mark_pilkingtonAs for my comment about the Mosquito, I don’t think it should be underestimated just what a huge difference it made. I can’t think of another aircraft before the Mossie that was designed to be at the forefront of aircraft performance, but reverted to using materials that had long since been generally considered inferior. It was as fast as front line fighters, yet could carry the same bomb load as a B17 without needing any escort fighters and could absorb large amounts of damage.
Its an amazing aircraft, and my favourite, and of course lead in some ways to the Vampire’s ply-balsa sandwich fuselage, but other than that, the Mossies development was unique to itself and not a stepping stone along the path to something else.
As against the DH-60 which opened up the skies for private civil aviation and lead to a family of aircraft through to the tigermoth, itself a story in its own right.
But I considered this question related to which country had made the largest contribution to the advancement of aviation, not which type was the most innovative or uniquely successful – the mossie would head towards the top of that list.
If the mossie contributed something, it was that bigger isnt always better, as against faster. The mossie’s capabilities in some ways did lead into the Canberra, but thats more functionally than structurally.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI assume its all relating to difficulties in diplomacy with the new Egyptian government or the military behind it, but I would have thought searching for the pilots remains and recovering the aircraft would be a relatively minor cost for UK Defence even while the Olympics and the GFC/Euro meltdown is occuring?, and that cost is not the issue?
– Surely the “British Flag waving” and Government “pats on the back” that are laying there to be taken in pursuing this outcome of searching for/locating the pilots remains, as well as recovering the aircraft, – would have had the problem solved? and UK searchers on the ground some time ago?
Hopefully its not being intentionally delayed by a spindoctor to await the Olympic photo opportunities to be exhausted before this project is given the green light?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonIs it a paint blemish? or a “mark on the negative” (yes I know its likely a digital image smiles) or is that a bloody big gouge in the paint or worse surely not a wrinkle in the skin just aft of the rear quarter window?
And despite that – it looks fantastic, the early hawks stand apart from the rest of the breed.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe answer is easy. Germany.
Not because of any of their advanced work, – but since it was their two world wars that twice in twenty years propelled aviation by huge leaps that otherwise would have taken decades longer….:diablo:
+ Smiles, I like it
Although as an Australian I’m proud of the efforts of some aussies in the early pioneering days, I’m able to perhaps be a bit more impartial as Australia is clearly not in the running for this title, and therefore I’m certainly unlikely to be accused of being biased.
I personally think the French inch out Germany pretty easily for the early hot air balloon and flying machine efforts but then both are then clearly left well behind by the UK and USA.
Its a difficult call between the UK and the USA, there is firstly Cayley and Hiram Maxim against the exploits of Chanute and the Wrights, and de Havilland is out there on his own in my mind, but the US have Douglas and others too.
Personally the UK made such a major contribution to aviation in its formative years from 1907 through to the mid 1930’s that it is the stand out nation, even though from the late 1930’s through to today the US has dominated aviation development (but not exclusively done it all).
Although the Mosquito is my favourite aircraft and its innovative I dont think its an important link on the critical path of aircraft development, but if you took all the designs of Geoffrey de Havilland off the table I suspect aviation would not be where it is today, even though wooden bi-planes are not the norm today.
Rolls Royce might be a similar company to take off the table and see the effect on history.
The UK’s contribution as against the USA is even more impressive considering the differences in population size, and of course after the Blitz and debt of war, its surprising the UK was still able to lead in a number of areas (VTOL) well into the post war period. And of course population scales with wealth and then Defence spending and so its not surprising the US has led the post war aerospace industry, and also see it as a strategic defence advantage.
In fact if not for a politician prematurely calling the end of manned aircraft due to the Bloodhound missile etc the UK may have lead in many areas for much longer.
BTW I was responding to the headline question and not limiting my view to Military Aviation as seems to be a refinement implied in the body of the original post.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI dont think its wise to belittle safety risks online simply on the “I smoke & I’m still alive at 90” evidence based model.
