dark light

Sea Hawk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 14 posts - 121 through 134 (of 134 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1245300
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Mike J:

    There are Bristol Fighters with the RAF Museum, Hendon and a second example with Peter Jackson, both based on ex-Weston on the Green fuselage frames.

    The final ex-WotG one is in the US. http://www.vintageaviation.org/aircr…lF2/index.html

    Total of 6 WotG frames, as follows

    Peter Jackson, NZ (ex-TFC) – airworthy
    Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe (ex-HFC, formerly airworthy, now unfortunately dead. )
    RAF Museum, Hendon
    VAF, Old Kingsbury, Texas, USA
    Brussels Aviation Museum
    Peter Jackson, NZ – project

    Thanks Mike – very interesting and a lot of useful stuff there, after originally including it, I knocked out E2466 at the RAFM, Hendon as the RAF Museum website describes it as “Reproduction aircraft using some contemporary components” (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/collections/aircraft/aircraft_search_result.cfm?txtSearch=F2B&btnSubmit=Search), hence I knocked it out. (I can recall seeing a Brisfit frame in an upstairs display of (I think) a repair unit when I visited Hendon on school trip in 1973 – is it this one?)

    However, there may be a need for consistency here given that we have other ex-Weston-on-the Green Brisfits in the list, so I am inclined to stick it back in any again and add in the others that I missed. But before I do this are some of these frames more equal than others?

    Clearly there is a philosopical issue that we have been touching the edge of through this thread – what constitutes a survivior? While the trite answer is a continuous history, as anyone who follows this forum knows at times this can be a grey concept – how much of a plane of this era needs to survive for it to be a survivor? How much difference is there between an almost total rebuild and an exact replica incorporting original components?. The debate about the RAFM BE2c nicely encapsulated this point. Should rescuing an unidentified frame from a barn roof and rebuilding everything else around itreally count as having a contiunous history?

    Beyond this, of course are degrees of origanality – maybe we should specifically identify aircraft that have not been pulled apart since the era, any agreement/disagreement/ideas for candidates?

    On reflection I think that I have also probably missed off some DH9s in the US?

    Anyway I will update the list to reflect all corrections received (thanks again Jeepman) and post it up again on Monday night – so please keep your corrections coming.

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1245480
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Attempted Complete Composite List

    I have tried to follow everybody’s links and the following is my best effort at identifying all surviving WWI era British designed planes:

    Avro 504

    ex-504J
    B3182 Weeks Air Museum, Miami

    504K
    E448 Aviation Museum of Central Finland
    E449 RAFM Hendon
    H2453 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe
    H2174 Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia (modified)
    H2311 Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester
    H5199 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    D7560 Science Museum, London
    D7520 Museum of Army Flying, Middle Wallop
    D8971 RCAF, CFB Borden
    D-9029 NMUSAF, Dayton, Ohio
    ‘ZK-ACU’ Stuart Tantrum, Blenheim, New Zealand
    ????? Norwegian Aviation Centre, Bødo

    Bristol F2B

    D7889 Sold by HFC Duxford to Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe
    D8084 Peter Jackson, New Zealand
    D8096 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    E2581 IWM, Duxford
    J8264 Brussels Aviation Museum
    “AB21” At Museo del Aire, Madrid

    DH9

    DH9
    E8894 Aero-Vintage Ltd St Leonards-on-Sea

    DH9A
    F1010 RAFM Hendon
    F1258 Le Bourget, Paris
    F1287 Canberra, ACT, Australia
    D5649 Aero-Vintage Ltd St Leonards-on-Sea

    Felixstowe F5L

    A-3882 NASM, Silver Hill, Maryland (Hull only)

    BE2

    BE2c
    2699 IWM Lambeth
    5878 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    BE2e
    9969 Le Bourget, Paris
    A1325 Peter Jackson, New Zealand
    F1380 Gardermoen Museum, Nr Oslo

    RE8

    F3558 IWM, Duxford
    A4719 Brussels Aviation Museum

    SE5

    SE5A
    C1916 Canberra, ACT, Australia
    F904 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    F937/’F-939′ Science Museum, London
    F938 RAFM Hendon
    F7781/F7783 National Museum of Military History, South Africa

