dark light

Bomberboy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 784 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: B17 crash site find identification. #1026868
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Bomb rack hook and latch assembly, to which the bomb shackles were attached.
    All the best,
    PB

    Thanks for that.
    I knew I was sure that it wasn’t the shackle itself. saves me looking for it now? happy days.
    Hope this all helps you lankytim?

    in reply to: B17 crash site find identification. #1037085
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Bomb rack hook and latch assembly, to which the bomb shackles were attached.
    All the best,
    PB

    Thanks for that.
    I knew I was sure that it wasn’t the shackle itself. saves me looking for it now? happy days.
    Hope this all helps you lankytim?

    in reply to: Unidentified prop blade in museum #1026896
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    B-17E’s and earlier had slimmer (non paddle blade) props

    in reply to: Unidentified prop blade in museum #1037104
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    B-17E’s and earlier had slimmer (non paddle blade) props

    in reply to: B17 crash site find identification. #1026911
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Hi ALL,

    can anyone on the forum help me identify them?
    http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/lankytim/DSCI0382.jpg

    Cowl gill or front cowl ring support bracket (some of the bracket is missing).

    http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/lankytim/DSCI0384.jpg

    Part of a tank support strap.

    http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/lankytim/DSCI0383.jpg

    I have a funny feeling, this is the hook of the bomb winch assembly (2 winches per assembly). The only thing that throws me on this is that until I am able to check, I didn’t think that these hooks actually had the non slip-off catch on them, they were just a plain hook.
    It does not fit the bill as a bomb shackle used by american made bombers.

    in reply to: B17 crash site find identification. #1037121
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Hi ALL,

    can anyone on the forum help me identify them?
    http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/lankytim/DSCI0382.jpg

    Cowl gill or front cowl ring support bracket (some of the bracket is missing).

    http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/lankytim/DSCI0384.jpg

    Part of a tank support strap.

    http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/lankytim/DSCI0383.jpg

    I have a funny feeling, this is the hook of the bomb winch assembly (2 winches per assembly). The only thing that throws me on this is that until I am able to check, I didn’t think that these hooks actually had the non slip-off catch on them, they were just a plain hook.
    It does not fit the bill as a bomb shackle used by american made bombers.

    in reply to: Open Cockpit B-17 #1047933
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    According to Roger Freeman in the ‘The Mighty Eighth’ B-17F Careful Virgin 41-24639 was modified with the open cockpit and was used on an Aphrodite attack on the 4th of August 1944, its pictured on page 173 but the registration is not visible. Richard

    Thank you for this, I will have a look at it.
    So it looks like there may have been two aircraft modified this way, but I’m not convinced it was an automatic ‘accross the board’ project modification.

    in reply to: Open Cockpit B-17 #1048028
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    The Aphrodite project B-17s were open cockpit.

    I think you will find that only one aircraft, Gremlin Gus, was ever given this treatment.
    I have never seen any other reference to any others having been modified in this way.
    I am of course willing to be shown otherwise.

    in reply to: Hampden at Langley B.C #1050289
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    came across a rather sorry looking Hampden outside.

    Dunno about you, but it looks a damn sight better than any other Hampden i’ve ever seen.

    in reply to: RAF Predannack #1067757
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    This would seem to be the right thread to ask, Like my dad, how many trainees would be receiving their training at Predannack at one go?
    Could I take it there would be intakes at various stages through their training, say half a dozen or so?

    The other thing is I know my dad trained on Ansons, but I would imagine other training aircraft would be utilised, so what would the likely number according to aircraft type be on station charge.

    I know this is quite a sizeable question, but it’s something i never asked him.

    in reply to: Flt Sgt Copping's P-40 From The Egyptian Desert #1068268
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    ooohh, now that I like!!!!

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2021496
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    It is clear that the current administration is completely disfunctional. After the granny tax, the pasty tax, the church repair tax and the charity tax fiascos, the all enveloping omni-shambles is too big to ignore. We are being governed by people who are simply not up to the job.

    What has any of this political drivel got to do with CVF unles your some kind of lefty fanboy.
    It was labour (aka Gordon Browns administration) that ordered the carriers and it was labour (aka Gordon Brown as chancellor) that raided the old age pensioners pensions a number of years ago by taxing them in the first place a number of years ago.

    They are all as bad as each other, so don’t just blame the current administration on their own.
    I view the political class in a much lower light than I do the working class.

    I think we can take it as read that if the CVF hulls are not fitted with cats and traps at the building stage, then there is no chance at all that they will be retrofitted with them 20 years down the line. It simply will not happen.

    You are obviously forgetting.
    When they were ordered with the basis that the design had them so that they could be fitted with cat’s and traps at a later date if the requirement was decided that this be the case.
    Who’s to say we’ll actually see them in service based on the kind of quick throwaway assesment you have made, even years before they ever put to sea.

    in reply to: RAF Predannack #1068779
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    The complex of runways and taxiways now seen to the west was the original Trebelzue (renamed St Mawgan early ’43) airfield, which when St Mawgan became operational in mid ’43 was converted to a large aircraft dispersal area.

    Ahh, now that is interesting.
    So looking at it now, do I take it that the original airfield consisted of only two runways, whilst The ‘new’ St Mawgan was being built?
    I can’t see where the third one could have been?
    I also take it then that, knowing the area reasonable well, the reason they did not just extend this earlier Trebelzue airfield is because the ground conditions (topography) did not really allow for it, so it was just easier to build a new airfield.
    Then in some ways as with Luqa and Safi in Malta, the two became one big airfield?

    in reply to: Duxford disposals #1068792
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Seems riduculous taking it down from the roof.

    You are forgetting. Very soon they will be removing all suspended aircraft for rope testing/replacement and testing of the actual suspension points.

    A good opportunity if it achieves what they want to do.

    in reply to: RAF Predannack #1068910
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    My dad did his gunnery training at Predannack in 44.
    I had previously that Portreath has 4 runways too.
    St Mawgan seems to have a strange arrangement for which I know no reason, but it seemed to get ‘extra bits’ added further and further to the west which in one way could almost look like runways in their own right, but then clearly are for parked areas?

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 784 total)