Radium is radio-active, prolonged exposure to radiation can be harmful, thats pretty well established and proven.
I’m not sure its presence on aircraft instruments has yet been proven to have resulted in a pilots death or poor health, simply due to flying behind an instrument panel, but playing with loose or broken instruments, even to remove the coating “to make it safe”, is clearly a different risk.
The real risk is ingesting the particles as stated earlier, and they obviously havent been rushed with volunteers to determine how much is safe to ingest.
Its sad story has its origins in the “Radium Girls” – 70 women who worked in the instrument and clock factory in the US painting the stuff onto the hands and faces of various devices just after word war I and died of radiation poisoning.
Of course there was none of that “occupational health and safety rubbish” to get in the way of making a buck back then, and the girls were apparently told it was safe, and licked their brushes to sharpen them as they worked and some apparantly painted their finger nails with it too, and perhaps later licked their fingers and certainly ate with it over their hands.
while the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
The Radium Girls were female factory workers who contracted radiation poisoning from painting watch dials with glow-in-the-dark paint at the United States Radium factory in Orange, New Jersey around 1917. The women, who had been told the paint was harmless, ingested deadly amounts of radium by licking their paintbrushes to sharpen them; some also painted their fingernails and teeth with the glowing substance.
Five of the women challenged their employer in a case that established the right of individual workers who contract occupational diseases to sue their employers.
From 1917 to 1926, U.S. Radium Corporation, originally called the Radium Luminous Material Corporation was engaged in the extraction and purification of radium from carnotite ore to produce luminous paints, which were marketed under the brand name ‘Undark’. As a defense contractor, U.S. Radium was a major supplier of radioluminescent watches to the military. Their plant in New Jersey employed over a hundred workers, mainly women, to paint radium-lit watch faces and instruments, believing it to be safe.
Radiation exposure
The U.S. Radium Corporation hired some 70 women to perform various tasks including the handling of radium, while the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves; chemists at the plant used lead screens, masks and tongs.[1] US Radium had even distributed literature to the medical community describing the “injurious effects” of radium.An estimated 4,000 workers were hired by corporations in the U.S. and Canada to paint watch faces with radium. They mixed glue, water and radium powder, and then used camel hair brushes to apply the glowing paint onto dials. The then-current rate of pay, for painting 250 dials a day, was about a penny and a half per dial ($0.27 per dial in today’s terms). The brushes would lose shape after a few strokes, so the U.S. Radium supervisors encouraged their workers to point the brushes with their lips, or use their tongues to keep them sharp. For fun, the Radium Girls painted their nails, teeth and faces with the deadly paint produced at the factory.[2] Many of the workers became sick. It is unknown how many died from exposure to radiation. The American factory sites became Superfund cleanup sites.[citation needed]
Radiation sickness
Many of the women later began to suffer from anemia, bone fractures and necrosis of the jaw, a condition now known as radium jaw. It is thought that the X-ray machines used by the medical investigators may have contributed to some of the sickened workers’ ill-health by subjecting them to additional radiation. It turned out at least one of the examinations was a ruse, part of a campaign of disinformation started by the defense contractor.[1] U.S. Radium and other watch-dial companies rejected claims that the afflicted workers were suffering from exposure to radium. For some time, doctors, dentists, and researchers complied with requests from the companies not to release their data. At the urging of the companies, worker deaths were attributed by medical professionals to other causes; syphilis, a notorious sexually transmitted disease at the time, was often cited in attempts to smear the reputations of the women.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium
Radium was formerly used in self-luminous paints for watches, nuclear panels, aircraft switches, clocks, and instrument dials. A typical self-luminous watch that uses radium paint contains around 1 microgram of radium.[13] In the mid-1920s, a lawsuit was filed by five dying “Radium Girl” dial painters who had painted radium-based luminous paint on the dials of watches and clocks. The dial painters’ exposure to radium caused serious health effects which included sores, anemia, and bone cancer. This is because radium is treated as calcium by the body, and deposited in the bones, where radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells.