    SE5E (Eberhart):
    “G-BLXT” (original identity?) Flying A services/Wizzard Investments, Greenham Common
    “AS-22-325 NMUSAF, Dayton, Ohio

    Short 184

    8359 FAA Museum, Yeovilton (incomplete)

    Sopwith Baby

    ‘N2078’ FAA Museum, Yeovilton (composite of 8214 & 8215)

    Sopwith 1½ Strutter

    2897 Mémorial Flight Association, Cerny/La ferté Alais
    ???? Kermit Weeks, Polk City, Florida (incomplete?)

    Sopwith Pup

    Original Pup:
    B1807 Kelvin Baker, Winchcombe? (incomplete)
    N5195 Museum of Army Flying, Middle Wallop

    Converted Dove:
    ‘9917’ Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden

    Sopwith Triplane

    N5912 RAFM Hendon

    Sopwith Camel

    F1:
    B5747 Brussels Air Museum
    F6314 RAFM Hendon
    B6291 Al Letcher, Mojave, California
    B7280 Polish Aviation Museum, Krakow (incomplete)
    “N6254” D&R Holbert, Aerospace, Little Rock, Arkansas

    2F1:
    N6812 IWM Lambeth
    N8156 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    Sopwith Snipe

    E6938 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe
    E8102 Canadian War Museum, Ottawa (Fuselage only)
    E8105 NASM, Smithsonian, Washington

    Vickers Vimy

    ???? Science Museum London

    I am sure that there will be a number of corrections, over to you…

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1246250
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Latest Composite List

    Herewith as promised is an updated composite list, which includes the first effort at the Avro 504 and Sopwith Pup. The Hendon BE2c is described on the musuems official website as a reproduction using some original components (listed) see: http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/collections/aircraft/aircraft_search_result.cfm?txtSearch=BE2&btnSubmit=Search, so I have not therefore included it. I think that the suggestions of adding Spads, etc are excellent. However, I am a bit concerned about the list becoming too unwieldy and suggest that we should keep the present list for British designed aircraft only. If we reach the end of this road and still have any steam left I suggest that we start a new thread for each new nationality.

    Avro 504

    ex-504J
    B3182 Weeks Air Museum, Miami

    504K
    E448 Aviation Museum of Central Finland
    E449 RAFM Hendon
    H2453 RCAF???
    H2174 Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia (modified)
    H2311 Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester
    H5199 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    D7560 Science Museum, London
    D7520 Museum of Army Flying, Middle Wallop
    D8971 RCAF???
    D-9029 NMUSAF, Dayton, Ohio
    ‘ZK-ACU’ Stuart Tantrum, Blenheim, New Zealand
    ????? Norwegian Aviation Centre, Bødo

    BE2

    BE2c
    2699 IWM Lambeth
    5878 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    BE2e
    9969 Le Bourget, Paris
    A1325 Peter Jackson, New Zealand
    F1380 Gardermoen Museum, Nr Oslo
    (Possible second New Zealand aircraft – to be deleted if nobody come forward with evidence to support its existence)

    SE5

    SE5A
    C1916 Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    F904 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    F937/’F-939′ Science Museum, London
    F938 RAFM Hendon
    F7781/F7783 National Museum of Military History, South Africa

    SE5E (Eberhart):
    “G-BLXT” (original identity?) Flying A services/Wizzard Investments, Greenham Common
    “AS-22-325 NMUSAF, Dayton, Ohio

    Sopwith Pup

    Fully Original:
    N5195 Museum of Army Flying, Middle Wallop

    Converted Dove:
    9971 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden

    Sopwith Camel

    F1:
    B5747 Brussels Air Museum
    F6314 RAFM Hendon
    B6291 Al Letcher, Mojave, California
    B7280 Krakow (incomplete)
    “N6254” D&R Holbert, Aerospace, Little Rock, Arkansas

    2F1:
    N6812 IWM Lambeth
    N8156 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    Sopwith Snipe

    E6938 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe
    E8102 Canadian War Museum, Ottawa (Fuselage only)
    E8105 NASM, Smithsonian, Washington

    Bristol F2B

    D7889 Sold by HFC Duxford to Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe
    D8084 Peter Jackson, New Zealand
    D8096 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    E2466 RAFM, Hendon
    E2581 IWM, Duxford
    ????? Brussels Aviation Museum
    “AB21” At Museo del Aire, Madrid

    Corrections, comments, complaints please!

