dark light

RMAllnutt

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 358 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Battle Of Britain Dornier Part #1101287
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Left half says: “Valve to refuel / defuel hot oil”.
    Top right half says: “Coupling for manual start”.
    Bottom right half says: “Pull when prop-area is clear”.
    The small black seperated marking says: “when handstarting, remove brushes”. Not quite sure what they mean with that.

    So this would definately be at or near the engine.

    My guess about “removing the brushes” is that this refers to the brushes on the starter motor. Brushes are an essential element in an electric motor, providing electrical contact with the motor’s commutator. Removing them, or more likely, drawing them back, would prevent the electric starter motor from doing its job. I assume this would be achieved as a safeguard to prevent the pilot from accidentally using the starter motor while personnel were trying to hand-prop the engine. Alternatively, it could be to prevent the starter motor from becoming a generator during the hand-start. Just a thought at least.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Sea King XV677 pics #1102649
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Hi All,

    I’m trying to collect as many photo’s of XV677 during her career in the RN. I’ve got several via Ebay & MAP, does anyone have any of her & would be willing to either copy or sell?

    Regards

    Nigel (owner XV677)

    Any shots of her as she is now that you can share?

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: TA-4 N518TA #1104675
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Wonderful photos! Thanks for posting. Who took them by the way?

    On another note… this really is a remarkable restoration. I take it, from the photos, that a Vought F8 Crusader is also in the shop. Will that ever be restored?

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: RAFM Hampden #1105582
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    None of the information you guys posted after my remarks is on that page of the website, no reference to graves being lost, or wreckage recovered by a third party.
    IF that HAD been on the website, I wouldn’t have made the remarks. The tone is that the wreckage alone was recovered.
    P1344 may be a testament to the men who flew and died in Hampdens, but there was no reference to any effort to locate the crew graves.
    Sorry, but my view is that the men are as worthy as the aircraft and that isn’t evident on the information posted.
    OK, and my bad geography in assuming the aircraft came down in Norwegian territory.
    So, let’s end on a seasonal greeting. I’ve said my piece. You obviously know more than is available on the RAFM website, so thanks for that. HNY

    No worries Icare… This is a very well known, and publicized recovery though, which is perhaps why the whole story was not written up in this particular piece. A quick google should have given you the information you were looking for. You were right to be concerned about the crew though. People
    are immesurably more important than machines. Happy new year to you too… and Merry Christmas as well.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: RAFM Hampden #1105752
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    I wonder if the parts in the process of being obtained by the RAF Museum from Canada originated with David Maude, as I gather he’s got an extensive collection of Hampden wreckage. Anyone know?

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Phantom XV586 To Yeovilton #1106917
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    yeoViLton! Usually applied this way as a tail code on FAA aircraft based at RNAS Yeovilton.

    Ahhh… many thanks, I understand now. So the Phantom will become a gate guard for the base then?

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Phantom XV586 To Yeovilton #1107044
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    So if it’s not going into the FAAM, why is it going to VL?

    Someone with an interest in the F4 and felt strongly that an original 892NAS airframe should be preserved has after a lot of work managed to get permission to move the aircraft to VL where it will be preserved and looked after by a group on the airfield.

    Sorry if I’ve missed this somewhere, but who, or what is VL? Very glad to see the Phantom going on to preservation though.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Projects that didn't make it. #1107054
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    The Fw-189 is with Paul Allen now, under restoration presumeably (or will be before too long).

    The Lancaster is spread to the winds, but the identity and a good chunk of it is with Kermit Weeks in long term storage.

    The Walrus was partially restored by Dick Melton, who eventually sold it. I think it’s at Solent Sky now, but I’m not 100% sure.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Scrapyard Photos; Any More? #1108364
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    These are brilliant!!!! Keep posting, please, and thanks so much. You actually captured one of the Shacks in these images too. I wonder if this Hastings is the one YAM got the wings from?

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Ex-Iraqi Hawker Fury FB-10 sold to Belgium #1120199
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Will it be at Legends:D

    With a little bit of luck we will have 5 Fury’s at Flying Legends 2011

    – Hawker Fury FB.10 F-AZXL
    – Hawker Fury FB.10 F-AZXJ
    – Hawker Sea Fury T.20 N20MD
    – Hawker Sea Fury T.20 RNHF
    – Hawker Fury FB.10 ( The belgium one)

    By the way is this fury the one that was once owned by the OFMC?

    This is VH-ISS or Serial ISS19 or Iraqi AF 249 according to the Warbirds Directory. Does anyone know whether she’s flown since her restoration at Panama Jacks… I just don’t recall. Beautiful aircraft though. Nice to see her in Iraqi markings too.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: The Calgary Mosquito(Updated News) #1121096
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    From what I understand, this was an ownership dispute between the city (which owns the aircraft) and the museum (which wanted to sell them). The city seems well within their rights to decide what happens to the aircraft, and seems to be putting up a significant amount of money to see them properly restored to static condition with runable engines. I don’t see any harm in this, and think it’s a good thing in fact. Hopefully the recent decision will lead to a positive direction for both airframes.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Hawker Fury mishap, pilot okay. #1088996
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Why is it described as a Hawker Fury and not a Hawker Sea Fury?? I was expecting to see a picture of a biplane!!

    That’s because it is actually a Hawker Fury, not a Sea Fury. It was built as a Fury for the Iraqi Air Force.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    in reply to: Hawker Sea Hawk jet in US collections ? #1094068
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Half way down the Thunder and Lightnings list is an FB5, originally WM994 and later G-SEAH and N994WM, apparently now in Minnesota and up for sale. Or at least it was in 2004 – someone will soon be along with an update, I’m sure.

    Wow… I am shocked I missed that! I wonder what has happened to her…

    All the best,
    Richard

    in reply to: Hawker Sea Hawk jet in US collections ? #1094622
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Dear colleagues !

    Who knows any examples of the existence of Hawker Sea Hawk jet fighters in USA – in museums or in private collections ?
    Any images are welcome, and any information about US Sea Hawks registrations.

    Best regards,
    Flyer.

    There is a comprehensive list of all known surviving Hawker Sea Hawks at the excellent Thunder & Lightnings website http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/seahawk/survivors.html

    None appear to exist in the USA, and I’ve certainly never heard of any on the US register.

    Out of curiosity, what is your interest in the aircraft, and in particular, to survivors in the USA?

    All the best,
    Richard

    in reply to: Westland fixed-wing aircraft-Surviving examples? #1094632
    RMAllnutt
    Participant

    Hi Richard,

    I have also seen the Wapiti at Palam and would agree that it looks a bit rough around the edges, but I thought she contained some original airframe.

    Anyone know any more ?

    I hope you are right, but I’m not too optimistic. Perhaps there is some original structure in the fuselage. everything else looked like it was cobbled together from a bunch of sticks and old bicycle parts sadly… however, it was at least nice to see the breed represented in physical form, and it does look ok at a distance…. not so much when you get close up though.

    edit:… after doing a little looking on the internet, it does sound like the “Wapiti” at Palam is based upon the remains of an original, though how much original material remains is unclear, as is the history of how it came to survive. It was apparently “restored” in the 1960’s. If this is the case, one only hopes that someone eventually does a proper restoration on the beast.

    All the best,
    Richard

    PS. What happened to the two airworthy Wapiti/Wallace replicas mooted a couple of years ago for a re-enactment of the first flight over Mt.Everest? Were they ever built? Did construction even begin? Considering that early Wapiti’s shared a lot of parts (the wings) with the dH-9, and that dH-9’s are experiencing somewhat of a renaissance… I guess we can at least dream of a possible flyer sometime in the future.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 358 total)