During the litigation, it was determined that company scientists and management had taken considerable precautions to protect themselves from the effects of radiation, yet had not seen fit to protect their employees. Worse, for several years the companies had attempted to cover up the effects and avoid liability by insisting that the Radium Girls were instead suffering from syphilis. This complete disregard for employee welfare had a significant impact on the formulation of occupational disease labor law.[24]
As a result of the lawsuit, the adverse effects of radioactivity became widely known, and radium-dial painters were instructed in proper safety precautions and provided with protective gear. In particular, dial painters no longer shaped paint brushes by lip (which led to accidental ingestion of the radium salts). Radium was still used in dials as late as the 1960s, but there were no further injuries to dial painters. This further highlighted that the plight of the Radium Girls was completely preventable.
After the 1960s, radium paint was first replaced with promethium paint, and later by tritium bottles which continue to be used today. Although the beta radiation from tritium is potentially dangerous if tritium is ingested, tritium has replaced radium in these applications.
I started life as an Instrument Technician in an Instrument Calibration Lab, and I suspect it would be possible to remove the coating safely without great risk to life, and also perhaps to repair/maintain/test existing instruments with it left intact, but it obviously should be treated with great respect, and approached with more than just rubber gloves.
And if your not too concerned about Radium and aircraft instruments, then hold your breath while you read about Radon smiles
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonMark -was the opportunity to acquire the two former RAAF P-40’s not allowed to Australian collectors ? I recall the recoveries from PNG over the years have by far favoured Australian and American collectors -I do wonder if the numbers of P-40’s flying in RAAF markings also reflects the owners whims but I guess that comes down to the age old arguement of who stumps up the cash !
Yes, I totally agree David, and I am not bemoaning the outcome for those two airframes but simply using those two as examples of how the wishes and memories of the pilots who flew them might not be considered in the outcomes they result in, as against the wishes of the owners.
Both were major restorations of war salvaged aircraft, they were not in anyway intact time capsules of their service when they were found.
Of course I am presenting my own opinion and view as to the appropriate outcome for this Sahara P40, and explaining and exampling the basis of those views, it doesnt make me right or wrong, or these issues black and white.
As for ‘Or does accuracy and authenticity only exist in the eye of the beholder’ – I believe you also have that dilemma with a former significant
research Lincoln -whether to restore back to what it is a post war civilian
test bed or to recreate it into something its not – a RAAF bomber. Of course in the case of the Lincoln I acknowledge its very much a former shadow of its former self -however are we restoring for those who remember them from living memory or trying to give an authentic and historically correct machine for future generations.
Yes again, here is an airframe with some significance and provenance of its own, that will cause that dilemma to be resolved at some stage.
Where an airframe is so important, so unique that its own identity should not be lost, its usually considered significant enough hopefully not to let it fall into such condition or leave the country of origin.
Of course like the two former RAAF P-40s are still able to be acknowledged for their individual histories as the basis of the Canadian and RAFM restorations, they cannot easily be interpreted and recognised as such by anyone viewing them, and the same thing would occur with Lincoln RF342 were it to be restored to represent a GAF Lincoln rather than a Napier test bed.
Had its own cockpit come with it, I certainly would have been arguing strongly for RF342 to be presented as itself, however that is now in the Westpac collection of Paul Allen presented in its earlier identity as a Lancaster cockpit.
Of course, if presented in a RAAF scheme to represent a GAF built example, its still RF342 under the paint and not lost to posterity or research, just hidden from plain view.
But equally, the reasons why museum’s import or source such foreign aircraft is to fill a gap in their collection and present a locally important type, usually by displaying that aircraft in a more representative identity and paint scheme. ie the RAFM DAP mark VIII Beaufort becomes a Bristol mark II, the NMUSAF did the same with an ex RAAF Beaufighter and Spitfire mark V, or even the RAAFM’s F4 Phantom.
We might well not have any influence in what happens to her anyway -what I do know is she is very much in danger and if it came to a case of her being recovered there are private individuals in the U.K and abroad who would conserve and restore her correctly rather than see the current shambolic situation continue.
