DBenzHi
Which SAM Publication book should I look at, I have 1600 books so may have it.
I have the RAF Museum Series Vol 3 British Aviation Colours of WW2 with the genuine MAP paint chips in the back, which if referred to in AC of FP v5 will provide the colours .
As for aircraft fuselage interior details, anyone know of anything ?
DBenz
DBenzThere only seven airworthy Ju 52, only the three in Switzerland have BMW engines and those are BMW 132 according to JU Air’s website.
No Bramo Fafnir 323’s then running on Ju52’s.
Anything else with a 323 running I wonder ?
DBenz
DBenzHi,
Thanks for the reply.
This is so welcome and crucial.
Earlier today I felt I had hit a ‘progress barrier’ in that the first camcorder I was looking at, a panasonic, I was told that to alter exposure (aperture) whilst filming on 1/50, I would have to turn on the side screen where all controls nowadays are sited, but doing so would turn off the view in the viewfinder. What use is that, all latest gimmicky touch panel but at expense of ending the filming ! I need to be filming on 1/50 and have camcorder make subtle adjustments to the exposure by varying the aperture whilst I actually film. No doubt dial in +1 or +1 compensation for when aiming at the sky. There is auto mode she said but it would choose a fast shutter speed faced with the sky backdrop and so I end up with still props.
Ideally I need centre weighted metering to adjust exposure (aperture), ( I need to stay on 1/50) as it sees light levels change on aircraft, but as someone else pointed out, it isnt long before one manages to end up with aircraft not in centre of view then things would go darker ! So what is best method I wonder ?
Does this camcorder have the ability to alter exposure as the sun goes in and out of cloud, or the aircraft go in and out of sun, whilst keeping to 1/50 ?
You can also assign the manual ring to one of the manual settings or zoom – I use it for AE shift. Although described as ‘fully manual adjustable’, it isn’t because if you adjust the shutter speed to 1/50 the remaining manual settings are automatically adjusted to compensate, but there is a very effective workaround that I use to ensure that I can film at 1/50th second in order to get correct prop blur and not overexpose. To do this I have added a 55MM Hoya NDx8 filter to the front of the lens and then additionally shift AE using the lens ring.
Can you explain a bit more on this as I am unfamiliar with what AE refers to, what the manual ring is, etc. Sounds like shutter and aperture cannot be adjusted independent of each other manually, so if I feel the scene needs a bit more light i cant turn a knob and add an extra 1/3 f stop ? Do you keep the ND filter on through ground and air videoing ? Not quite sure how this enables the aperture to be controlled independent of the shutter.
My old camcorder as I dialled in more aperture I saw it jump in light increments, this time I want progressive subtle increase in such, can this do that ?
How can I set this up on 1/50 then film and have it adjust exposure to suit changes in light levels ? Pretty fundamental need in any videography or camera work but the world has lost sight of such it seems.
Assure me the viewfinder stays live and I can get to aperture settings and alter them without having to turn on some side screen and lose my view please.
I am told to film in interlaced not progressive, is that possible and why ?
I am completely out of touch with current formats but gather HD and 4K are the two, I would be using Adobe premiere Pro CS3 to edit, so not sure of what format is acceptable there. This films in HD and 4K ?
Do you have any footage of props on you tube or anywhere ?
As for cost, I am allowed to get a unit that replicates my ability to control shutter speed and keep to 1/50 and also have applied whatever aperture is required in a variable way whilst still filming through the eyepiece. having to turn off eyepiece so as to alter aperture is nuts and they (insurance) must pay to get me beyond such. If it takes £1500 then that is what it takes. Something this size and not shoulder mounted or just large with handle is my goal else such large kit wrecks my enjoyment of the day lugging something large about all day long round a steam and vintage show or airshow along with chair etc. it wrecks use of it for such other shows , it would be a no go for holidays etc etc.
DBenz
DBenzKenneth #6 post, any chance you can tweak the pics as the one with the chair is mostly hidden under the one above it, unless its my Firefox browser.
Beermat…I dare to venture that even if you reduce life’s scope to the world of aircraft preservation, then there are more pressing and important problems that need to be dealt with.
