dark light

pagen01

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,911 through 2,925 (of 9,672 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Shackleton XF708 IWM Duxford #1074417
    pagen01
    Participant

    Thanks for taking the time for getting the pictures and posting them here Arm Waver:)
    It’s always hard to tell from pictures, but the airframe looks faded but sound.

    From a personal point of view the Shackleton forms, or should form, part of the central policy of the IWM collection – a British military aircraft which has given long and outstanding service.
    I agree with what Peter says above really, and he touches on an earlier point about the possibility of getting a volunteer group involved, and maybe supported by an outside group – ie Shack Association or similar

    Looking for alternative means to preserve the aircraft elsewhere is a bold move indeed, but so far I haven’t seen any signs on this thread (the only place that I can get info) that the aircraft will secure the financial drive to restore it properly and preserve it indoors, over a very long time, and in a more relevant area.
    If these criteria are met then yes it deserves our absolute full support.

    in reply to: Favorite WWII Prototypes that never made it? #1075313
    pagen01
    Participant

    MB5?

    The MB5 is an interesting one, it was a superb prototype fighter and was praised for both air handling and ground servicing points of view (rare on a British fighter), however would it realistically have achieved significantly more than what Supermarine offered with late marks of Spitfire, or indeed the Spiteful design which also came to nothing? And of course Mustangs were in service, Hornets were on the way, and effective jets weren’t that far off.

    Purely as a curio I would probably pick the Vickers 432 as a favourite prototype that I would like to actually see.

    in reply to: Favorite WWII Prototypes that never made it? #1075353
    pagen01
    Participant

    I think he possibly meant the Vickers Windsor, a type which thoroughly deserved the outcome that it got!

    in reply to: General Discussion #297701
    pagen01
    Participant

    There’s Something About Mary, I’d forgotten just how funny and ‘feel good’ this Farrelly Brothers film is.
    Also forgot how sexy Cameron Diaz is in it, she dosen’t leave much to the imagination in some scenes!:)

    in reply to: The Last Film You Saw….. IV #1844471
    pagen01
    Participant

    There’s Something About Mary, I’d forgotten just how funny and ‘feel good’ this Farrelly Brothers film is.
    Also forgot how sexy Cameron Diaz is in it, she dosen’t leave much to the imagination in some scenes!:)

    in reply to: Faking Grips!! #1075871
    pagen01
    Participant

    I was amazed when someone mentioned replica javelin grips – they are quite cheap and certainly not rare!

    Hi Tony, I should stress the ones that I saw where resin replicas (from Aus I believe), they weren’t being passed off as the real things.
    Trying to find them again now, but failing!

    Edit, found em along with some others, http://www.metalcraftbyblair.com/index.php?main_page=products_new&disp_order=3&page=212
    I can see the attraction for some people buying resin replicas, especially as originals can be hard to find / purchase, and restore. Not my cup of tea as I like to think that what I have has some history behind it.

    in reply to: Seen On Ebay Thread #1075873
    pagen01
    Participant

    I like the Flogger ‘pit, does anyone know the background of how the airframe is in the UK?

    in reply to: General Discussion #297837
    pagen01
    Participant

    Is it me or has Sky High gone AWOL at the same time? They couldn’t be one and the same could they, a perfect forum foil?!:eek:

    in reply to: Love him or hate him….. #1844575
    pagen01
    Participant

    Is it me or has Sky High gone AWOL at the same time? They couldn’t be one and the same could they, a perfect forum foil?!:eek:

    in reply to: DH Hornet Moth retraces its past at St Athan #1076788
    pagen01
    Participant

    Hi Denis, just sussed out who you are from your Hunsdun site!:)

    pagen01
    Participant

    Blimey, worth it to see the Aurora displaying, you don’t often see that.
    Just to show how much the CAF do appreciate their heritage, 405 and 415 Sqn Auroras in wartime schemes

    http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/st%20mawgan%20aircraft/sCP-140140105.jpg

    http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/st%20mawgan%20aircraft/sCP-140140114.jpg

    The Storch will be a nice attendee aswel, hope the event goes well.

    in reply to: Spitfire Mk I P9374 #1077031
    pagen01
    Participant

    PS – as regards to airfield or aerodrome, I think you will find P9374 operated in 1940 from an aerodrome but will now be operated from an airfield.

    Other way round,

    RAF = Airfield (as defined in AP.3236)
    Light personal use = Landing Ground
    Civil landing field with minor facilities = Aerodrome
    Commercial & Freight = Airport

    Duxford was an RAF Airfield, and now a civil Aerodrome.

    However like any official use of words other words are often more commonly used and Aerodrome (derived from Greek aeros & dromos, course, so air course) seems to have been applied over a range different use.
    it is the main term now used by CAA/CAP requirements for licencing. JSP guidelines are looking to harmonise with CAP terms.

    I’m still trying to get my head around the Mark/Mk thing, my understanding is that Mk had been used officially for a long time before the Spitfire on anything where a subsequent version of an in service type came out. It seems that the using of ‘Mk’ on all paperwork and APs etc didn’t always occur though.

    in reply to: Scrapyard Photos; Any More? #1077148
    pagen01
    Participant

    Interesting pic jesterhud, see post #30 on the very first page of this thread!
    I’m still amazed that something like the A.W.35 Scimitar could have survived for 20 odd years just to end up unceremoniously dumped!

    in reply to: Armstrong Whitworth AW.52G #1077152
    pagen01
    Participant

    I shuld have said war/post-war period.

    It was built to an a Ministry of Supply spec but carries the Prototype ‘P’ and serials in accordance with military specs, also the A.W.52G glider, RG324, which was part of the same programe carried full national military markings.

    Good, and rare footage of the A.W.52 here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H1tyMRtcho

    in reply to: Armstrong Whitworth AW.52G #1077216
    pagen01
    Participant

    Just a thought, but were the A.W.52 powered flying wings, TS363 & ‘368, unique in being British military prototypes that didn’t carry any national markings, ie roundels and fin flashes?

Viewing 15 posts - 2,911 through 2,925 (of 9,672 total)