dark light

Bomberboy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 784 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Help save Davidstow airfield!! #1023270
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    πŸ™‚ Some good news at last πŸ™‚

    Indeed it is.
    I recieved my notification that this was the case a few weeks ago, dated the 28th September, but i’m always a little sceptical thinking that knowing how slippery they are, the developer will have some other ‘trick’ up their sleeve which will lead you into a false sense of security and then WALLOP!!!!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Help save Davidstow airfield!! #1031015
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    πŸ™‚ Some good news at last πŸ™‚

    Indeed it is.
    I recieved my notification that this was the case a few weeks ago, dated the 28th September, but i’m always a little sceptical thinking that knowing how slippery they are, the developer will have some other ‘trick’ up their sleeve which will lead you into a false sense of security and then WALLOP!!!!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2031370
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Hi Cockneyjock,

    Nice to see you signed in and glad you enjoyed a couple of weeks enjoying some foreign climes.

    Thanks for the build update and look forward to ‘the odd posted image’ from you when you think appropriate. πŸ˜€

    As you say and as I had previously posted, there’s been b****r all on the net except the ACA pictures that you rightly point out are not exactly up to date.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: FW 190 Don Hansen First Flight Video, Must See!!!! #1038324
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    This is all great news!!!
    I just wish some of it was over this side of the pond.

    in reply to: Terence the Tug gets a mate! #1038432
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    What sort of CV does the new arrival have?
    Maybe terrence needs to watch out just in case the new arrival is after his job.

    It can’t be a lady tug because the skirt is not high enough. :diablo:

    in reply to: RAF St Eval question #1038451
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Pagen,

    What is all this nonsense about?

    All I did was question one thing, because the information I have, did not show what was being described as an extra over blister hanger, but which according to my now listed sources of information, told me it was a cannon butts which looked to be covered over with the structure in question…….nothing more!

    There is reallly no need for you to throw all your toys out of your pram for that and deny the forum your discussion points which is exactly what it should be.
    You, like me, are not the be all and end all, it’s not your forum, it’s everybodies forum and if somebody questions something which you don’t like, then discuss it, not go about it as I feel you have done to me almost from the word go and either put them down or not acknowledge their contribution or both.

    I have thus far accused you of nothing other than this, but you seem to want to keep putting words into mine and possibly others mouths, to make out I have accused you of a number of things, which I have not!!!
    Then you accuse me of Trolling! Well that was just plain silly!

    I have gathered a considerable amount of stuff on St Eval, (possibly more than most), as I have a vested interest because of my father, but even with this you even then seem to play all of that as though it was not really worth anything, other than to use it in order that I call you a liar. That’s low! πŸ™

    Yes we are strangers, but how would I know who you do or don’t know?
    I did not mention either Nick B or Dr Strangelove directly in our discussion and so I see no point for adding their names and your ‘relationship’ with them in our deliberations now, when I don’t know them!

    Anyway, other than I ask you for the benefit of others on here to reconsider your statement and continue posting information on this forum, i’m not going to add anything further.
    I am always happy to learn from others, even though it may give rise to ‘challenging questions’ in the process which I hope you should welcome.

    Once again, thank you for your time

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -IV #2031628
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Not quite sure where to post this and cannot see it mentioned anywhere else, so apologies if it has already been posted, I must have missed it somehow.

    A new film called Battleship is due for release in the summer of 2012.
    It features Liam Neeson, Taylor Kitsch, Alexander SkarsgΓ₯rd, Brooklyn Decker and Rihanna.
    It involves one of the Iowa class BB’s I believe, (probably missouri), but I cannot tell you which one it is however.

    There are apparently film trailers on youtube, but unfortunately my works laptop does not allow me access to such media things.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: RAF St Eval question #1039294
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Erm pardon me, you spent several posts and clipped quotes talking absolute guff and trying to prove what others said wrong.
    You even refused to believe, in the face of evidence, that there was even a blister hangar in the location being asked about!

    Pagen, I’m sorry you feel aggreived, but I would appreciate your pointing out exactly what and where I said was, as you put it so elequently “talking absolute guff”. (sorry for the clipped quote by the way). πŸ˜‰
    Putting words into peoples mouths or just cutting them down, is not the way to discuss things, which is all that I initially saw this as in order to try and help the initial poster with the best information I had to hand.

    I did not deny that there was a hanger per-se, as for a start there is clearly something resembling one in the picture so where did I deny that, but it was just that according to my sources, it was a covered cannon butts and not a extra over blister hanger separated from the cannon butts as you labelled it.

    Why does the fact that someone challenges your comments mean that they don’t know anything and that you are absolutely correct as you indicated in a post where you “absolutely assured me”?

    The sources I have are;

    Airfield Focus 7 for St Eval
    My Life with St Eval by Roy Dunstan
    The Memories Linger on (A collection of reminiscences of wartime St Eval by Jean Shapland
    A four part article The saga of St Eval from Westwings.
    A couple of airfield maps one dated I believe post war and one marked confidential and dated 20th October 1940.
    A scan of the airfield p140 of Britains Military Airfields.
    Finally a scanned newspaper article from Thurs 11th Jan 2000 showing a 1940 aerial photo, but this does look similar to one in Jean Shaplands book which is dated as 1943.

