[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tFile0898.jpg Views:t1 Size:t124.4 KB ID:t3834999″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3834999″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timg282.jpg Views:t1 Size:t118.5 KB ID:t3834998″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3834998″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]

The Watts type propeller matched the power, gearing and pitch requirements for a given engine or airframe. For instance the Hind trainer was 10′-10″, Hector 10′-9″, Hardy 10′-4″, or 10′ 6.5″, Osprey 10′-6″ and Hart 10′-4″.. Fury 1, 10′-6″ and Nimrod II, 10′-9″. These are just the diameter differences. I can’t quote the pitch differences.
Most seem to have a Z—— drawing reference number, but the drawings for the Hind Trainer and the Osprey are given as Watts 861 and Watts 883 respectively.

As to the propeller boss which matched the nose cowling, these were not entirely made like the prop of laminated wood, but were usually built up fairings of plywood ,on mahogany frames and rings, which were fixed to the solid propeller centre through, which were holes for the prop shaft and mounting bolts.

The boss was usually tipped with a metal fairing for the Huck’s starter dog or a small domed spinner.

John

I presume that the speed restrictions are still in place due to the road works on the A.1 north of OW. It’s 40 from the Alconbury’s to Buckden on both sides.

John

Wikipedia only quotes what source the original writer used for his information

You have to be very careful with most aircraft dimensions as often the first quoted and then regurgitated to infinitude are those which were published in Flight, Aeroplane or Jane’s A.W.A. and I have discovered that quite a number are inaccurate. Many of these came from the manufacturers press handouts.

For instance, the DH Hornet Mk.1 press release, three view drawings, show the overall tail up length as 37′ 0″, to which many model drawings have be made and this dimension appears in many erudite publications such as J.A.W.A, Aircraft of the Fighting Powers and various Putnam’s.
If one studies photos of the prototype Hornet, it will be noticed that there is no tail light fitted. However a later DH drawing of the prototype, gives the length as 37′ 8″. The AP drawing for a production Mk.1 shows 37′ 10″ and this has a tail light fitted. It’s my theory that the first Press release three view drawing for the F.1 had a figure 1 missing from the 37′ ()0″ before the 0. The tail flutter problems later resulted in a longer fuselage tail cone and the F.3 in service dimension was 38′ 4″ However many books still quote the OA length as 37′ 0″ for the F.3

The most accurate written dimensions can be found in the Service Air Publications and these were often measured at Martlesham Heath, so a good clue as to the state of build of the airframe is to find official photos which were taken at the time.

When it comes to the Spitfire, in many mainstream, much used, publications, many of the early Mk. Merlin versions, from Mk.1 to Mk.V, are shown as being 29′ 11″ in length, despite the fact that some have different airscrews /spinners fitted, be it either Watts, DH or especially the Rotol with it’s longer pointed spinner.

K5054 had a tail light as did the early Mk.1 Spitfires. As to measuring from a 1:72 scale drawing (especially if it was drawn in that scale)and scale bar you are wasting your time because you are already into paper /copier shrinkage’s and line thicknesses.

If you scale a Spitfire Mk.Vc fitted with a Rotol prop to 29’11” length then you will have an under scale fuselage. One of the most detailed and most plagiarized Spitfire drawings has a too short rear fuselage which I suspect is why many of the Japanese produced Spitfire plastic kits are wrong and misshapen. As a quick answer I would say that the Mk.1 dimension will include the tail light.

Another example of an oft published wrong overall length is the Meteor NF. 14 which is usually described in many books as “the longest Night fighter” or “even longer” at 51′ 4″ length. It wasn’t! It was in fact no longer than it’s predecessor the Mk.12 at 49′ 11″.

You have just stepped into a virtual mine field and one in which I have been tip toeing through for over 30 years.

John

With respect, I think that it suggests (to me) an inadvertent spin whilst turning in a constricted possibly turbulent airspace. Just my interpretation on the scenario and the report. No blame, No names, no pack-drill. (RAF jargon)

John

Aeronut. Thank you for the reply. A jammed aft load , doesn’t bear thinking about.

John

Re the post 30 above, I must admit that when I saw the very sad photo of the wreckage my first thought was, “was there a C of G problem'”. I am not trying to do an armchair guess the cause, but my following thought was how much did the c of g change when the Ju.52 was used in the para troop role with troops rapidly exiting from the aft door. I presume that the ‘in use’ C of G limits must have altered in the current Ju’s with the more comfortable and heavier modern passenger requirements.

Very sad that a wonderful opportunity should cost those poor folk so dearly. RIP.

John

Well done. ‘Riddle of the Sands’, a 1903 spy adventure novel by Erskine Childers featuring the little yacht Dulcebella. It’s about the rise of German sea power and spying in the Freisian Islands. He served loyally as a RNAS Officer in the Great War. He was of Irish Republican sympathies and was later executed by the British Government for his part in smuggling a cargo of Mauser rifles into Ireland. I first read the novel at school and I re-read it every few years as well as a pseudo sequel ‘Shadow in the Sands’ by Sam Llewellyn written some sixty years later. The original novel is probably why I eventually bought my little yacht.

The film is based broadly on the book, with Jenny Agutter in the cast.

John