We for years accepted 6 port exhausts, and dome sided canopies when 3 port and flat side was correct. Then someone decided to make things more accurate, try and show what the aircraft originally truly looked like, we had 3 port and flat sided canopies, we also lost the high gloss finishes, it was a joy to see such, so just hoping here that someone might try again and shows us true looking Mk1 Hurricanes, and it does make a big difference at the front end. For me P9374 was a long wait come true, to see a Battle of Britain spitfire all 100% correct in shape was tear jerking. As there are a few Mk1 Hurris, it might help reduce the costs of making the correct ‘gubbins’ under the spinner, or so I hope.
Spitfire Mk1’s AR213 N3200 X4650 and P9374 feature the early spinners, though X4650’s is a bit longer than P9374 , N3200 and AR213 so its happening for spits, somehow they manage to get hold of the early ‘gubbins’. Not sure what Peter Monk did there unless that’s what fits a later ‘gubbins’ if one tries ?
P7350 has gone partway with 3port fishtail then I see 3 port ejector as per most BoB spits, though longer spinner and blown sided hood.
DBenz
DBenzThanks Ian, that seems like a good suggestion to me, I’ll investigate further and post my findings.
Dom
That remnant with REF then breakage is an adaptor plate for fitting the standard size boost gauge into the larger inst panel hole. I have drawing of the full item as well as its markings, spacers etc.
Inst panel by the way has an emery paper type surface texture on the side facing the pilot, its not dead smooth, and the lettering is silvery, un blackened panel.
Fasteners on the main panel were dome headed slot headed stainless steel with an engraved ring, visible in the panel relic shot. 2BA 4BA and 6BA sizes. various spacers and washers.
I have the entire accurate listing with sizes for all that was used in it.
If someone can oblige in making up the set required from this exhaustive listing, I am up for a set myself. Listing is the result of years of research.
Blind Flying panel was smooth matt black, fasteners were a mix of flat countersunk blackened and domed headed blackened.
DBenz.
DBenzHi,
Glad to help, I shall see what I can find, many are in books so will need scanning etc, and access to them is currently pending a storage area revamp.
Just one showing the wartime markings might be enough.
I would like to see one restored with cab, as that is extra special.
DBenz.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239539[/ATTACH]
Sorry to poach this thread but we are restoring a Fordson at the Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre too. DBenz, we would be very grateful if you could share your pictures please.
DBenzHi Graham,
I suspect you might be right, as this vehicle was in use postwar at an airport I now gather. New pods and flanges, boom base structure atop cab, and looking at the models at Accurate Armour, a new pumping system fitted, as well as that dustbin sized thing on rhs.
Film crew on the Dambusters remake , where this has gone, will have to remove these post war add ons and create the top pods hugging the tank, to get this looking wartime, as will its final resting home people. Pump area though will be an issue not easily resolved. Though they could film it from the front looking aft and avoid seeing the pump area. To see it in Mickey Mouse camo, spotlamp on top, correct pods and post war items removes would be great.
DBenz
DBenzHi,
my post seems to have vanished so rather than edit it, I come to apply an update on observations, this matador has the top structure and bridge area behind cab that featured two refuelling booms, the flanges are not suitable for the hose pods we see hugging the tank sitting tangential on the tank in the classic WW2 Matador, e.g. Airfix kit and photos to be sen on the www, these flanges would have had a pod mounted vertically on the sides from what I see of such when complete. Furthermore as per such vehicles, this Attwells vehicle also has the ‘dustbin’ sized pot sitting between the vehicles fuel tank and the AVGAS tank, I have not seen these variants in WW2 pics, though the article says it was built in 1943. I have loads of books and study RAF vehicles and have never seen such refuelling Lancs etc. To me they are post war, though that 1943 date makes me ponder, but why no pics of them in wartime use ? Can someone find such a photo ? is this the rare WW2 matador, it doesnt look like it as such, has it been depodded then boomed up with new side pods and that ‘dustbin’ sized gubbins etc ? I think it was built with such from the start.
The classic WW2 matador thus remains extinct. Also consider May 1943 dams raid, this was built 1943, chance it didnt get onto that airfield until after the raid, even if did refuel 617 sqdn. lets see this variant in WW2 pics , anyone ?
DBenz
DBenzIf you can get to Elvington Museum, Yorkshire, you might be able to measure those items up there, they have a display hut full of turrets, else try them with a pictorial request showing just which bits to measure, but such items will require at least three basic dimensions per item.
