mark_pilkingtonthanks JDK for your support, I will be interested to see some recent photos, but I find it hard to believe this aircraft is beyond static restoration.
Here is a pic of its previous display on the poles at Albury, and below is a link to an earlier Border Mail Article back in 2003 with some interesting photos of when it was taken down from the pole, it appears the council has been stalling ever since!!
regards
Mark Pilkington
*******************************************************
Fri, Aug 30, 2002
Uiver in short flight over fence
ABOVE: The latest flight of the Uiver was a short one – over the fence and on to the grass.
ALBURY’S Douglas DC-2 airliner had a safe but bumpy ride over the fence into Albury airport yesterday, courtesy of three W.A. Pickles cranes.
The Uiver memorial plane might not be back on exhibition for several months.
It was taken off its perch and lifted on to the tarmac so that Worland Aviation can make a detailed inspection of its condition.
Airport manager Mr Leigh Ashford said the DC-2 had suffered corrosion in 23 years of display atop three pylons.
“We had to cut the wheels away from the pylons to lift it off,” he said.
Care was taken to ensure that chains or ropes lifting the plane did not cause further damage to the deteriorating structure.
Mr Ashford said the plane probably weighed about eight tonnes but although the engines were still fitted, the inside had been stripped.
About 20 men from the council, Worland Aviation and Barr Engineering were involved in the six-hour operation.
Mr Ashford said Worland Aviation would make a report to council with costings before repairs and restoration began.
The Dutch Government has provided some of the $45,000 the council had budgeted for repairs, but Mr Ashford said it appeared the work would cost much more.
The DC-2 is an original 1935 plane operated by Eastern Airlines before it was allocated to the RAAF in 1941, but in 1945 was considered unfit and was grounded.
It was restored by the Rotary Club of West Albury in 1979.
mark_pilkingtonsurviving Beauforts and beaufighters listed here:
http://www.filton.flyer.co.uk/bristol/surveylist.htm
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRlangham/steve
I believe the Fighter Collection Beaufigter is primarily the centre fuselage/centre section of A19-144, recovered from Northern Australia, and is a UK Bristol built mark XIC that flew with the RAAF, I understand some NOS and other ex DAP mark 21 parts may be incorporated in the rebuild, I understand the remains of A19-148 another Bristol mark XIC (centre fuse/centre-section) recovered from Northern Australia are with the RAAF Museum at Point Cook along with similar DAP mark 21 spares towards a future static rebuild.
Steve may be correct in terms of the orginal designation of Mark VI ? when construction commenced? but I understand they were delivered as Mark XIC into service, the Mark X1C being a UK/Bristol designation not an Australian or RAAF designation.
The “mark 21 designation” was reserved for Australian manufactured Beaufighters made locally by DAP, and flew with the RAAF “A8-” number series.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonMoorabbin Beaufighter A8-328
As JDK points out above the Moorabbin DAP mark 21 Beaufighter A8-328 did engine runs until moved to indoor display, and the limitation of dual engine runs was due to the servicability of the second prop.
It is now displayed as A8-39.
The Museum website has external and internal still photos, and an online 3-D tour of the cockpit
I understand the Fighter Collection project referred to by Steve is based on A19-144 which is a Bristol built mark XI but contains some Australian Built DAP Mark 21 parts as well, I understand the remains of A19-148 also a Bristol built mark XI are held in store by the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, along with additional mark 21 parts, similarly acquired from Rob Greinharts excess spares.
I understand the Camden airframe (also a DAP mark 21) is relatively complete but contains Bristol Freighter engines?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonResolute Bay Lanc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by willy.henderick
MkX FM221 canada resolute Bay North Western Territory Canada substantial remains
Does anyone have any images or links to images of this aircraft as it is today?best regards, steve
peter I have some pics a friend sent me there are major components still there but nothing in the way of a complete airframe
I believe this is a picture of the Resolute Bay Lancaster in its early days, I have not seen a more recent picture of its remains.
Peter, can you post or PM those pics?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonAndy,
The Museum is acquiring the spare and non airworthy parts not required for use in/ or ongoing support of Ralphs airworthy restoration of A9-141, and the source of those parts is wide and varied.
