.
Not relevent to this thread but something that might be of interest to Halifax enthusiasts as a bit of trivia.

While searching on google for a reference to the Halifax wing root cord (we have the Hermes wing cord listed in the thread above) I came across a site that records Fredrick Handley Pages school days when he became interested in aircraft.

Frederick Handley Page was born in 1885 in Cheltenham to Frederick Joseph Page, who owned and ran an upholstery business, and Ann Elizabeth, nee Handley. From Cheltenham Grammar School young Frederick went to London and enrolled at the Finsbury Technical College where he studied electrical engineering and became interested in aircraft.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletter026nvu/handleypagesixty.html

In Australia we are just closing the Duigan Centenary of Flight commemorating the efforts of John and Reg Duigan to design, build and fly the first Australian aircraft in 1910.

John Duigan was born in 1882 in Australia but travelled to England for his tertiary education, and went to the same Finsbury Technical School as Fred, to study electrical engineering and it is understood by the Duigan family that they were apparantly at the school at the same time, although its not confirmed they were in the same year or in the same class, but clearly John Duigan also developed an interest in aircraft before his return to Australia in 1909, – the mind wonders as to “who sat next to who” in that class?

Uncle Jack left Brighton Grammar in 1900 and went to Finsbury Technical School in London. He was there for 4 years and took diplomas in both electrical and motor engineering, and then he had about 3 years experience with several firms including Weymouths and Seimens.

http://www.duigancentenaryofflight.org.au/duigan-aircraft.html?start=7

regards

Mark Pilkington

I personally consider a CASA 111 is better than nothing in terms of the IWM displaying representative types of the most important air battle in the history of the UK?, (perhaps one of the most important air battles of military history?) and that seems a worthy topic of IWM coverage?

“Bombing” was the key component of the German side of the battle so while the 109 is the obvious adversary to display against the Hurricane and the Spitfire, the He 111 was the real mainstay of the German offensive and a CASA 111 is better than nothing.

If reproduction/replica WW1 aircraft can be displayed in museums such as RAFM Hendon, if wood or fibreglass full scale mockups have a role, if B-25J’s can be re-worked as B-25C’s and presented in Doolittle raid colours at museums such as NMUSAF, or has already been stated above, many “trainer” or post war peacetime examples of types can be presented as more famous wartime “combat” identities, or ex RAAF Spitfires or Beaufighters can be presented in USAF colours or identities? again in the NMUSAF as are many other “foreign” aircraft presented in other “national colours” to fill local collection holes, then what is wrong with a licence built 111 being presented as a BoB He 111 – with, or without Jumo’s fitted.

Regardless of the Jumo’s being available, if the major distraction is the deep chin cowls of the merlins surely the existing engines and cowls could be removed and stored, and a set of mockup cowls could be produced over new build mounting frames designed to take the weight of the cowls and props without engines in place?, without the need to source engines and accurately replicate the full Firewall forward internally?, there is no need to try and make it authentic down to the last bolt since it still “wont” really be an authentic He 111.

Its not what it “really” is, but it can still be representative of the type, without misleading the public, nothing wrong in a museum doing that to educate and inform, and yes in this competitive world even “entertaining” the general public.

Its exactly like “data plate” spitfires, as long as the truth behind the reproduction is made known, there is nothing wrong with one being displayed in the identity of a real one, and even put on display in a museum, even in BoB or wartime colours, even though “it” never really flew in the 1940s, let along existed until 2000+!

Personally I would simply paint it in a representative BoB colour scheme but intact as a CASA 111 with its Merlins and cowls, support it with a display board that briefly tells the history of the CASA and its technical differences, and then goes on to explain the large role the He 111 played in the Battle of Britain, and in that way would consider it very relevent.

The RAF Museum has an authentic He 111, and the IWM CASA left intact provides a technical comparison to that for those of us who count rivets and wish to see the differences, but to the General public they both would represent the BoB Enemy bomber, the villan in the story, and hence part of the story to be told.

Museums are there to preserve and display collections, but also to entertain, educate and tell the story of history, that can be done with photos, scale models, diorama’s, FSMs, replicas, imposters or the real thing, but something is better than nothing, and the CASA is certainly better than nothing in my mind.

regards

Mark Pilkington

That is interesting? the wing span specifications of both types certainly suggest the Hastings is larger.