    The point of all this, is that not one of them show what you have described, so with all this info, why would I, or anyone else for that matter, just accept a strangers word, i’m sure you would do exactly the same given the same scenario.
    That being said, you then went onto state that it was shown as building 120 blah blah on the AM plans that you have and edited the airfield layout to show this accordingly.
    I believe this is what you must describe as “You even refused to believe, in the face of evidence,”
    What evidence?
    A scan of the actual AM plan showing this area might have helped right then?
    Just saying it and editing the very layout drawing that I had eluded to, is not what I call ‘the face of evidence’ and lord knows why anyone else should.
    The flash link i considered dubious for the reasons I gave, to which you replied “Please don’t advise me” was your initial posted statement which you then removed (edited).
    At this point however I had decided to say no more on the type of building, which if you read the thread carefully, you will see that this is the case.

    There is a very good chance however that I will meet St Eval station personnel again and it will be something that I will try and ask for myself in detail.

    I had already by then however, reassessed and then commented on the particular location where I believed that the photo had been taken from, before anyone else had and this was the westerly T2 (post #13).
    So what is the problem with that?
    Other than perhaps to grudingly acknowledge that this was the fact!

    I’m not fussed what your considerations towards me are, but I do not accept belittling or disparaging comments from the likes of you or anyone else like you, where you have done your best to make out that I add nothing.
    You don’t know me and you know jack about me!

    Now let me assure you, if I know little or nothing about something in particular or don’t have the relevant reference material to hand, I post nothing.

    Oh and one last thing, my dad was stationed there as flying crew in 1944 and I don’t ever recall him mentioning what you described.

    Thank you for your time.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: RAF St Eval question #1039885
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Just been able to catch up on this thread and notice that the general concensus of where the picture was taken from, nicely seems to subsequently agree with my revised location assesment detailed in my last paragraph of my post (post #13).

    Happy days:D

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Mosquito ride up for grabs #1045977
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    How many of our intrepid forum members would actually take a Mosquito ride?

    Abso-bloomin-lutely

    I have a hunch a significant number would refuse out of fear…:D

    Absolutely not!!!

    in reply to: RAF St Eval question #1046232
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Nick, you’re bang on mate, there was an Extra Over Blister Hangar (greater span) on that spot, building no 120, it is right on the spot in this clearer link, http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=50.483999&lon=-5.006407&z=18.1&r=0&src=msl

    It is imediately to the west of the Cannon Test Butt but doesn’t appear to be linked to it, just the short road way running south to one of the spectacle dispersals which is visible in the current images.

    Pagen, that is not what my information details.
    The spot you have marked is what is shown as the cannon butts and is marked as covered, but as I have already queried, appeared to me to be wrongly orientated. (I based this on a view looking towards the northwest).
    It is shown as being serviced by a narrow track that extends directly out from the single spectacle hardstand and which your link also shows.

    The area concerned is these days owned and occuppied by a construction/salvage company that have all sorts of major plant/diggers etc and I would advise that any potential visible marks in that immediate area on modern day satellite images that do not tie in with the existing actual known structures should be viewed with an amount of suspicion.
    The northern T2 is located to the south east of this site and there is a single frying pan hardstand located west south west of this site. there is nothing else shown between these three areas.

    The machine gun butts are located further to the west of the cannon butts, past the aforementioned single frying pan hardstand and another single spectacle hardstand, at the end of a track to a frying pan hardstand, which drives directly through the centre of another frying pan hardstand to get to it.

    Having looked at all my St Eval photos, I have re-considered my orientation assesment element, which would be more correct if the aspect view was looking more towards the north east (ie approximately taken in the area of the most westerly T2).
    Needless to say it was still only serviced by a narrow access track.
    With all my info, I have deducted that the blister is a cover for the cannon butts and not a blister hanger as intended. Whether it was ever used for that is something I cannot deduce right now, but I hope to have the opportunity to find out from station personnel that I will meet, in the future.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Identifying an aircraft. Can I beat the forum? #1046256
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    I’m sure I caught a glimpse of a mossie starboard airscrew spinner at one point.
    I spose it could have been a merlin engined beaufighter?

    This film has been played on a screen in either the cabinet war rooms or dover castle restaurant area I believe, I just can’t remember which one.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: RAF St Eval question #1046263
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    So long as you credit the book and source of photo if known, probably one of Chris Ashworths’?.

    I have a couple of sources for my info but although I do not have an Action Stations book, I have the Airfield Focus book by Chris Ashworth which may or may not be one and the same book at the end of the day.

    Your earlier mention of possible use to cover an A/C using the cannon firing in butts sounds familiar on another airfield now, so maybe it is that.

    Which as has been already mentioned, could be very probable.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: RAF St Eval question #1046274
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    304 Squadron, stationed at St Eval March – July 1945

    It states that they left the airfield early in July, so it is likely that this photo was taken very shortly before they departed.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: RAF St Eval question #1046280
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    It is of a number of Polish flown Wellingtons (white painted with a under nose mounted radar). The squadron number escapes me at the mo.

    Wellington GR XIVs of 304 (Polish) Squadron at dispersal in 1945.

    Bomberboy

Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 784 total)