Carver was dug in March 1981
1940-09-11-Hurricane-N2466-Carver-Goudhurst
So that is a possible.
Mike told me when I visited years ago that they were found in a pond at the Woolwich Arsenal, but he didn’t know which aircraft they came from.
And another!
This time an ‘honest fake’
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Relic-WW1-painted-Fabric-section-from-a-Handley-Page-O-400-Bomber/332107502390?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D8361e2650fc0453db9dc65848ffe0ac7%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D6%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D262810830295
Just a little internet research turns up this about the aircraft in question:
http://ww1aero.org.au/pdfs/Sample%20Journal%20Articles/Frankfurt2004.pdf
It begs the question that the RAFM piece might also be a fake 🙂 Maybe the artist had a lucrative production line!
It states:
The first of these night losses was on the night of 21/22 August, when another 216
Squadron Handley Page 0/100, No.1466, received flak damage to a fuel tank over Frankfurt,
unbeknown to the crew. This caused them to run out of fuel shortly after crossing their own lines,
and they crashed in a wood, the fuel soaked aircraft catching fire and being totally destroyed. [/I]
It seems highly unlikely that even one fabric section were recoverable, let alone two.
We may never know.
That’s the silliest thread I’ve read in a long time!
What ever you call it here, it will probably end up being called the ‘Sir David Attenborough’ anyway.
The other HAC Kestrel had an engine fault, and it was realised that this one would be the same.
So this one came apart too.
I was lucky enough to inspect this aircraft in detail last year (as I am doing an Isaacs Fury)
and I have to say that this is an outstanding restoration.
The attention to detail is quite superb. Guy Black and the HAC team deserve tremendous credit for an amazing contribution to all our aviation heritage.
I can’t wait to see it fly.
Guy
I suppose it’s all too late to move the whole caboodle to Bicester, and make a proper Museum, with the ability to drag them out, run them up and heaven forbid fly something?
Oh well, opportunity lost.
What is your project Richard?
Having done a fair bit of research on Slingsby numbering with t31’s
My understanding is this:
When an aircraft was built and delivered into RAF Service new, The main number on the fuselage in this case SSK/FF/441 would have been repeated on all components.
In this case the rudder: SSK/R/441.
The wings were also numbered at the factory, and the Starboard wing number was double the Fuselage number, and the Port wing was the same number minus 1
In this case Stbd SSK/OW/882 and Port SSK/OW/881
In service it was common practice to exchange components between gliders if one suffered damage, and the exchanged items were then repaired and exchanged again. So it is common to find aircraft with mismatching rudders, elevators, ailerons, even wings. The number on the component can only really tell us which aircraft it was originally fitted too when new. The main Fuselage number should have retained the original identity.
Most airscraft conform to this pattern, and I have been able to confirm this on a many airframes. However, there are always exceptions, especially when there seem to have been major refurbs. For instance a T31 Motor conversion (the first one) has the fuselage numbered: Rep C.766 This would appear to be a T8 fuselage, repaired, and modified to a T31. The other odball is the T31 in the RAF Museum, Hendon XA302, which should be referenced SSK/FF1449, but is actually numbered: SSK/FF/114. Admitedly the paper square may be obscured, and missing the 9, but it looks like a typo of 1149 instead of 1449.
I hope that is useful.
I always wondered if official ‘Ditching’ trials and research left a number of airframes on the bottom around Rhu in Scotland?
An astounding fact, which also implies that fighter pilots, were also probably not trained on inverted spin recovery.
I don’t see how they could have been!
I can’t think of a two seater capable of inverted, until the two seat Spit, of which there were very few, so perhaps this was never done.
It means that in combat, in later machines, it must have been possible to get into a whole lot of inverted trouble.
P.M. sent David
Guy
Glorious………….
and then someone cut them up! And probably not long afterwards.
Like life itself, triumph and tradgedy.
Guy
The only reason it cost so much was the aim of recovery in one piece, which in my opinion was always doomed to failure.
How much did that useless lifting frame cost ?
Surely there is an argument to recover something like the JU88 much much more cheaply, by cutting it up on the sea bed and lifting in small sections.
I maintain that if the Dornier had been done this way, they would have a lot more to show for their efforts, a much better final exhibit, and a great deal of spare cash to spend on other useful projects.
I agree with Tangmere though, first you have to fund the aftermath of such a lift, which is a bigger problem.
Why has nobody found a Spit or Hurrican in a similar state?
At 3M price tag it might be economic to scrap warbirds for the engines!
Heaven forbid!