The major identifiable components are fuselage sections, which are from A9-501 which came from Gove and the cockpit from that airframe will return back to that site for display while the remaining parts will come to Moorabbin, the second major identifiable section is from A9-320 which came with A9-141 from the Warbirds Museum when acquired, I understand from Ralph that A9-230 was primarily the remains of a cockpit section.
Obviously the total parts package is sourced from many aircraft and at this stage I do not think the Museum is in a position to yet assess those parts or apply a specific identity to its project.
Ralph is also restoring the cockpit section from A9-152/150 formally owned and displayed at Moorabbin for many years and the Museum is negotiating the acquisition of that item as well.
The confusion of its identity relates to the id plate found on the structure, it was always identified as A9-152 at Moorabbin yet its component serial number apparantly lines up with A9-150.
However as has been discovered with Wirraway and other Australian built aircraft parts, often the component sets on the production line get out of step where one part is rejected on the line and sent back for re-work or scrapped, causing an offset in all subsequent airframes between the individual serial number of some assemblies and the serial number allocated by the Manufacturer to the whole airframe. My own Wackett project, with a well documented military and civil history as A3-167 is fitted with the steel fuselage frame corresponding by manufacturers number to A3-170, the RAAF history cards for both aircraft do not suggest a swap in service, coincident repair or salvage/repair?
I am not aware of the cockpit’s history prior to Moorabbin, to compare that to the ultimate fate of both airframes and resolve identity the cockpit may have actually carried?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonActually both the fuselage in the second picture, and the rebuilt rear fuselage in the third both appear to be of DH98 mk XVI A52-600 under restoration at Point Cook Australia for the RAAF Museum (the AWM already have their mossie completed and on display)
http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/restorations.htm
again not sure why they are credited as this other rebuild?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonFolks,
I havent seen the book but Bruce Adam’s articles on the same subject were features of various Australian Aviation magazines in the 1970’s, I think you will find the “near complete” wirraway is the one swapped for a zero by Tom King in the 1970’s (zero recently restored and put on display in USAF Museum).
The Wirraway is claimed to be A20-13 a CA-1, and is now in the PNG National Aviation Museum collection, it was not a relic from PNG but shipped up from Melbourne in the 1970’s and was probably a left over from the CAC by-back for the Cere’s program, as were many others including A20-10 at Moorabbin.
regards and Merry Xmas to all
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonPeter,
I understand the cockpit is not with the rest of the parts, or at least thats what I have heard?
Damian,
are you able to shed light on the cockpit situation? and what parts therefore are for sale of the Lincoln and Lancaster?
thanks
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonBenny,
can you describe what actually exists at sandtoft in the way of Lancaster and Lincoln part,s I had heard suggestions a stripped Lancaster Cockpit was there and other comments that it has since left the site?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI havent seen the program specifically but I suspect the image you describe is due to the strobe effect, the original film of the aircraft is framing (flashing “still” images) at a different frequency to the television image, and the difference is causing the motion to appear backwards. PAL TV in Europe/Australia is framing or flashing “still” images at 50 times a second.
The same situation often occurs with films with “1930’s” or sports cars with spoked wheels, the speed of rotation of the wheel or propellor itself may also figure into the strobe effect and the rotation suddenly appears to reverse with and increase or decrease in engine speed.
For those interested in scientific experiment, putting a revolving fan in front of a TV screen, or waving your hand behind a fan and viewing from the front can create a similar effect, waving your hand “in” the fan is not recommended for the kids (viewing this forum) to try at home, as it might create a somewhat different effect!
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonAs an extension of my comments above, and to take the ‘keep them flying” question of the Concorde and Vulcan to its ultimate conclusion, I consider the most significant “aircraft” of the 20th century to be the NASA Space Shuttle.
The technical achievements of that design within 80 years of the Wrights first flight and as the first reusable “aircraft” to be designed to go into space will see it hold an ongoing place in future records of the “Age of Flight”, perhaps equal to the Concorde but in 100 years likely to be far greater than the Vulcan.