Of course we are just having an philosophical online debate, that will have little or no impact on what actually happens, and it does need some immediate action and its not clear that is happening?, or quick enough?
But equally if someone with deep pockets really wanted it, wouldnt they already be trying to get it, and be negotiating to do so? – and of course I’m not sure who you do that with, and certainly I dont think its a simple case of just turning up and slipping it into a shipping container and expecting the locals to look the other way?
I have always considered the George Maude P-40 as the reference example for the type as it was straight from RCAF to George . Despite a wing swop it hasn’t to be best of my knowledge ever been ‘restored’ or flown as a warbird.
I’m not suggesting the one in the desert is the reference example P-40 and needs to be conserved on that basis?, I’m suggesting its value is that its largely intact from it wartime forced landing with tragic results that occurred 70 years ago, and from that point of view is very significant and unique. (it its with Lady Be Good but clearly she is no longer in anyway representative of how she was when found – I consider this still is, even with the broken glass and gunsight and guns removed etc
I continue to think its of such uniqueness and significance that it is deserving of recovery into the RAFM or IWM and display “as found”, and if not then into the Egyptian museum on the same basis.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonSo how do you actually stop this aircraft from turning itself into a pile of dust?
The aircraft has suffered fire damage – its pretty much an unknown in the engine bay and overall in poor condition.
Isnt that a conservation problem that exists with all museum objects, from old books to un restored Halifaxes? – I’m sure the RAFM could deal with it if this aircraft was in their possession?
It would be sadly nice if we could in cases like this have the pilot’s opinion ! I would dearly like the views of veterans -do they actually wish these machines to be left as effectively ‘wrecks’ or do they want them restored to how they were. I have seen many pictures of veterans climbing into restored Spitfires and the smiles on their faces – its a hard call but I imagine the majority would wish these aircraft to be restored to something they remember rather than something they wish to forget but I could be wrong.
And yes we could restore it for those veterans, who will enjoy it for perhaps another 10 -20 years before its purpose is then for future generations rather than them.
But equally there are plenty of other P-40’s already available for them to climb into and smile in, theres the former Pacific RAAF P40 in Canada flying in near identical RAF Desert colours scheme, and the RAFM has another former Pacific RAAF P40 displayed in Meditteranean RAF colours already, – plenty of sit-in and smiling opportunities already.
Except of course for the RAAF pilots who actually flew in combat in the Pacific in those two actual aircraft, now presented as something they are not? I wonder what their opinions are- or if they matter to you? or those who made the decisions to present them in those identities? smiles.
Or does accuracy and authenticity only exist in the eye of the beholder?
However those two aircraft are still fulfilling a useful purpose, and there are plenty of other static – fully restored to factory fresh P-40s to perform the task you call for, and are doing so. There are also a growing number of airworthy P-40s to also perform the task you call for, and its possible to convert bank balances into even more airworthy P-40s largely through new metal and skillful workshops, without consuming this one to do so.
Like the Halifax in the RAFM this is a very unique survivor, and not just another P-40, its not needed to recreate a factory fresh museum display, or even airworthy example – others are already doing so in its place.
Those do not have the unique story to tell, that this one has, and presenting it “as is” is the best way to tell it.
Personally, If I was a veteran who knew and flew with the pilot of this aircraft, or I was a member of his family, and had a say in its future, I think I would want it conserved exactly as it is, in a similar way to a war grave.
Of course I’m not, and cannot speak for them, but thats my own opinion as I see it, and no, I dont think every wreck or derelict aircraft should be kept “as is”.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonDavid,
I would have thought a “time capsule” is something that represents “how it was” by being unchanged from that time “other than by time itself”, not something that recreates “how it was” by being recreated, no matter how skillful that recreation is.
The more intact and undisturbed something is, the better the “timecapsule” it is, and still far more “authentic” and “significant” than the “recreation” that is “accurate” down to throttle knob engraving to exact compliance with photos and the pilots manual.
Time capsules have patina.
