Thanks Bruce, so the fabric was applied in thin strips layed next to each other, I was asuming sheets of cloth.
Were there official directives on how to apply, ie direction, thickness, areas (I’ve heard not to be applied around intakes) etc?
I take it the application process had to be done very carefully to produce the very smooth finish for paint?
I have always wanted to read the actual reports on the crashes to get the full details without bias.
the TNA is good place to go then, as not only do they have the accident reports, but also the Navy accounts of recovery, the airliners own internal enquirys, Cabinet office & foreign office reports, photographic records, and all manner of paperwork that you wouln’t immediately think of.
They are cracking shots with the Lysander, some sort of press demo me thinks?
Reminds me of the lifeboat demo with the RAF Rescue Whirlwind that didn’t go so well.
Also, isn’t it funny how one persons Google search using the same words can bring up completely different info and pics than someone elses?
Excellent, and I thought the RAF use of the Tornado was a short term lease agreement during the 1950s!
You were right the first time – the fabric was applied in sheets. The tapes Bruce mentioned were used to cover the joints between sheets,
That was my fault for not reading his sentance properly!
Thanks for the info everyone
Apart from the fact that it would have wiped out an awful lot of allied soldiers in N.Europe!
A properly done Vampire is very smooth with barely any sign of the fabric weave.
Interesting that you say that, as one thing that prompted the question was the incredibly smooth finish on the T.11 pod that sold on Ebay not long ago, plus some good old colour images of Vamps.
Back to my other question, was there official guidance to exactly how the cloth was cut and applied?
Were Hornets and Mossies finished in the same way?
But more importantly I have the Airways done. 😉
Ha ha very good, got some stories from that place!:o
The walls are fairly plain in 404, but a distinguishing feature is the cantilever beams supporting the roof structure (thus allowing the wide clear span front opening), these extending down to the uprights externally at the back of the hangar.
One thing you may need to decide is if you are doing this pre ’75 when the large and distinctive base operations block was finished, or prior to that when ops was situated in a maze of Seco huts around the back of the tower.
It might be worth clarifying what’s what re instruments.
ie was the paint with the radioactivity only used up to a certain time, is infra-red paint different etc.
Or for all are sakes best not to keep raising it on forums?:confused:
Yes its hanging upside down in a very striking pose at Cosford now.
A few years back, a survey of my two Hunter cockpits by the authorities resulted in them removing the GM4 and E2 compass from my F1….they were most miffed that the same instruments in my F6 were fine!!! I have since found suitable replacements
Who are the ‘authorities’?
I have handled this problem by replacing most of my luminous Spit instruments by flourescent ones. The original luminous I keep in a box with a lead and aluminium lining. My Stirling panel still has a lot of luminous instruments.
I think this is what we need to get to the bottom of here, how do you tell which is what?
Also does swapping them not compromise originality (especially pulling them apart and fitting new faces), ie if you want to keep original instruments with their original panel / cockpit?
This all sounds very alarmist to me, there must be higher radioactivity levels in most houses than any exposure to instrumentation, and certainly far more dangerous things like staring at this moniter all day!
Thanks for posting that programme Herr Dr, some events really are worth trying to travel back in time for.
Funny how somethings don’t change, such as the display lines and parking areas!
This thread is remaining typically obscure, ie some slight overkill and absolutely no useful advice coming forward!
728 were also the main operating squadron to fly the Short Sturgeon TT.2, always an interesting type to base a project on!
Nice pictures slicer!
I would say the only reasonable chance of seeing a Shack fly again, is with the SAAF MR.3, even this fine machine seems to have become a ground runner which kind of shows what a massive task it is to keep em flying.
Not sure what the latest is with it, but there is a thread about it somewhere here, and Mo will know for sure.