(BTW I am not a Shuttle fantatic, and no I dont wish to have one myself, even if you are offering George W 😉 , I simply posed this question as the ultimate expression of the debate.)
Will we keep one flying? (Government or private)
Will they all be kept for static display or will some be scrapped?
Should they all be kept?
Should they all be kept in the USA or shared around the world?
Should Museums such as Duxford or East Fortune accept a Shuttle from the US for display at the expense of “local heritage”.
MY ANSWERS:
Obviously not viable to keep flying as an orphan museum piece, (but I am sure it would make an awesome flyover at someones airshow 😉 )
The small quantity existing (versus their place in history) will probably encourage all to be preserved, and the public interest and awareness of the aircraft probably justify and demand that outcome.
There will be strong nationalistic pride in the USA to preserve them all and to retain them in the States, but this achievement is a human achievement, like “one small step for mankind” it should be viewable and accessable to the public and children everywhere to learn, remember, acknowledge and be inspired (that is the real purpose we preserve such things)
Should an overseas Museum accept one, – yes – for the reasons above.
Should it be at the expense of local heritage – hopefully not.
Enthusiasts, collectors and museums in a given country should be ensuring representative examples of local heritage are covered in terms of extent and preserved examples, with sufficient diversity and duplication to cover for the risk of loss through hangar collapse (Lancaster) Museum fire (list of losses is too long) Vandalism (Varsity), without the need to preserve every “Slingsby Flyswotter” that was ever built or is remaining rotting at an airfield.
A co-ordinated collection policy across collections/museums and treated as a combined National Collection on paper should result in co-ordinated calls for funding support from Government/Corporates or the public to protect airframes/types at risk – ie Blackburn Beverly? Otherwise rare items will be left out in the “cold”, and wet, and corrosive dirty environment.
This can only work if we put aside the paroachial self and local interest and think of a wider national interest, I would have thought in UK that this was already a role for the BAPC to pursue as the starting point to co-ordinate priority airframes across all sites and collections to be preserved and safely protected under cover? and to lobby Government/Corporates and indeed the owner to achieve that preservation.
Similar co-ordination bodies are required in other countries to avoid the risk of Museums carrying over duplication of “DH Vampires” while other important types are ignored as being too big, too hard etc
I know this is sadly lacking in my own country of Australia, and similarly in the USA and elsewhere.
The same goes internationally for paroachial National Interest ie the B24 transfer from Lackland to Duxford – it moved a rare aircraft from outside to inside, put it at a very appropriate historical context site for large numbers of the public to see and appreciate its story, that move did not significantly diminish the ability of the USA to tell the story of the B24 with the remaining airframes – a different situation if it had been the last one or two remaining.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonSeems there is at least a single engine and twin engine version of this instrument, and perhaps individually scale markings per engine type.
I found this entry in my copy of the RAAF Wartime index of aircraft instruments
RAAF ID G106/38 RAF ID 106A/38 Cambridge type DLA is a 24V twin Engine Gauge for Hudsons
RAAF ID G106A/50043 RAF ID —– Cambridge Type SIA is a 12 volt twin Engine Gauge for the Wirraway
There appears to be no RAF equivalent ID for the Wirraway version (I would have thought the Harvard I would be identical to the Wirraway instrumentation as both were direct NA-16 derivatives??.
I will try to scan a better photo of a Wirraway one if I can locate a good picture I no longer have any actual examples of the instruments myself.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonDenys,
found a cambridge fuel ratio meter today, and its looking for a good home, check your Private Messages for contact details of the owner.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonIn my humble opinion the debate above regarding a petition to put a Concorde back in the air isnt about the merit of military aviation heritage (a Vulcan) or civil avation heritage (a Concorde) nor the importance of a static Concorde over a static Beaufigter, it simply a debate over scare and finite resources, and what is the best long term investment in terms of Aviation Heritage and Preservation.
(That decision on investment should be taken on behalf of future generations and not just us)
There is, regardless of the number of static museums, and worthy flying projects in either Government or private hands, only a finite amount of money available through government grants, private donations or even private owners.