But lets not get caught up with semantics and labels – smiles.
The reality is that this P-40 still looks pretty much preserved as it was for the last 70 years other than some minor broken glass, sympathetic “restoration” could replace broken glass.
Its not how it was when it forced landed, 70 years of sandblasting and bleaching by the sun has occured, but thats part of its story.
In fact without that story it is “just another P-40”.
Of course it could be restored to static condition but factory fresh, and still retain virtually all of the structure, but is that then telling its story?
Airworthy restoration would probably retain much of the structure but perhaps with some fuselage structure (frames, intercostals and skins) replaced due to the obvious damage, but would replace many other parts due to their condition / damage, ie undercarriage, engine and prop, but is that really telling its story?
All parts will be stripped down, and paint stripped, all the instruments are likely not to have just their glass replaced, but all be replaced with NOS stock. simply because they are readily available and more cost effective to do so.
The finished airworthy outcome will be factory fresh, and able to fly, but its telling less and less of its unique story.
Once your replacing those parts why not fit a new (and different) paint scheme as well? isnt it the private owners perogative? (yes I know thats a bridge too far.
I’m not seriously suggesting that would be acceptable in this case, but equally there are plenty of other wartime aircraft painted up in other colours, even combat veterans, not just representative examples. Why is it ok with them and not with this one? Its because of the unique story that surrounds this one, its pilot’s sad loss in the desert, and the aircrafts survival for 70 years.
Of course, the airworthy restoration will still be an authentic and original airframe and have and retain provenance, even with those minor compromises of repair and replacement.
But it will not have the “patina” of a conserved “time capsule” that has sat in the desert for 70 years after its fateful forced landing, even if some glass has been broken, and is or isnt replaced for display “as is”.
Thats what this offers, and why its not “just another P-40”, and is a “timecapsule” – as was the whole site at the time it was found.
Of course there is probably some NOS “Patina” able to be bought some where, or perhaps someone can “replicate” some “authentic” patina and “restore” it into the finished outcome?
This aircraft in its current condition is not factory fresh, or how it was operationally in the war, but its still very close to the crashed and broken condition it was when its pilot staggered off to his death in the desert, and that is its unique story and worth conserving for future generations.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe words “time capsule” get bandied about quite easily in the warbird movement, I’ve recently seen them applied to effectively a new-build aircraft with little original material in it, and yet this P-40, which although becoming less intact every day, doesnt have any new metal put in it yet, but is somehow now not a time capsule and never was? rather strange!
If it isnt, I dont know what is?
Its possible today to largely punch out a new flying P-40 without much original material in it, and without a specific original structure or identity, and there are examples flying today that are apparantly well known, but not openly acknowledged as such (but lets not go there).
Now because its not totally “as found” there are calls for this aircraft to be restored to fly, rather than be preserved as is, even in its modified/tampered state?
I wonder if that extends to it being consumed into an airworthy restoration just as any other P-40?, it could be painted up as a P40E in Chinese Flying Tiger markings with big sharks teeth, does it matter?, its really “just” another P40?, and others are masquarading as other identities.
Thats certainly not the view I have of it, or the appropriate outcome for it, but if its no longer a time capsule and worthy of conservation “as is” then why cant it simply be consumed into yet another look a like outcome.
The Canadians already have an airworthy ex RAAF example painted up in very similar colours to this aircraft’s original markings other than the serial number, do we need two in those similar colours? Perhaps this one could be presented in RAAF pacific theatre colours when its restored to fly, to balance up the variety on the airshow circuit?.
And no, I’m not serious, I still very much hope this aircraft is conserved “as is” – even if that is no longer “as found”. – and even if it is “just another P40”?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonMark is being very modest here, as it is HE that saved PBY Sea Bitch from the scrappers from his armchair from the other side of the world to where the aircraft was with the help of local WiX member Gary Austin.
So it can be done, and with more information in this instance it could have been done.
and depending on “what is left” and in “what condition”, “something” still could be done, if someone can actually confirm its current status and condition?