DBenz
DBenzFordson N tractor pics
Hi,
Just wondering what was the result of the request for Fordson pics, as I have come across this thread somewhat late and collect RAF Fordson N tractor pics, I might have been of use had I seen this ! Is there a way of contacting the gentleman ?
The Brockhouse Bowser by the way had a Lister ‘A28s’ engine.
DBenz
Ok you lot…
ODes anyone remember seeing pics of or the real thing of a fordson tractors during the war? A fellow signed my guestbook recently stating that he is restoring a fordson tractor here in canada and is interested in finding info beit pics or otherwise of what decals or markings were carried on these tractors during the war at ww2 airbases.
Can anyone sehd any light on this or is there websites that may help this fellow out? When he is finished his restoration late next summer, he is willing tobring it to out museum to display with our lancaster…..
DBenzSeeing the Plan A rig gave me great comfort in the fact that this was being given serious thought, maximising the recovery intact, unbent and complete of a delicate aircraft. This aircraft is very important and couldnt be left to rot anymore, such a shame though that its taken all these years to discover it, but one cannot control luck. Seeing no other plan also imparted belief in the fact that this method was feasible and I trusted fully the team involved without knowing anything about their past successes.
What do we know of the past experience of the design team and the diver team ?
Should on the day the Plan prove problematic or simply not practical (has such a plan worked before ?) they should have had something else well thought out as a backup. Even a Plan C.
I do wonder about media pressure etc but it had to come up then with all the people and equipment committed and not later on after another plan had been devised, that was why other plans ready and waiting in the wings that could be carried out without much delay were so important. The loose beam and use of propellers indicates anything but. The mistakes in not having such Plan B and even C lie well before the day. The damage was done months ago.
I still havent gathered, and have asked, does anyone know where the outer wings /wingtips are. They were there, on the radar, and I havent see a single photo of them since.
DBenz
DBenzBruce…Easy to be critical when you weren’t there.
but I am not on about ‘on the day’…I am on about what wasn’t done in the three years pre-planning, not there but in a comfortable meeting room, on how £600,000 was spent overlooking a Plan B, there was no carefully thought out Plan B. Thats where it went wrong for the delicate parts. They didnt have a set of rules to follow to the letter when Plan A proved difficult. A loose beam placed inside the rear fuselage, cabled to swing allways, no support for the outer wings, no counterbalance or cable to the rear taiplane.
I would be interested to know more about why all that was done or not done as the case may be, of why in the months beforehand no plausible Plan B better than what was done was given thought, it might allow more understanding.
DBenz
DBenzWhitley_Project…..I don’t think you understand how difficult and complex a recovery of this nature is. Problems like this are normal occurances.
It is just as easy before the big day and the short window of weather and tides or whatever, to have the red/white marionette beam with a cable at each end going to TWO points on the upper beam so these cables went straight up. That is not a complex thing to do and it should have been in the folder labelled Plan B. The results of that alone would have been so very different. This was Plan B and they should not be coming up with Plan B in the heat of the moment. That is where they goofed. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OUT IN THE THREE YEARS THEY HAD PLANNING THIS. There should be an alternative plan, simply based on what if we cant get the girders under the aircraft. Its not a question of you need to be there on the day to understand what pressures they were under, this is a do it many months before thing. To have had a third cable from tailplane tip to red/white beam would have stopped the 90 degree ripping twist. Again thought through months if not yrs before. There was masses of time for this thought.
Nowadays there is CAD modelling and the consequences of Plan B rig could have been played out and foreseen. £600,000 was spent and that should have been included. Any university engineering class could have been approached as a project for them if £600,00 didnt stretch to CAD modelling. I dont think there was a Plan B until the last moment and that is the issue..
Finally I dont think its that difficult to get airbags around the internal beam, or even just one saddle bag above it to stop its battering pulling splitting twisting action into the rear fuselage.
I still say a power tool cut and lift of the delicate parts separately, they were lightweight and suction of silt out would have been possible. It needed something that would take up the shape like a pre-made airbag that would inflate to the fuselage shape, but even standard airbags would have been better than that internal beam. Certainly not a thin item to rip into it. As it is the area of the cut is destroyed anyway. Has anyone asked them what was the purpose of a single beam rattling around inside the rear fuselage ? I have been studying footage now and the damage is even worse than I thought when writing this.
smirky
I’m new to this but I know a grade A balls-up when I see one.
