Where can one find such leftover items for sale?
I see some on eBay every once in while, but not the items I am truly looking for.
Thanks.
Only one I uploaded to this site 🙂 catching the yacht made it for me, a minute later and the yacht would have passed it lol..
Very appropriate Reg #. 😉
Can anyone think of a museum that might be interested in these…next year perhaps?? 😉
Ahh…
ME?
🙂
Okey doke- bear with me no longer have softcopy will try and find a scanner!
Any luck with scanner?
😉
On page 22 of the aforementioned book is Table1-J Early German Production Plans(NOT ALL AIRCRAFT INCLUDED).
Dornier Do-17
Jan. 1934 Jan.1935 Oct. 1935
9 9 24
On page 24 Table 2-B German Aircraft Production Jan.- Sept. 1936.
Dornier 17= 20On page 25 Table 2-C extract German Production Plans Oct.-Dec. 1936.
B6 Friedrichshafen.
Do 17E= 54. Do17F= 14.Obtain this book if you like FACTS not hearsay, it covers so many facets of the German aircraft industry that our government did not know about!
Fascinating!
Thanks!
Need to find me a copy!
S!
Today is my seventieth birthday, shared with others during the Battle of Britain period. What to buy myself for this auspicious occaision! Off to Dagfields near Nantwich where there is a great S/H bookshop full of aircraft, railway and naval volumes. But what caught my eye was ‘German Aircraft Industry and Production 1933-1945’ by Ferenc A. Vadja and Peter Dancey. Published 1998 by Airlife. Its 327 pages are packed with 15 years research and ninety per cent of fact and figures that have never been published before! This will help to provide knowledge to certain questions asked on this forum. One thing I dont think happened was strikes! They had enough trouble with planning programmes to an end product. Must get back to my reading. Goodnight Ray.
Happy 70th to you!
And it looks like you got a super present!
(I wonder if I can get on Amazon?? 😉 )
Curious what the book says on Dornier Do-17 production? Only the first couple of years.
As to the strikes, even with bombs dropping people kept doing their normal things…
I guess it was to keep their sanity.
…or was it.
It may happen in the USA with ABS-D (sp?), but not without a fight.
Cars, trucks, and boats do not have this need and they far out number aircraft.
Why should aircraft?
I am all for active position information broadcast (for collision avoidance) and at least a simple system to direct the pilot away from traffic ways much like road signs, but there is no need go further.
In Europe, airfields are not publicly or municipally funded, but operated as businesses. The only source of income is from fees for landing, nav service (for IFR), parking, hangarage, fuel sales etc.
I think the main reason for the relative high cost is not inefficiency or gross profiteering, but the relative low level of activity compared to the US.
…
I enjoy flying in the US with the freedom and relatively low cost, but it does seem to be partly at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who benefit relatively little. As the overall system works well enough, I won’t rock the boat.
A landing fee, which is per landing, even for practice, is dangerous because it penalizes training.
Some nav services should also be be of no cost, to pilots know where they are, and weather report should also be free, otherwise it jeopardizes safety.
Fuel tax/fee, ramp fee, hanger fee, towing fee, and many other fees are perfectly fine and are used in the USA.
Some small airports have successful restaurant that attract non-flying public who can see the action, to the joy of children, even if they do not fly.
In the USA, almost, if not all, the entire funding for small airports come from the Fuel tax (yes, airlines pay same fuel tax, which they pass to passengers).
Anyone can drive up to nearly any airport and hire a plane and pilot for a trip, much like a taxi.
What few realize is those small airports are critical in disasters. It is by far the fastest way to get supplies in and victims out (Haiti it was the ONLY way, the port was completely useless).
Meigs Field in Chicago is a case in point. After the mayor illegally closed it, the police, air ambulance, and news helicopters suddenly could not do the job because they where to far from fuel. Chicago had to spend millions to open a heliport. It was a major boondoggle, and it hurt the mayors office.
In Germany you pay landing fees, as well as additional ATC fees at controlled airports. IFR-pilots also pay an en-route fee in Europe it their MTOW > 2,000 kg. I pay approx. €8,- per landing for a C172 at a privately operated and owned 400m paved strip near Munich.
It’s not the user fees which are killling GA in Germany, but rather German pilots total lack of interest/skills in organising sufficient political lobbying power, coupled with red/green politicians and the N.I.M.B.Y. brigade.