In regards to Sea Bitch and Gary’s involvement, “his” was far more than just “help” and I prefer to see it that “we” saved it as I couldnt have done anything sitting on my side of the world, without a perfect stranger (but kindred spirit) on the other side of the world having the same committed outcome, and able to do the onsite work, I was simply the funder/owner and where the bucks “stopped” and “came from”.
Also the heads up on WIX of the pending sale of Sea Bitch was all Gary’s work, he posted the situation on WIX and planned to bid and buy it himself, but had personal issues that caused him to withdraw, and I privately discussed my intentions to bid with him before I proceeded.
I had seperately been chasing PBY parts for the Moorabbin restoration of A24-88 and was chasing turrets, wings, wing, centre-section, rear fuselage and tail feathers overseas and had made contact with the CAF two years earlier when I heard it had already been scrapped. (Moorabbin already had a fuselage with blisters but without nose turret and the rear fuselage), and had also been chasing beaching gear and so had been conversing with Gary on some spares that CAF had in that regard.
By the time Gary found Sea Bitch and posted it on WIX, we had already secured (purchased) everything but a rear fuselage, so my interest in Sea Bitch when I purchased it was purely to avoid it being scrapped, not as a parts source for Moorabbin, even though I was quickly in-undated with requests for parts, on the assumption I was going to part it out.
Even the rear fuselage we now have was eventually sourced else where in the USA and the two 40′ containers came back with not one part off Sea Bitch in them.
I was honoured to have been involved in the project with Gary, and saddened by his death.
His desire and hope was to see “Sea Bitch” at Pima, and its fuselage is now there and to be basis of their static rebuild presented as a firebomber, so despite its far worse condition to this Irish example (which apparantly was considered capable of an airworthy restoration), Sea Bitch or most of her – lives on, and the dry desert should cause her corrosion to slow considerably.
(Her wings and tail feathers are now in Australia, as are her blisters, for use on projects other than A24-88 at Moorabbin).
The days of volunteer museums acquiring significant parts or whole WW2 aircraft is coming to an end, or has already done so in most cases, unless they are dig or crash site debris, this one seems to have been a missed opportunity.
This Irish PBY could be a “total” lost cause, already totally munched to pieces at the airport, or already melted into ingots at the processors, but until someone enquires and confirms – there might still be something worth preserving and displaying.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonBTW do we actually know that the Catalina has been properly scrapped, and not just cut for transportation? I can’t find confirmation anywhere.
Pagen -a witness in Ireland describes it as being destroyed by digger -not dismantled.
It sounds like its long gone, but depending on the method and severity of onsite cutting for transport, and its current situation in terms of processing, it may still be possible to acquire and recover something worthwhile of preservation and display?
But no one “will ever know” if no one “enquires”?, and if “no one” does, it certainly will be “long gone”.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonMark -it sounds like the weapon on choice for the scrapman was a 360 digger ! I am not expecting any of it to be on show at the next Cockpitfest!
I hadnt seen that confirmed David, but I’m not surprised.
Unfortunately mechanical equipment is becoming much more powerful and efficient these days, and I had expected it had been destroyed on site.
I tried unsuccessfully to do a deal on some Bellman Hangars that were to be removed from a development site, but the scrappie munched them as they stood with mechanical plant, no labour to remove sheets or unbolt frames, just bite into the cladding and steel frame with giant jaws that cut and dragged it down, nothing was recoverable for re-erection.
Instead of adding a marginal cost to the demolishers cost to remove, dismantling costs approached the purchase costs of a brand new dismantled hangar kit.
I also pursued the cockpit of a 727 to be cut off by the scrappie, as part of demolition of the entire aircraft, – the finished outcome was dropped off the front of the aircraft and so battered and jaggard (he also “cut” horizontally across under the cockpit floor) that it was of little value or interest as a museum piece.
No more cable or oxy cuts, they just teared the 727 apart with mechanical plant – so I can easily imagine what isnt left of the Cat.
