dark light

Ant.H

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 646 through 660 (of 2,663 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Kennet Aviation #1271835
    Ant.H
    Participant

    According to the CAA database, G-AOBU/XM129 is still owned by Kennet. Click on the link below and search for ‘G-AOBU’ and you should get a contact address.

    http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=searchnoresult

    in reply to: '1930s-40s in Color' Photoset on Flickr #1293245
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Some great shots on there, thanks for the pointer Bruce. 🙂

    in reply to: WACO – Pronunciation? #1293692
    Ant.H
    Participant

    That’s cleared that one up nicely then (!) 😀 Thanks for the input anyway guys.

    in reply to: Stuck Threads #1300774
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Noticed and much appreciated. 🙂

    Ant.H
    Participant

    Another referance shot, this is an air-air of an RAF Halifax C.Mk.VIII with pannier. Were there any differences between Halifax and Halton panniers?

    http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1946_1949/halifaxc81024.jpg

    in reply to: Garden Use of Aircraft relics #1303909
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Thanks for the added info chaps, much appreciated.

    Scotavia, do you happen to know what the provenance of the bomb doors is? Did they come from one aircraft?

    Carpetbagger, thanks for the link. It could well be that example, although the wreck I remember seeing pictures of was much more like the section at Bovingdon. Can anyone clarify things further?

    in reply to: Vulcan Test Flying (merged) #1303936
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Would think its the old Scapmton rumour again.
    When will the BBMF go there also.

    A BBMF move to Scampton was rumoured a few years ago, but someone ‘in-the-know’ pointed out that Scampton has only the one runway, which wouldn’t suit BBMF. Things like the Lanc have relatively low crosswind limits so it’s always best for BBMF to operate from a base where there is a choice of runways, where they can choose the most ‘into-wind’ runway.

    in reply to: Lockheed Hudson T9432 on Ben Lui #1303941
    Ant.H
    Participant

    The relevant ORB for 233 sqn is definately held at Kew- details below:

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=3200711

    in reply to: Garden Use of Aircraft relics #1303948
    Ant.H
    Participant

    There was a section of Hamilcar Glider at the Tank Museum, Bovington, complete with a Tetrarch Tank that looks like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tetrarch_tank.jpg

    Sorry about the tank thing…..I’ll get me coat. 😮

    The section was the load-carrying section of the fuselage which is very ‘garage-like’ so this could well be where it ended up.

    Edit: I’ve found a picture of it here:

    http://www.cleeveprints.co.uk/bovington/DSCF0091%20(Large).JPG

    There isn’t as much Hamilcar (apparently serial TK718) as I remembered…but the tank still looks good…sorry. 😮

    Thanks mate, that could well be the one. The look of it tinkles all the old memory bells.

    in reply to: Garden Use of Aircraft relics #1304122
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Just a few cases off the top of my head…

    The section of Wellington fuselage on display at Brooklands was recovered from a garden where it had been covered in polythene and used as a greenhouse.

    57Rescue recovered a number of Halifax bomb-doors from a convent where they were being used to line the flower beds!

    Oh and not forgetting the Horsa fuselage that was the basis of on old lady’s bungalow at the bottom of her family’s garden. It was dismantled and the Horsa bits saved just a few years ago (within the last five years?)

    Going back a bit further, didn’t a major museum (YAM?) recover a Hamilcar fuselage that had been in use as a garage? This would’ve been 20ish years ago now. What’s become of it since?

    in reply to: Lockheed Hudson T9432 on Ben Lui #1304137
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Hi Chris,

    The ORB’s for the relevant squadron and MU should be held at the National Archive (Public Record Office) at Kew, rather than Hendon.

    Ant.H
    Participant

    I’m going to buck the trend a bit here and say that if I had an unlimited supply of cash I wouldn’t immediately aim to own anything. Instead I’d prefer to support museums, projects, collections etc already on the go as a priority. There are so many good causes that could do with a few quid. Places like the DH Museum, NEAM, Brooklands etc could all do with ‘a few quid’ for new hangars and museum buildings, and all the while there are airframes begging to be saved and added to these already bulging collections.

    As for the airworthy stuff, it would be great to purchase things on behalf of the major historic flights and collections. Wouldn’t it be great to finally bring a Balliol to Old Warden, or a Firefly and Seafire to the RNHF?

    I’d be very happy just to make a lasting contribution to aviation heritage, nevermind just having something in the here and now.

    Ofcourse, if I could find a bit of time and money aside from the above it would be nice to have a P38, or maybe a Gloster Mars…the agony of choice!

    in reply to: NA Harvard Mk.1- Do any survive? #1319516
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Hi Mark,

    Thanks very much for your comprehensive reply, just the kind of thing I was hoping for. You confirm what I suspected- that the later examples have very little in common with the Harvard Mk.1! What does surprise me though is how you seem to be suggesting that the Wirriway is a very close match airframe-wise. I’ve always been lead to believe that CAC tinkered with the detail design and came up with an aircraft that had little in common with its US cousins. Could you possibly shed some more light on the similarities/ differences between the Wirriway and the US built examples?

    in reply to: A military historic aviation forum? #1319533
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Just to add my two-pennorth, I feel there are enough sub-forums already and would not personally like to see yet another. My interests cover both civil and military (and there are quite a few aircraft that have “crossed the boundary”, e.g. Constellation) so I am against that idea.
    It is true that many of the Forum members who were here a couple of years ago have decamped elsewhere, but I hope that newer members will eventually show their mettle. One thing that I am very glad to see disappear is the venom (and I don’t mean de Havilland’s) that used to occasionally pop up.

    All of the above well and truly seconded.

    Going back to the initial question, you have to bear in mind that alot of the threads on this forum relate to museums, projects and the like. I think it’s fair to say that most of what is kept in museums and private collections etc pertains to the military side of historic aviation, and that if this forum does lean towards the military side then it is perhaps more a reflection of that than of the views of forum members. Just a theory.

    in reply to: Happy Birthday Mark V! #1320127
    Ant.H
    Participant

    Happy Birthday mate, happy landings!

Viewing 15 posts - 646 through 660 (of 2,663 total)