More like lack of leadership.
I know AOPA has a Euro branch, I would think it needs to get the word out, and to engage the non-flying public.
Everyone has some level interest in flying, but when I talk to people about flying even in the US they:
1. Do not know how accessible it is.
2. Do not know you can rent plane/pilot for a trip.
3. Think it’s very expensive (I tell them $130 for an hour, they do not believe me)
If the local airfields have semi-annual open house with simple festivities and let people see and touch the airplane up close, it will (not might, but will) get people to support the airport at least by vote.
And get some new pilots.
One airport and the CAF branch has yearly open houses that bring a lot of attention and excitement, and money, to the airports.
The nature of the issue isn’t going to be changed by ‘the forum’ coming up with a duplication of existing process or paperwork, however well intentioned.
The guidelines exist – that is the accreditation system.
That provides a framework, through which corrective action can be taken. There’s nothing wrong with anyone inventing their own forms and systems – I’ve done some for a museum – but as here, it’s often re-inventing the wheel, maybe slightly better or worse.
None of that makes correction or sanction happen. A comparison would be law – the legal system provides the framework, but someone has to prosecute contraventions of it, and there needs to be sanctions to make transgressions, when caught, unpleasant.
None of which this forum can help with.
Sharing information, such at TT’s ‘good practice’ is one of the internet’s strengths, however.
Regards,
Reading though this topic, I read that:
1. For small museums accreditation can be more work then gain a benefit.
2. The accreditation may be more primitive, that is not take advantage of today’s technologies, and miss out on better record keeping
3. A good set of checks and verification is needed.
4. That loaner should give concise instructions on care and display of object, not just loan and hope for best.
5. Is there an international set of common rules/guides to running a museum?
While this is not the place to find a resolution to a problem, is it a place to hear about other problems and find a way to prevent other museums having the same issue.
Yes, some things this forum cannot help with, but there is a bunch of other items is can help with.
He cutting the weeds? (sees foliage in front of wings and wheels!)
Oh my God. A bit graphic for my liking.
And the picture of the guy with the axe was reminicent of ‘The Shining’.
Not nice images on a dreary, wet Wednesday… 🙁
A sentiment expressed by all, but after the war with tens-of-thousands of warplane, most had to go.
The sad part was almost no effort to preserve any of them.
Both prop assemblies were torn off as the aircraft hit the lip of a ditch and were laying some yards away in the field behind the aircraft. One of the starboard blades tore into the gondola on the stbd side and you can see the damage in the photo. They simply sheared on impact, tore off the shafts and shattered the reduction gear housing. The blades were metal VDM type. Not wooden.
To clarify, I researched this incident in great detail some twenty five years ago and have eye witness accounts, correspondence from two of the crew, intelligence diaries and the like as well as several photos.
The Daily Mail article was based upon my article in “Blitz Then & Now-Vol 2” and my more recent contributions to “Britain at War” magazine. I supplied some of the material to Bournemouth News Services who sold the story to the Daily Mail. The embelishments to the story are the journalist’s…not mine.
Then I am convinced.
First time I saw a double sheared propeller, but hitting a ditch lop would be the impact force to fracture the shaft.
S! Andy!
I know one of these two Qatari C-17s is 08-0201, but I’m not sure which is which, nor what the USAF serial of the other one is.
Any assistance appreciated!
J
That is awesome!
Start of something big? 🙂
I guess this doesn’t count then 😛
LOL!
I WANT THAT!
make that TWO of them!
The C-17 is a compromised beast, neither fish nor fowl, neither tactical nor strategic, jack-of-all-trades and master of none.
It’s great value is that it can be made to do most anything, but just because you can cut down a tree with a butcher knife doesn’t mean you should.
In any previous time, you would be exactly correct, however ask any bean counter today what is better choice, and they will say C-17.
1. Scale of Economics.
2. Fewer different type of aircraft to support.
3. Simplified training.
4. (blank for other bean counter reasons to put in)
C-17 also has the advantage of delivering oversized cargo to more airports and potential landing strips then nearly any other aircraft.
It is expected most C-5’s will be removed from service, and the USAF will not likely want to want Antonov’s, and it may be decades before a super-size cargo aircraft will be considered, IF.
SO while your arguments are valid, economic and political realities easily trump them (I hate politics, but I do love the C-17).