If its not extra space for a wider fuselage you would wonder why the centresection would be wider for any reason, surely the engine /prop spacing on the inboard/outboard engines of the Halifax was already generous?

Is it possible the wing outer panel is bigger to provide more lift, ie similiar to the Lancaster to Lincoln wing changes?

I wonder if a wheel track measure of the Hastings at Cosford is worthwhile along with an inboard to outboard prop hub measurement is in order?

Perhaps if anyone does that its also worth doing from main wheel to wing tip as well, and comparing the results of these to the Halifax at Trenton.

Assuming there is no modification of the Hastings wing in Friday the 13th the same measurements at Yorkshire would probably suffice?

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Could anyone going to Cockpitfest who see’s him there, or knows him personally – ask Tim / Junk Collector (he has the Lincoln panel) to check his forum PM’s and to please email me.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Hello Darrell,

Your photos in the trailer or ute seem to be mainly mark II items to me?, I’m not sure what all the mark II differences are as we dont have any examples here in Australia but they seem to not have the rubber buffers outboard of the axle, and seem very different in the axle and main legs at the axle end. I assume the retracting structure mounted on the main spar of the wing is identical?

I note from Peters photo of the mark II that it is substantially different at the axle end of the main u/c legs/shock aborbers, and there is a dual radius arm not the single arm and U yoke around the tyre and wheel of the mark I, and that the dual radius arms connect on the end of the axle and leg join.

You “seem” to have 1 retracting structure from a mark II based on the u/c leg and axle “ends” connected to it, but other than the legs the structure itself looks identical to mark I.

You also seem to have numerous mark II? main U/C legs (I will need to examine the axle end of a mark I to be sure to compare with yours, as its been a while since I looked but they should have single end block fitting with a large single hole for the main axle, yours seem to have a split “fork” end with a small hole?), and apparantly some mark II radius arms in the parts in your photos? If the retracting structure is the same on both them all your parts may well all be mark II?

I have attached some manual photos and drawings of the mark I along with two photo’s of a stripped mark I narcelle and U/c structure if it helps?

On the mark I the radius arm yoke fits inside the bottom of the main u/c legs and the axle passes through the radius arm yoke and the large aluminum blocks at the bottom of each leg, hence the single large whole in the base of the undercarriage leg, you should be able to make it out in the second of my stored parts photos, and then you should be able to recognise the differences in Peters two photos.

I can scan some more drawings on thursday from the mark I illustrated parts manual if these are of use? to show the radius arm, and main u/c legs? and perhaps later in the week I can access some of my stored mark I parts to get some detail shots? of the u/c axle ends?

Your after Mark I parts arent you?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Look closer guys. Much more damage than you think. Like, where are his main wheels? Still in the wings by the looks of things. If that’s the case, there’ll be radiator damage as well.

I think your looking at photos above of one or two of its earlier incidents, this one is apparantly a nose over during taxi-ing in wet/soggy ground, the mainwheels are clearly extended and holding the wings and radiators clear of the ground, damage is likely to be limited to the prop and perhaps the engine?

regards

Mark Pilkington

He has apparantly previously fitted a 80 scale bare metal “Supermarine Spitfire 26 with small block 350cu inch V8 Chevy?, and then scratch built a metal 80% FW-190 replica with a Russian M-14 radial fitted?

Pictures of his 80% Mustang are apparantly available on line,

I do wonder what type is sitting in the foreground and having apparant repairs or modifications to its tailplane leading edge?

regards

Mark Pilkington

No, as I said, the name of the dog is irrelevant. I wonder what the 53 aircrew that failed to return would think if all we can discuss about a film of their exploits was the name of their CO’s dog.

I absolutely agree!, I do wonder if the same outcry will come forth if the defending german aircraft do not display the historically correct swastika on their tails?.

Its a “Movie” its not a “Documentary”, its not a “biography” its not a “museum display”, lets get it into context.

If you dont like it, “dont go see it”, if you prefer the original version , sit at home and “watch it” instead, and if someone wants to spend their money re-making an Aviation Classic and introducing the story to new generations – then “let them”.

The story is about Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, the modified Lancasters and the training, the crews and their sacrifices, and the impact of the raid on German production and morale, not a dog and what it was called.

If my kids are enticed to see it because of the Directors reputation with the Lord of Rings films then they will learn about something they probably no nothing about, if they are incorrectly informed about the code word for the mission and the name of the CO’s dog thats little cause to be concern!

regards

Mark Pilkington