David Burke
Everything that Benz has said is perfectly valid !
Thank you.
The restoration team have normal restoration (de-crudding and preserving) to do on the part that was the stronger area, but must be wondering just what the heck to do about the twisted ripped area let alone the new shape the rear fuselage has been given ! This is due to go on display at Hendon showing it as it was less the crud prior to recovery (not sure which way up though) but sooner or later when that happens, unless somehow they repair that area, questions will be asked. Just look at all the coverage , it was not filmed or talked about as to how that area was after the recovery and why. My simple suggestions would have seen an intact rear fuselage and could have been done prior to the day. Saving a massive headache for the Cosford team.
After all these years, why did they choose a time when they had such a narrow window of time working down there, was it that after then it would be even worse ?
That rear beam and the last minute decision to use propellers as strongpoints doesnt seem to be the work of experts. Pre-planning and briefings would, or should… have flagged up areas that shouldnt be relied on including props/engine mounts. The delicate parts should have been sympathetically lifted, separated off beforehand, as it is we have lost their originality now.
Where are the outer wings and why ? Radar showed an entire aircraft less half a tailplane. They look a bit delicate in the radar. There was no support to them whatsoever.
I also understand that someone who has years of experience in recoveries was shocked at what they did.
In summary they had masses of time to create a Plan B beforehand, three years in the planning, enough time to think about the second and third cables, the airbag protection or usage, saw method etc. and what would happen otherwise, and they didnt. All the focus was on Plan A. Its all we ever read about. There should be a well thought out backup plan, there wasnt.
DBenz
DBenzYes its great we have the Do17Z up, far better than deteriorating at sea bed, and I so wish someone had acted years ago. When was it discovered ? When did Hendon find out ? I am dead keen on the Do17Z and so need to say the following as its part of the story and a shame. There is an overwhelming amount of ‘spin’ on how wonderful the lift went, on how great it is to have raised it, everyone involved has kept VERY VERY quiet about the mistakes made with the rear fuselage and use of propellers. No one in the media interviews has even mentioned the rear fuselage, even looked at it, filmed it, its all very controlled so it seems as to what gets talked about ! It doesnt feature once in all that we have seen. Not one jot is said about what happened.
The rear fuselage should not be in the wrecked twisted state it is in,…fact… if only more thought had occurred. £600,000 and what was done aft of the wings, and to the wings, was so wrong. The beams above the water, which could be worked on uninfluenced by weather, were completely wrong. I would like to see someone asked about this.
It was well and truly still attached to the fwd fuselage and perfect in shape, before the lift, it is not in the condition it is in now through being like that on the sea bed. Look at the sea bed images. Also note the wingtips and overall good shape, just the one tailplane missing. This could have been brought up with more planning and a carefully thought out Plan B. Note nothing was attached cable/beam wise outboard of the engines and we lost the wingtips/wings.
Witness pictures of the lone beam resting against what were the bases of the frames there in the rear fuselage, and the raising video with it swinging all over the place independent of the fwd fuselage, the rear fuselage rotating through 90 degrees due to the tailplane half heading downwards due to no counterbalance weight on the stbd stump, literally twisting the rear fuselage off from the fwd fuselage. Even a few diving weights would have solved that ! Some pre-planning maths to establish the missing weight or a rod attached and weights able to be threaded on would have enabled the correct addition. Even one cable from its outboard end up to the beam would have stopped it heading downward. £600,000 of planning and where was that cable ?
It seems all the thought was plan A, and nothing on Plan B, else there would have been a tailplane cable.
There also wouldn’t have been a last minute decision to use the propellers which then ripped the engines off and lost the cowlings. They simply don’t mention what went wrong.