But it is sad that such a rare WW2 airframe could not have found a home in preservation.
It sounds like its long gone, but depending on the method and severity of onsite cutting for transport, and its current situation in terms of processing, it may still be possible to acquire and recover something worthwhile of preservation and display?
But know one will ever know if no one enquires?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonTrouble is its alright being an armchair preservationist, but if they had said if you want it come and get and I want it off the premises in a weeks time. How many people would actually have moved to save it?
Its surprising what can be done by armchair preservationists with the knowledge something is at risk and an interest to do something about it.
This Forum raised funds to help save a HS748 that otherwise would have been scrapped, and I certainly am aware that a Catalina can be saved from the scrappers via armchair preservation, even from the other side of the world, and the WIX forum played a major role in that outcome.
Without knowing the actual condition of this airframe corrosion wise, I suspect it was in better condition than SeaBitch, and I am saddened that it wasnt able to be preserved either intact, or at least as a fuselage display, either in Ireland or back in the UK?
Surely the Catalina as a type has some relevence to British wartime history, and as far as I know there is only the ex Danish example preserved in the UK in the RAFM collection (not withstanding the Plane Sailing flying example).
I know Duxford has space and money limits, and is downsizing not acquiring at this time, but I’m not aware of a Cat in the American Air Museum?
Its hard to believe such a rare WW2 operational type (and apparantly an authentic PBY-5A not a later -6A) could be lost in such close proximity to so many European aviation museums etc, its a bit different with airframes being scrapped in Asia, Africa or South America.
Hopefully at least the cockpit section can be saved or even the whole fuselage? but it requires “someone” to enquire, and “someone” to do it – even if only an armchair enthusiast/preservationist, if a volunteer museum can be found to give it a home.
Depending on the method and severity of onsite cutting for transport, and its current situation in terms of processing, it may still be possible to acquire and rebuild a fuselage display, the Lake Boga example was built from many partial sections of fuselage, and of course it may be easier to transport in its current “dismantled” state.
But know one will ever know if no one enquires?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonNew and improved with updates from the last thread. Please feel free to add any stamps/suggest any improvements…
**********************************************************Aircraft Part Codes:
PD = Battle
PC = Battle
PA = Battle
156 = Beaufighter Mk1F
152 = Beaufort
126 = Beaufort DAP
192 = Belvedere (Westland)
B101 = Beverley (Blackburn) C1
555 = Bison
142M = Blenheim Mk IF
149 = Blenheim Mk Ib
160 = Blenheim Mk V
130A = Bombay
While looking through the parts list above for a CV prefix to identify an apparant pre-war british aluminium aircraft seat (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=117836) I saw the reference above suggesting the parts number prefix for Australian DAP Beauforts is 126- rather than 152- .
I have had the opportunity to look at a lot of DAP Beaufort parts including A9-13 – Mark V (Admittedly assumed to be assembled from 1 of the 20 sets of UK built parts set out to support the Australian production) but also the cockpits of A9-150 – mark VII and A9-210 – mark VIII and the fuselage sections of A9-230 mark VIII and A9-501 mark VIII and numerous wings and parts from other anonomous DAP Beauforts and all have carried the “152-” part number prefix.
I’m not sure who provided the advice of “126-” being associated with Beauforts and it might well relate to a part from a Beaufort, but that part might be a third party supplied furnishing from different origin rather than the structure to Bristol design and DAP construction.
I had wondered if (like the CAC and NA family of aircraft) that the Beaufort design might be carrying a few parts effectively passed down from the earlier Blenheim design and therefore still carrying its type number? but that is either 142-, 149-, or 160- according to the list above and I cannot find any reference to a Bristol Type 126 ever getting off the drawing board?
A Bristol Type 126 would sit somewhere between the last Bristol biplane design, the Type 123 of 1934, and the Bristol Bombay Type 130 of 1935.
I would therefore propose the “126 = Beaufort DAP” reference be removed and the list be adjusted to:
152 = Beaufort (Bristol and DAP)
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonsounds like a very informative book.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
