dark light

pagen01

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,401 through 2,415 (of 9,672 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Strong rumours BAe Woodford site has been sold #1048702
    pagen01
    Participant

    Coincidence that the aircraft breaker business planned for Coltishall was withdrawn?

    in reply to: Harrier GR3 XV752 uncertain future #1049583
    pagen01
    Participant

    Yeah, kind of like that…

    in reply to: Harrier GR3 XV752 uncertain future #1049607
    pagen01
    Participant

    I think KN means inhibited from action, as in items rendered unusable such as as engine mounts etc, rather than inhibiting systems for future running.

    Great news about XV752 though, looks like good news for her future.

    in reply to: British Aircraft Industry after WWII #1049619
    pagen01
    Participant

    Yes, but that was pretty much from the mid 1960s onwards when attitudes in the industry changed.
    Very strong? The numbers sold were still comparatively small compared with equivelant US types, ie Learjets, Citations, & Gulfstreams more successful than the 125 line should have been from early on. Other aircraft that should have done better with more planning and better backing were the 748/Andover and original HP Jetstream.

    in reply to: Avro York Serials #1049775
    pagen01
    Participant

    Thanks Livewire, I have those five with those identities, but two (perhaps one now really) is still looking for a home in the overall production totals.
    I can’t help thinking that G-AIUP is the fly in the ointment.

    in reply to: British Aircraft Industry after WWII #1049780
    pagen01
    Participant

    Good point about the BAC 1-11, I was going to mention it as to me it reflected part of the turn around to try for foreign markets.

    I believe Airco consortium were interested in striking some sort of deal with Boeing that the Trident be given ‘free sales’ space if they would drop their 727, I can just imagine what they would have thought about that!
    Boeing and DH really sum up for me the differences in approach to marketing and commercialism, and as futile as it may be I do admire the quaint DH way of things!
    I guess the truth is as a single nation we couldn’t have entered the wide bodied era by ourselves.

    in reply to: Go see Aviation History game… #1049928
    pagen01
    Participant

    Blimey only ten, I will have to be very selective here,

    Gannet AS-00 Jakarta, Indonesia
    Gannet AS-07 Surabaya, Indonesia
    Gannet XA331 QAM, Australia
    Gannet XA434 ANMF NSW, Australia
    Gannet XG888 ANMF NSW, Australia
    Gannet UA-106 Berlin, Germany
    Gannet XL482 Pima, USA
    Gannet XT752 Wisconsin, USA
    Gannet XL500 Exeter, UK

    hmm leaves me one spare, B-36 at NMUSAF withoubt a doubt.

    Why, I like Gannets and I would really like to see and take pictures of the ones that have elluded me, mainly the export examples.
    The B-36 is just one of those incredible aircraft designs that I would really like to see, it sums up the Cold-War paranoia in one airframe for me.

    Interesting point about locations being the deciding factor, as in reality that is what it would be for me, a visit to Dayton to see the 36 would also allow me to see many other types that I’m interested in, such as the Valkyrie.
    Would also like see Saturn V, Gemini and Apollo kit, but feel outside the thread remit.

    in reply to: W.W.II Soviet women aircrew #1049951
    pagen01
    Participant

    “The Russians were far more progressive in World War 2, allowing women to fly in a combat role and creating entire female bomber and fighter regiments.”

    Progressive, or was it down to requirment of needing more skilled pilots and having to look outside of the normal resources?
    This is not in anyway to take away from their achivements, but it reminds of the old line of how good wars are for women as they got them into skilled jobs – without usually mentioning to who’s benefit.

    in reply to: British Aircraft Industry after WWII #1049971
    pagen01
    Participant

    I don’t think that it felt it had to JDK, that’s why I feel the two industries were very different from each other.
    The aero industry of the mid ’40s to say early ’60s was geared to providing designs to specific British/Commonwealth military and civil requirments.
    Often these requirements were pushed through (sometimes influenced by company heads) from government bodies and not a customer as such – not in the true commercial sense anyway.
    The industry was happy to serve these needs without seemingly being that worried about having external customers, it was making the money from the products that it was selling within the UK sphere under the MoS, AM, Admiralty, and SBAC.
    It wasn’t until home demands started shrinking, partly due to the realisation that good and more competitive products starting to be purchased from overseas (principly sound American types for BOAC), that the industry really seemed to think towards other territories customers.
    There were some great exceptions to my generlisation of course. Canberra and Viscount to America was a major coup, as was Hunter and BAC 1-11exports later on, but by that stage even the British military were turning to American designs such as the outstanding Phantom and Hercules, both of these made their first flights at around the time that the Javelin and Beverley were reaching successful front-line service.

    in reply to: Avro York Serials #1050124
    pagen01
    Participant

    That one fits in with the 44 mentioned above.
    However PC4494 isn’t a British serial or c/n, could it be Canadian build?

    Edit I see your reference to the Victory aircraft now, this frees up one airframe in my totals, maybe one of the others that I’m counting is a re-registered example or something.

    Thanks agin for the help.

    in reply to: British Aircraft Industry after WWII #1050141
    pagen01
    Participant

    Ozplane, is this really helping the thread?
    The reality appears to be that the British motorcycle industry almost completely died out, but thankfully one firm managed to resurect itself in recent times and has become moderately successful.
    Personally I think comparing the Bristish motor industry to the aviation industry isn’t a good idea anyway.

    in reply to: Avro York Serials #1050150
    pagen01
    Participant

    Eastwood/Roach has these
    TS789-‘813 (G-AGNL-‘NZ G-AGOA-‘OF, G-AGSL-‘SP)
    listed as C.I
    and only 22 as I
    1208-1210 G-AGJB-D
    1300-1311 G-AHEW-Z, AHFA-H
    1316 G-AHFI
    1340 G-AHLV
    1354-56, 1365, 1366 LV-…

    There should be 256 Yorks, broken down as 44 York Is & 208 York C.1s according to all sources on the subject that I have read.

    Independantly of some of these sources I have traced serials and regs as these,

    TS789-‘813 (to G-AGNL-‘NZ G-AGOA-‘OF, G-AGSL-‘SP) make 19 a/c

    G-AHEW-‘EZ, G-AHFA-‘FI, G-AHLV, G-AIUP, G-ALBX, G-AMGK-‘GM (LV-XGN-XGP) make 25 a/c

    That is the 44 a/c
    The other 208 production aircrat are accounted for earlier, with the four prototypes this makes the 256 total York production
    I’m struggling to make XIG & ‘XIH fit? Or would they have had other identities?

    in reply to: Avro York Serials #1050259
    pagen01
    Participant

    I think that is a typo from 256 to 265, in the text of the same book he even says 256 himself. I wouldn’t think that we are missing 11 aircraft.

    in reply to: Avro York Serials #1050282
    pagen01
    Participant

    Great info, I should stress though that I’m not after individual histories, just trying to get the numbers to match.
    They still dont tally up as I make two aircraft too many (‘XIG & ‘XIH), but it could be down to my lack of understanding of civil registrations.

    in reply to: Seen On Ebay Thread (August 2011) #1050312
    pagen01
    Participant

    Give me moment, I have to make them first Graham!

Viewing 15 posts - 2,401 through 2,415 (of 9,672 total)