There was no proper design and thought for Plan B. We must think ourselves lucky we have what we have, but for different reasons than those aired. The fwd fuselage has a strong structure out to the engines and that’s what allowed that to be raised. Even that had TWO independent red/white beams which would have allowed break up should things have started breaking. Why these marionette type beams, they are form independent arm and leg movement, we need this aircraft not to have moving parts !! Thank god they didn’t place a beam through the fwd fuselage as that would have distorted that as well otherwise. It just needed more thought for the more delicate parts, more pre-planning for Plan B. Surely with time to think it all through that should have happened. Things were invented on the day. Its all being kept under wraps. The delicate parts could have been raised along with the aircraft, instead props were used as lifting points, outer wings not cabled at all, and rear fuselage smashed and twisted off by a bad rig above it and a loose internal beam.
view fwd showing distortion imparted by single internal beam independent of the rest of the structure.
shows angle of this beam when it should have been parallel to datum or near enough. Held central by wooden formers or it should have had inflation bags attached around it to keep it central.
shows the red/white beam supporting this internal box beam and its two cables meeting at one O ring, thus allowing 360 movement (rotating port to stbd etc) as well as an ability to rock up and down.
Now add to this recipe for disaster the free acting beam inside the rear fuselage, free acting as it wasn’t attached to anything, it will head upwards and smash all the frames and rip the skin, which it did.
Now add to this the non counter-balanced tail unit, seeing gravity make the port tailplane swing downward as a result, which it did.
Result, the intact and complete undistorted rear fuselage is totally wrecked, through these facts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/10/world-war-two-german-dornier-raised-goodwin-sands_n_3416734.html is the result, just think that was perfectly shaped and aligned to fwd fuselage before humans got at it. Note the dangling props which had cables attached as if they had any structural integrity, the engine mounts just gave way, no thought beforehand.
Alternative. Easy, saw through the fuselage aft of the wing. Place inflation bags inside it and add a counterbalance weight to the stub of the stbd tailplane to counteract the weight of the port.
Shock horror, saw the fuselage, you’ll damage it. Well look at the utter twisted smashed joint we have (3 or 4ft of that fuselage is totally wrecked) , I would rather have had a saw cut there and wrecked 1mm ! The bags would have kept the integrity of the fuselage shape. As it is the rear fuselage cross section shape has been totally altered for almost its entire length.
To display this as it was before the lift will require de riveting the entire skin, reforming the frames to their original shape and riveting the skins back on.
It is the only part of the Dornier that has drastically changed shape purely through the methods used, which appears to be blind panic and not thought out, as any thought would have seen the pitfalls of this readily apparent. This is not £600,000 worth of thought.
I also am aware that such thought was not applied when divers decided to use the propellers as lifting points which promptly ripped both engines out and smashed the cowlings when again these would have remained attached. This was not agreed at all beforehand.
Why use the props as supposed strong points ? There were no strops attached to anywhere outboard of the engines. So where are the wings now ?
The shape is known, with beams and cables of pre-designed appropriate lengths and interrelated as one large cross with the cables going to the various attachment points, this as plan B should the cradle plan fail, would have seen a far more complete aircraft lifted. As it is the thought into Plan B seems half baked.
Yes we should be grateful its been raised, but whilst looking at the undamaged parts one accepts that they are the result of just being there all these years, looking at what could have been a perfect rear fuselage is difficult to accept.
Even to have sawn through it and gone back later with a well thought out plan, lifting bags throughout, or a beam threaded through wooden ‘walls’ held in place by inflateable outside edges at both ends. One at one end and the other further down, maybe at a sawn area just fwd of tailplane. With careful restoration that rear fuselage would be un smashed. Far better.
There cannot have been any thought on Plan B as anything has to be better than what was done to the rear fuselage, to the props and outboard of the engines.. The chance to recover this intact was there with more planning.
DBenz
DBenzMovies for Men, sounds good, I would love to see the 109 prog, never heard of this channel though, what channel number is that and is it Sky or Virgin or ?
I am paying Virgin for TV then finding I havent much worth watching. If TV companies got paid only every time someone viewed a program of thirs they would soon buck up their ideas !
The channel prog makers simply lack the vision, they havent a clue unless someone puts an idea to them on aviation.
The first thing that will spark their interest is the fact that airshows are as big a spectator ‘sport’ as football, amazing stats but true.
I read accounts of WW2 aviation that would be edge of the seat stuff. RAF V Luftwaffe I mean. When we get to see dogfights its USA aircraft CGI.
I study a dumb channel and think why spend time on that dribble, the viewing for aviation would far exceed it.
So far then it sounds like we havent got aviation channels anymore for cable TV ?
DBenz
Sign In