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1247221
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    I saw the Snipe at Rockliffe last year, arranged in a similar flying pose, making close inspection difficult. Sadly my poor ‘mission planning’ before the trip meant I missed the other one in Ottawa at the Canadian War Museum,

    At least I presume that it is visible, on the Smithsonian one all that one could see when I was there were the nose and one wing sticking out over the passageway roof leading out of the WWI exhibition…

    Does anyone have an identity and location (Blenheim?) for the ex-Norwegian BE2c in New Zealand?

    I note the recent posts, unless anyone else who knows more about it wants to take over the batten I will post a new composite list late tomorrow night, including Avro 504s (thanks Baldeagle). So if there is anything anyone wants to add please post it up and I will stick it on. Yes why not do Pups and 1 1/2 strutters next?

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1248110
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Brisfit & Sopwith Snipe Added

    I have spent some time tidying up yesterday’s composite list, making it more consistent and going through everyones comments to pick up everything that I could. I have also now added “starter for ten lists” for the Brisfit and for my favourite the Sopwith Snipe (the Bentley BR2 engine is such a work of beauty), what a pity we dont have one over here, especially as when I visited the Smithsonian nearly seven years ago thiers seems so under-appreciated, the “display” having the appearnce of being stuck up on a shelf over a door.

    BE2

    BE2c
    2699 IWM Lambeth
    5878 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    BE2e
    9969 Le Bourget, Paris, France
    A1325 Peter Jackson, New Zealand
    Identity?? New Zealand

    SE5

    SE5A
    C1916 Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    F904 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    F937/’F-939′ Science Museum London
    F938 RAFM Hendon
    F7781/F7783 National Museum of Military History, South Africa

    SE5E (Eberhart):
    “G-BLXT” (original identity?) Flying A services/Wizzard Investments, Greenham Common
    “AS-22-325 NMUSAF, Dayton, Ohio

    Sopwith Camel

    F1:
    B5747 Brussels Air Museum
    F6314 RAFM Hendon
    B6291 Al Letcher, Mojave, California
    B7270 Missing – ex Boise, Idaho
    B7280 Krakow
    “N6254” D&R Holbert, Aerospace, Little Rock, Arkansas

    2F1:
    N6812 IWM Lambeth
    N8156 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    Sopwith Snipe

    E6938 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe
    E8102 Canadian War Museum, Ottawa (Fuselage only)
    E8105 NASM, Smithsonian, Washington

    Bristol F2B

    D7889 Sold by HFC Duxford to Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe
    D8084 Peter Jackson, New Zealand
    D8096 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    E2466 RAFM, Hendon
    E2581 IWM, Duxford
    ????? Brussels Aviation Museum
    “AB21” At Museo del Aire, Madrid

    Corrections please?

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1249048
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    New Composite List

    I must say that I am really enjoying this thread, it is great to see your expertise, If I may try and draw up a new composite list:

    SE5A

    C1916 Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    F904 Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden
    F937 ‘F-939’ Science Museum London
    F938 RAFM Hendon
    F7781/F7783 National Museum of Military History, South Africa
    G-BLXT (original identity?) Flying A services/Wizzard Investments, Greenham Common
    (cannot see an SE5A on the NMUSAF list of exhibits)

    Sopwith Camel

    F1:
    F6314 RAFM Hendon
    B6291 Al Letcher, Mojave, California
    B5747 Brussels Air Museum
    B7280 Krakow
    N6254 (USCAR Reg – true identity reportedly lost)
    B7270 Missing – ex Boise, Idaho

    2F1:
    N6812 IWM Lambeth
    N8156 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    BE2

    BE2C
    2699 IWM Lambeth
    5878 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    BE2E
    9969 Preserved Le Bourget, Paris, France
    A1325 Peter Jackson, New Zealand
    Identity?? New Zealand

    Is this correct?

