dark light

Alan Clark

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 741 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Merlin engine mark Nos? #1332654
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    From what I have seen roman numerals were used by British manufacturers up to and including XX beyond there is was arabic.

    Though recording of engine marks is a bit hap hazard, on accident cards I can find Merlin XX and Merlin 20 and also from the same time period Mk.X and Mk.10.

    I generally work on the principle that up to 20 use roman.

    in reply to: Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah #1333288
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    Thanks, Alan

    in reply to: Unknown WWII a/c debris part #1333295
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    Now numbers are printed onto parts but a lot of components up to the fifties and beyond were stamped. Even structural parts, and yes they do cause failures, I have seen quite a few pieces that have split along along a stamped figure.

    in reply to: FAA Museum Barracuda on EBAY!!! :-( #1256678
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    That sounds about right.

    They do no research at all into the accident, simply get out the relevant casualty files. So in this case if they had done a bit of basic research they would have had no reason to reject the application. Either way there are ample grounds for an appeal.

    Also the notes for guidence state that a licence will not be granted for preliminary work, ie metal detecting, only full excavation / recovery.

    in reply to: FAA Museum Barracuda on EBAY!!! :-( #1257817
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    As everyone says soon its going to get to the point where we start saying stuff it and go ahead without even informing the MoD.

    They are incapable of making a rational decision and then start dragging their feet.

    How many people (beyond you Nick) are suffering long waits to even hear from them with applications and returns forms?

    Contamination of land could come back to haunt the MoD and for that matter anyone who digs on sites. All you have do is read Part IIA of the Environment Act 95 (and the multitude of supporting documents) to see that. Just don’t let the local council find out or the environment agency for that matter and you should be ok.

    in reply to: Swift Crash #1257947
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    I think this is one of two crashes, one both occasions it was the same pilot (he had the displeasure of having to eject from two Swifts).

    The first was Swift F. Mk.4 (P) WK272, 17/08/55, the aircraft entered a spin (during spin trials) that the pilot, G. J. Horne, could not recover from. The only clue to where is that the test was being conducted from South Marston near Swindon.

    The second accident was Swift Mk.5 XD909, 25/06/56, the test on this occasion involved shuting down the engine in flight. After this it failed to relight and G. J. Horne stayed with the aircraft from 25000ft to 2800ft before abandoning the aircraft. This test was being conducted from Chilbolton

    in reply to: USS Forrestal film footage. #1265747
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    I gave up watching that a long time ago.

    I got fed up with the repeating nature of the show.

    Most seemed to be filmed with a budget of about 2p with the quality of backdrops and props.

    I was probably Bruntingthorpe.

    in reply to: Weekend Dig BP Defiant N1794 Pics 16.9.2006 #1285712
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    I would second the not to be fired from the hip.

    They are v. heavy when handled that way.

    in reply to: Weekend Dig BP Defiant N1794 Pics 16.9.2006 #1288477
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    Nick

    I never moaned at another Defiant, i got the map out instead.

    in reply to: Defiant dig in Rutland #1290405
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    And how stupid is that? Let the media find out before the dig occurs. A well proven method of getting souvenier hunters and lots of spectators.

    Best policy is either tell them after the dig or not at all.

    Defiant Mk.I N1794, lost wing covering and crashed 4/3/41. Coded DZ-B 151 Sqn.

    in reply to: A lot of unknown parts from crash site(2006) #1291985
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    Item No.2 is to indicate the amount of roll and it mounted for (IIRC) the bomb aimer’s reference, I have found one and been given another from british aircraft.

    Item no.3 from the last image is a small switch from the top of a bomb rack, I’ll see if I can find a photo of a complete one.

    I have seen a complete example of item No.1, though I haven;t got a photo of it.

    in reply to: A lot of unknown parts from crash site(2006) #1296753
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    It could be from a belt lock, the different sizes certainly suggest that.

    in reply to: A lot of unknown parts from crash site(2006) #1297094
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    The item marked 28559/43 is from a seat strap. I have found dozens of them over the last few years.

    I have also seen an item similar to the one marked with altitudes, though it wasn’t the same.

    in reply to: Airfix Kit Poll #1313018
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    A: 1:24 Harrier GR Mk.3 (big enough to put some proper scratch built detail on it) or 1:72 Meteor (its been dropped more times that I can count and it still has no damage)
    B: 1:72 MiG 15
    C: Spitfire, all marks, best was the 1:24 Mk.Vb, though I liked the Mk.47 Seafire as well.

    in reply to: Whitley losses #1318235
    Alan Clark
    Participant

    The info on lostbombers is a direct copy of what is in Bomber Command Losses and the appropriate air britain serials book.

    The purpose of the flight according to BCL is Op: Gelsenkirchen

    The previous entry for another 102 Sqn Whitley says the target was a synthetic oil plant in the Buer district.

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 741 total)