“We” the collective supporters, interest groups or operators of such collections do need to be rational in establishing such collections, accepting such assets, or calling for such financial support – that we make the best collective “investment” for future generations to witness some of this 20th century examples of the “Age of Air”.
The Concorde was the pinnicle of airliner development in the 20th century, a bold departure from the format and designs developed from the Boeing 707, it pushed the limits of air travel in speed, technology etc.
It is worthy of preservation and display, if the technology was simple, cheap and “safe” it might be worthy of attempting to maintain one in the air, but its not, the cost and risk to a design authority to ensure its technical support of such a complex aircraft would require massive external subsidy, the dedicated technical support of the flying example, and access to spares would be massive, and the questions over ongoing safety arising from the crash and fuel tank design etc would make insurances virtually impossible to buy, regardless of improved re-design or engineering.
Should/ or will all of the Concordes spread around the world survive? probably not, some will die in the open as the owners (BA) or the recepient (a Museum) cannot or do not divert funds to protect it, but so long as one or two repreentative examples are preserved surely we should be satisfied, and support the sacrifice of those remainders if the financial resources are required elsewhere.
The same argument might be applied to a Vulcan, or even perhaps the BBMF Lancaster, and yield different issues, ie there are a number of Vulcans preserved on the ground, some will perish to the elements, some will survive well preserved and cared for, the funds diverted into a flying project is at the expence of some other worthy aviation preservation or Heritage project somewhere else, (its not diverted from the Education, Health or Defence budgets!). The Vulcan flying project may differ from the “Flying” Concorde viability through more proven reliance of the design/systems in terms of maintenance and costs etc, and therefore willingness of design authority support ,and insurance risk, however its systems etc are probably still sufficiently complex to be considered expensive to support in both operational and maintenance sense.
The BBMF Lancaster sits at the other end of the spectrum, a proven, (and by now days simple design) reliable long term performance and safety, providing a very low risk to design authority (or even call on resources to support it) and consequential insurance risk, it systems (other than Merlin engines) are probably quite low to support in operational and maintenance sense.
Of the three, the Lancaster would seem to be the most historically significant aircraft on a UK basis, and probably also on a global basis, not because of its technical achievement, but its role in a major world conflict.
I would consider the Concorde to be the second most historically significant on a global basis due to its technical achievement in airtravel, (and ahead of the Vulcan on that basis, perhaps this might be seen differently through UK eyes?)
I would support the Flying Lancaster project with a donation well ahead of any consideration to the other two projects, on the rationale above.
To further complicate the debate from a UK perspective, unlike Vulcans or Concordes, there is not a lot of Complete Lancasters sitting preserved on the ground in the UK (3) for future generations to enjoy, at what point do you question the risk in flying the 4th?
– What will the answer to this question in 100 years time
– What will be the answer to this, the day after the aircraft is written off in a non-fatal accident.
(its a question that gets even worse when you get down to 1 or 2 survivors world wide el la Bristol Bulldogs)
We need to temper our hunger to see an example of “Everything” rebuilt to fly, and “Everything” preserved, and move to supporting a rational and co-ordinated collection policy within each museum, each country, and globally.
If we dont we will never gain the respect of governments, corporates and the general public (or tax payers) – or their money.
Flying examples of aircraft is agreed as the best way to display the heritage to vast numbers of the General Public, and to even the enthusiasts to provide a true experience of the aircraft in its “natural” environment and will sound, colour and movement.
But that effort results in compromise in the aircrafts configuration (removal of un-neccessary military equipment etc for weight) changes in systems (later marks of merlins etc for reliability/access to spares) and installation of modern avionics, radios etc for operational reasons, the “flying” example therefore plays a different role in Aviation Heritage to the “timecapsule” static preserved example in a Museum (ie a mark II spitfire complete and in its original state in the IWM or AWM) – both efforts have a place, and each have their costs etc.
For the money being spent on a flying Vulcan, (or being asked to be spent on a Concorde) how many extinct types of aircraft can be recovered now from crash sites in PNG or elsewhere in freshwater lakes? to create sole static examples for posterity rather than some impressive flypasts at some airshows for perhaps 10 to 15 years?
Food for thought?
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