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1250003
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Thanks very much Jeepman and Baldeagle. You have sorted the confusion in my mind. Sounds like I need to buy some more books (not that the wife will like it as I already have well over a thousand, albeit more on Southern Railway subjects than anything else – the only saving grace is that she has a similar number – only the loos in our house don’t have bookcases or bookshelves in them and there are still other books in piles scattered around!).

    From the above we now have the following composite list of survivors for teh SE5A and the Camel:

    SE5A

    C1916 Canberra, ACT, Australia.
    F904 Shuttleworth
    F937 ‘F-939’ Science Museum London
    F938 RAFM Hendon
    G-BLXT (original identity?) Flying A services/Wizzard Investments, Greenham Common

    Sopwith Camel

    F1:
    F6314 RAFM Hendon
    B6291 Al Letcher, Mojave, California
    B5747 Brussels Air Museum
    B7280 Krakow
    N6254 (USCAR Reg – true identity reportedly lost) (listed by Ogden as being in Little Rock, Arkansas marked as B7270)

    2F1:
    N6812 IWM Lambeth
    N8156 Canadian Aviation Museum, Rockcliffe

    Is there any interest to continue this thread to provide a comprehensive list of some of the other famous planes of WW1? If so I will be pleased to put up some initial, and doubtless inaccurate lists, to be shot down “as a starter for ten”.

    in reply to: Project for Divers? #1250591
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    I agree that the Type XXI was a great influence on the postwar generation of subs, but the fact remains that the Type XXI ‘did not do what it said on the tin’ and like many German late war weapons there was a large gap between their mythical war winning properties and the actual deliverable performance in the field. Something that is equally applicable to the German jet aircraft with thier unreliable 25 hour life engines.

    I have just been looking at Blyth’s book (not my favourite source but good on this issue I think) on the USN’s appreciation of U-2513 after its trans-Atlantic passage, this lists the following faults:

    “Poor Structural Integrity. Hurriedly prefabricated in thirty-two different factories that had little or no experience in submarine building, the eight major hull sections of the Type XXI were crudely made and did not fit together properly. Therefore the pressure hull was weak and not capable of withstanding sea pressure at great depths or explosions of close depth charges. The Germans reported that in thier structural tests teh hull failed at a simulated depth of 900 feet. The British reported failure at 800 feet, less than the failure depth of conventional German U-boats. [Sea Hawk Note – the Type XXI was supposedly safe to 400 metres].

    Underpowered Diesel Engines. The new model, six-cylinder diesels were fitted with superchargers to generate the required horsepower. The system was so poorly designed and manufactured that the superchargers could not be used. The failure reduced the horsepower by almost half: from 2,000 to 1,200, leaving the Type XXI ruinously underpowered. Consequently, the maximum surface speed was only 15.6 knots, less than any oceangoing U-boat built during the war and slightly slower than the corvette convoy-escort vessel [Sea Hawk Note – and more than 5kts less than the more recent and now more numerous frigates, also dont forget for most of the time the sub would have been running on diesels whilst snorting]. The reduction in horsepower also substantially increased the time required to carry out a full battery charge.

    Impractical Hydraulic System. The main lines, accumulators, cylinders, and pistons of the hydraulic gear for operating the diving planes, rudders, torpedo tube outer doors, and anti-aircraft gun turrets on the bridge were too complex and delicate and located outside the pressure hull. This gear was therefore subject to saltwater leakage, corrosion, and enemy weaponry. It could not be repaired from inside the pressure hull.

    Imperfect and Hazardous Snorkel. Even in moderate seas the mast dunked often, automatically closing the air intake and exhaust ports. Even so, salt water poured into the ship’s bilges and had to be discharged overboard continually with noisy pumps. Moreover, during these shutdowns, the diesels dangerously sucked air from inside the boat and deadly exhaust gas (carbon monoxide) backed up, causing not only headaches and eye discomfort but also serious respiratory illnesses. Snorkelling in the Type XXI was therefore a nightmarish experience, to be minimised to the greatest extent possible.” [Sea Hawk note – this also presumably explains why Coastal Command destroyed several examples of this U-boat that supposedly spent its entire partol underwater on the surface on passage to Norway].

