dark light

Beermat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,701 through 2,715 (of 3,326 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Not Spitfires but buried U-Boat and whatever else? #937800
    Beermat
    Participant

    Your mention if salvage rights got me thinking.. what exactly would be the legal situation if, say, I wanted to ‘lift the lid’ on the known shafts in Cannock Chase and fish out whatever is down there? Does it belong to the MoD?, The land owner? Or me because I ‘found’ it?

    in reply to: Can A Wellington Ever Fly Again? #939746
    Beermat
    Participant

    Why not use Twin Wasps as per MkIV? Much easier to get hold of, widely used, and still authentic? May still even be installation drawings?

    Beermat
    Participant

    Ici, où se trouve le petit capitaine anglais Monsieur Trubshaw!

    in reply to: Not Spitfires but buried U-Boat and whatever else? #942176
    Beermat
    Participant

    Thanks AM.

    If anybody fancies poking around there, this is the history of the mine..
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/domesday/dblock/GB-400000-315000/page/4 ,
    http://www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/HeritageTrail/fairoak_valley.ht

    The ring is where I presume the shafts to be;

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]226615[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Not Spitfires but buried U-Boat and whatever else? #942634
    Beermat
    Participant

    I have just had my jaw drop like something out of a cartoon. 256 tons of obsolete aircraft components? AM, what is this list.. and why is anyone fannying about in Burma when this is documented in Staffordshire?

    in reply to: Hawker Hurricane Canopy runners/bearings required #943624
    Beermat
    Participant

    If SKF R7 or R9 then we’d like some too, will ‘buy in’ to the collective.

    in reply to: Hawker Hurricane Canopy runners/bearings required #944823
    Beermat
    Participant

    Tony, who made the originals, and what were they called? A surprising number of bearings are still available from original manufacturers or their inheritors, sometimes with original stock numbers. I have details of most..

    in reply to: Can A Wellington Ever Fly Again? #950978
    Beermat
    Participant

    Absolutely bonkers idea.. so I for one love it! How can I help? Once the Whirlwind is done I’ll be looking for something even more unlikely to get involved with.. the Empire boat might have to wait.

    in reply to: Joint USAAF/US Navy Fighter Conference… #967478
    Beermat
    Participant

    Latest on this is that the Whirlwind was at the January 1944 Fighter Conference at Elgin – a definite location, based on PT’s logs and a book I found about a Lockheed test pilot who got to fly it. So the timeline goes Anacostia NAS July 42, then Norfolk NAS January 43 (approx., based on Twiss saying it had been in open storage for a year) to January 44, then down to Eglin AFB for the conference.. then disappears, except for a request to Westland for a tailwheel and some expertise in 1944, from the USAAC / USAAF. I have found nothing yet to suggest Pensacola, as has been put forward before.. but I haven’t seen all the evidence Jerry Brewer and NiallC have.

    Can anyone add to this?

    in reply to: Aluminium Welder #969633
    Beermat
    Participant

    Thanks everyone – this is what this forum is so good at. By the way, we are (well, Mike is) cutting metal now.. its all got very real!

    in reply to: If the Typhoon had succeeded as a fighter…? #979367
    Beermat
    Participant

    That’s a very good point, Orion. I’d have to amend my MkII proposal to include a change in rear fuse material from Mag Alloy to something less exotic. Funnily enough, in that respect we are building a MkII (ordered several sheets of Aluminium for the rear fuselage this very morning)

    in reply to: If the Typhoon had succeeded as a fighter…? #979497
    Beermat
    Participant

    Seafire, yes there would have been things to iron out, but there’s nothing to suggest any more problems than fitting Hercules to a Lancaster, Merlins to a Beaufighter, or a Griffon to a Spitfire, come to that. Not to mention a Merlin to a Mustang.

    The thread was about conjecture, a ‘what if’. So although in reality only 116 Whirlwinds were completed, if there was a requirement for a ground-attack aircraft emerging before the WW became obsolete, my conjecture was that more might have been ordered if Petter and Westland had been far-sighted enough to propose a specialised ground-attack variant (with or without Merlins – after all, there was nothing wrong with the Peregrine ‘low down’ in comparison to any other contemporary type.. controversial, but where’s the evidence that this is false?). There was even a trial installation of a 37mm cannon in one aircraft.

    Also, it is emerging that the few WW’s built at the time of the Battle of Britain were kept back deliberately as the only aircraft considered capable of success against German armour, should there be a landing. Not my research, that of Dr. Jim Munro.

    There are other candidates for the imagined vacancy, but still I stand by my hypothetical aircraft as a hypothetical contender. Just as a bit of fun, which was the spirit of the OP.

    in reply to: If the Typhoon had succeeded as a fighter…? #980250
    Beermat
    Participant

    Two squadrons of Whirlwinds were no so much a success or a failure as an irrelevance. The design was so tightly tailored that conversion to Merlins would not have been a Mk.II but require an almost entirely new aircraft. It missed the one battle it could have made a difference to – but here again not in penny-packet numbers.

    Graham, I always read your posts with interest, as you do appear knowledgeable, to say the least. However, you are in danger of repeating the general consensus without checking when it comes to fitting Merlins in the Whirlwind. I thought that too – that you would need a complete re-design – but in fact no, there’s no evidence that that is the case at all. The nacelles, for example, actually presented a greater frontal area than was necessary to fit a Peregrine, because Petter was sticking to a theoretically optimum parabola rather than tucking the metal around the lump as was more normal. The engine bearers angled inwards considerably to meet the Peregrine mounting pick-up points. What is more, the Merlin CG was actually a little further back than the Peregrine, and on rough calculation the addition of a 4 blade Hydromatic would have produced very similar moments to the Peregrine installation.

    I am sure there were other difficulties to overcome – but there does exist a message from Westland to the Ministry saying that they had completed the modifications necessary to fit Merlins to a Whirlwind..

    Agreed on the point about numbers, though

    in reply to: If the Typhoon had succeeded as a fighter…? #980839
    Beermat
    Participant

    Interesting suggestion of the Whirlwind. It WAS a fairly successful ground-attack type, though limited in numbers. It would have needed a Mark II developed with its newly-found forte in mind – and famously that never happened. Feathering props, uprated engines (Yes, the M-word), maybe even a ‘bathtub’ for the pilot..

    ..but anyway, in the meantime in its limited deployment (in numbers, not time) as a ground attack aircraft the MkI was no ‘failure’, whatever lazily researched publications say.

    in reply to: Aviation Myths #1013101
    Beermat
    Participant

    The Whirlwind was a ‘a failure’ because of ‘unreliable engines’. Two myths, really.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,701 through 2,715 (of 3,326 total)