I deny that, but it was just that according to my sources, it was a covered cannon butts and not a extra over blister hanger separated from the cannon butts as you labelled it.

Say something enough and we all believe it eh, you did actually deny it,

For those that have a good knowledge of the former RAF St Eval… was there ever a blister hangar on the North side of the airfield (outside of the peri-track), just to the West of the Church?

In a word no, but there were at least two blisters shown during the war with one located due east of the church and one located east north east of the church.

Nick, you’re bang on mate, there was an Extra Over Blister Hangar (greater span) on that spot, building no 120,

It is imediately to the east of the Cannon Test Butt but doesn’t appear to be linked to it, just the short road way running south to one of the spectacle dispersals which is visible in the current images.

Pagen, that is not what my information details.

I can absolutely assure you Bomberboy that the St Eval RSP indicates a Double Extra Over Blister Hangar (longer span and double length), blg no.120, on the precise location of Nicks and my link.
It is not on the Cannon Butts track or hardstanding, but immediately east of it, it is to the north of the peri track and just west of the church, as Nick has deduced in his first post.

So you did deny, and try to argue the point.

The point of all this, is that not one of them show what you have described, so with all this info, why would I, or anyone else for that matter, just accept a strangers word, i’m sure you would do exactly the same given the same scenario.
That being said, you then went onto state that it was shown as building 120 blah blah on the AM plans that you have and edited the airfield layout to show this accordingly.
I believe this is what you must describe as “You even refused to believe, in the face of evidence,”
What evidence?
A scan of the actual AM plan showing this area might have helped right then?

Firstly I can’t scan the AM plans as they are too big, and secondly I have produced a load of computor drawings from it to allow easier dissemination on the net, I will now, in the light of you last post, refrain from posting these up here.

Do you really think I would take time to make up information and building numbers, simply to agree with what the OP has said?
Why would I do that when in my first post I actually doubted him, until I looked at the evidence that I have here.

I have provided some the thread with sketches from the original AM plans, which did take time and effort to produce, and so truthaly I am quite peeved that you can completely disregard any information that I have provided here.
As for a strangers word, I hope Nick doesn’t consider me too much of a stranger, and I’m certainly not to Dr Stragelove, so just you.
Whenever you read a book, mag article, or forum post, you are putting your trust in strangers for much of the time, how you treat that information is up to you.

Now let me assure you, if I know little or nothing about something in particular or don’t have the relevant reference material to hand, I post nothing.

Again, please don’t assure me, I really don’t need it, you quite clearly have posted without evidence.
I have got the evidence of this building right here in front of me, and I have presented the info on the thread in a clear manner to back up both the particular points that Nick asks about.
Just because various publications don’t mention this particular point it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, it may not be worthy of inclusion the first place.
I too have various publications on St Eval, but it doesn’t mean that I treat them as gospal on every single point about the airfield in general, which is a large subject.

Oh and one last thing, my dad was stationed there as flying crew in 1944 and I don’t ever recall him mentioning what you described.

In what respect would he have recalled anything that I have said here, and are are trying to suggest that with all that I have presented in this thread that I am lying?

I have spent a good deal of my time and effort providing evidence and drawings from primary sources to support two different viewpoints expressed while keeping an open mind on the subject.
And this is the result, I really wonder why I bother when someone such as yourself comes trolling along and in a series of words completely disregards other evidence and points of view.
And to top it all off you are making accusations about me when you haven’t actually provided any evidence yourself, where are your scans etc?! That is what I meant by ‘guff’.

The other day I answered a thread about the benefits of this forum, your posts are what I consider the negatives.

The appearance was supposedly to allow 8th Air Force Technical and Tactical staff to evalulate the machine, but in reality it was an attempt to mislead German Intelligence into believing that the B-29 was to be based in the UK.

I think the ‘supposedly’ bears more in reality than the ‘attempt’ part of that statement
I also think we are getting hung up on the B-29 and this non operational vsit to the UK.

Ken have you considered that the Vickers ‘Type C’ six engined, tailess canard design was one of the very heavy bombers in consideration? Seem to think that was mooted c.’42-3?

Must be something at your end, mate.

Could be, I’m wondering if my ISP just disagrees with the forum host, it is awful loading time, and often times out, but only with this forum it seems.
Smart phone works ok, but wasn’t sure it that used a different system – like magic or something

Erm pardon me, you spent several posts and clipped quotes talking absolute guff and trying to prove what others said wrong.
You even refused to believe, in the face of evidence, that there was even a blister hangar in the location being asked about!