    I repeat my earlier comment that the enormous disparity between the number of Type XXI U-boats built (and Type XXIII as well for that matter) and the number that actually started a war patrol is an eloquent testimony to thier usefullness as a war weapon.

    in reply to: Project for Divers? #1250745
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Amamzingly there is still one of these amazing subs in exsistance and they were a pattern for all non nuclear boats to come.

    I don’t think that they were all that were cracked up to be, I believe that whilst the concept was a quantum leap forward the execution was somewhat rushed and botched – which explains why so many were built but only one started a war patrol. I believe that the build quality left a lot to be desired with much dodgy welding and funamental design defects like control lines and pipes running outside the pressure hull…

    Add to that the inexperience and poor quality of the U-boat crew pool after all the losses; the huge advances that were being made by the allies at the time in ASDIC/Sonar technology; in anti-submarine weapons systems (e.g. Squid which even in its limited use by the RN at the end of the war had a 40% average kill rate per attack, compared with the best overall RN average for depth charges of 9%, even with improved ASDIC/Sonar); the vastly increase in the number, quality and training of escort vessels; a nearly adequate Coastal Command size at last; improved Coatal Command equipment and the loss by the U-Boats of the Atlantic bases; and the prospects for U-boats in 1946 are not all that U-boat fanatacists claim… (shades of 1918 in 1945 by the U-boat diehards?)

    But I think that we are straying somewhat from the proper content of an aviation forum!

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1250761
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Thanks Jeepman according to this http://www.vintageaviation.net/Original%20Sopwith%20Camel.htm there are only seven surviving Camels of which four are F1s and three are 2F1s. As we which case we dont seem to tally up with this as we have now have eight comprised of six F1s and two 2F1s – something does not seem to add up somewhere, which is I think is why I got confused last time. Can you help?

    I bow to your superior knowledge on the link between A5658 and “N6254” but note thet that US National Museum of Naval Aviation appears to be confident on serial and states that “The Museum’s aircraft is on loan from Howard Wells of Sepulveda, California” – is this consistent with a link between A5658 and “N6254”?

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1251562
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    I wonder if anyone can help me with Sopwith Camel survivors – I was researching the information on the Internet a few months ago and I got rather confused. Amazingly I found that not all of the information on the Internet is accurate and, believe it or not, some of it is actually contradictory!

    If I recall correctly the best that I could do was:

    Camel F1:
    [INDENT]F6314 – RAFM – Hendon
    N7157Q – C Palin, US
    ? – Krakow
    A5658 – US National Museum of Naval Aviation [/INDENT]

    Camel 2F1:
    [INDENT]N6812 – IWM
    N8156 – Canadian Aviation Museum[/INDENT]

    Can anyone provide a complete list?

    in reply to: WW1 aircraft survivors? #1253138
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    W&R 20 States thet the ex-Patrick Lindsay SE5A is with Arnold in storage at Greenham Common.

    in reply to: HA! HA! HA! #1265770
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    For all those who think that this seller has not got a leg to stand on I have been doing some research and have found that this control column actually comes from the very rare Sopwith Cabriole, famed for its its ‘ball and claw’ control column.

    Although I personally still think that this seller would be well advised to leg it and still think that it is at the foot of my Christmas list.

    Robert

    in reply to: FAA Historic Flight Rumour- Top Secret #1270879
    Sea Hawk
    Participant

    Hi this is my first post, after several months watching from the sidelines.

    In many ways I can see the logic behind acquiring a Sea Fury T.20 – spares commonality, knowledge of the type, ability to give VIP joyrides, etc. But I am afraid that it leaves me a bit cold – it is not as if it is a typical FAA ‘plane – only 60 were delivered to the FAA, the type has no front line service experience, only being used for training and I don’t think that they ever served aboard a ship. In addition, and this clearly a personal opinion, and this ignores their somewhat unfortunate looks – being as ugly as the Sea Fury F10/FB11 was sleek.

    Clearly there are distinct limits to the RNHF’s resources and the operation of another Sea Fury might ultimately be at the expense of something else.

    My wish list of more appropraite aircraft for the RNHF would be:

    I belive that any one of the above would be more meaningful and representative than a Sea Fury T.20. I sure there will some views on this!

    Regards

    Robert

Viewing 14 posts - 121 through 134 (of 134 total)