Hello Ali.
I’ve sent you a Private Message with an ID.
Anne
Anne – thats not fair -smiles – “share”
I still dont think the items are from a Bulldog? due to some specific differences exhibited by most of these wing panels, (I think they are all wing panels as I havent seen anything that equates to a section of fuselage?) and am unsure what earlier Bristol products used the same methods of construction.
Howeverthe new set of photos the spars and single surviving rib continue to look very much like the “Bristol” steel wing construction? however none of the remains I recovered or drawings I have access to have the strange parallel spacers existing in most of these unknown wing panels?
The unknown wing panels bear some resemblance to the lower wing panel I recovered, seen in the second photo above, unfortunately I no longer have the remains of A12-8 as I donated them to the RAAF Museum at Point Cook so I cannot provide dimensions etc for further comparison.
The features that are similar in the Barn Wing panels to the Bulldog lower mainplane construction are the following:
What seems to be the “wing root rib” is similar to that on the lower Bulldog wing root?
The steel spars look similar to the Bristol design, although closer inspection would confirm the unique Bristol method of folding over the edges of different sheet steel to form the box section (I tried to scan a drawing of that this morning but my scanner didnt want to co-operate)!
The “zig-zag” steel truss Rib, with top and bottom u section cap was another distinctive feature of the Bristol steel wing, the one remaining example in the barn is very similar to the Bulldog design.
Yet the parallel “spacer” consisting of two box? girders? and two “brackets” with round holes bears no resemblance to the Bulldog construction?. Those items appear to be original and made of the same materials as the spar and rib – if they are “add-ons” to provide rigidity for the panels as roof structure then I would suggest these are lower wing panels indeed from a Bristol Bulldog? if they are original they would seem to rule out Bristol Bulldog as the identity?
I know the Hawker designs used similar steel box spars although not using the “Bristol” folded edge seam construction method, however I have no knowledge of the rib design to know if they also used zig-zag steel rib construction?
come on Anne, share your I.D. with us – smiles
regards
Mark Pilkington
..Hmmm Bundaberg bunker, buried aircraft perhaps we will never know.
One thing for sure Bundaberg Rum certainly does exsist, mighty fine stuff!!
…Chumpy (hic)
Chumpy, I think you might have something there, “Bundy” is my favourite drop and if freely available I might see the bunkers too! smiles
Bernie and others were active at a number of other forums over this same period, with cross “quoting”.
at the risk of sounding like one of the lunatic fringe out there.
What we have at Bundaberg is one complete Allied single engined monoplane as well as one or two disassembled aircraft of unknown origin sitting in storage UNDER (that’s right) the Bundaberg airport. ABMM and its predecessor the (Australian Bunker Project) has been in contact with the local council about this issue for the best part of a decade due to our concerns about hazardous materials and weapons believed to exist onsite, but it wasn’t until the Wide Bay Airshow in August 2007 that we were able to finally get onsite and run a series of ground penetrating radar surveys over the area of interest that the local council sat up and listened.
We are currently in negotiations with the council to have the site opened and exploited. By exploited, we specifically mean the site made safe, any nasties removed and the site converted to a community-based museum for the people of Bundaberg with the aircraft components, equipment and vehicles displayed in situ and as found.
I’d pay to see that.
There are no plans to sell off any of the equipment, weapons, vehicles or aircraft components. We will recoup the $250k or so we have spent proving the site exists through media royalties. We aren’t cowboys.
So there it is in a nutshell.
We know EXACTLY where the site is from expert interpretation of aerial imagery spanning 1936 to present, we have sufficient evidence to prove a massive anomaly onsite as well as interesting, but ultimately circumstantial evidentiary reports from four people who have been inside the facility between 1960 and 1998.
Talking about the bunker itself, Col is absolutely correct – we have found no tender documents, “buildings and services” files, plans, photographs or disposal records relating to such a large-scale site at Bundaberg, but this not unusual as the National Archives online database only catalogues around 10% of the total holdings at this time. The types of records mentioned above are not available elsewhere.
We have found files detailing demolition tunnels under the airstrip at Bundaberg and I have even spoken to the council worker who later filled them in in the 1960s.
We have found references to an air raid shelter inside one of the hangars at BDB.
What we DO have is our radar data as well as a massive collection of generation 1 aerial imagery covering the site and spanning the war years through to the present day.
Even if we take these fantastical informant reports and other anecdotal evidence out of the equation, we are still left with a large underground feature onsite. We have verified it’s not an underground fuel storage or sewerage system tank. It’s definitely not the wartime demolition tunnels, so what is it?
Interestingly pasted below is one of the final comments in that thread which was made by an apparant representative of the “Australian Bunker Military Museum, the group who issued the Ebay CD referred to at the start of this thread, and also undertook the recent ground survey during the Airshow that bunker bernie referred to
The new regime in power at Bundy now won’t have a bar of the issue. It seems that a planned airport upgrade and Business precinct at the airport has something to do with it. Now as I have mentioned previously above, We DON’T KNOW if the site contains 500lb aerial bombs and aircraft or not. We really WON’T KNOW until we are allowed to excavate the site.
plant-pilot could well be right about the site being an air raid shelter. That was my initial conclusion as well after performing the geophysical survey over the site. At the very least we have a previously unknown large-scale underground air raid shelter which is historically significant in itself and which deserves to be heritage listed.
If anyone has any questions about the site or the Bundaberg Bunker stories, let me know.
Cheers.
——————————————————————————–
Last edited by ABMM : 13-04-2008
The Australian Bunker Military Museum’s website for those interested?
http://australianbunkermilitarymuseum.org/joomla/content/view/27/1/
After 3 pages of threads repeating the rumours of aircraft, bombs etc there finally seems an honest comment about what is really known, showing little confidence or evidence of “whats there” being expressed by the people who seem directly involved? perhaps they have’nt seen the “evidence” Bernie has?
Or perhaps the sceptacism is spreading? smiles
Regards
Mark Pilkington
DC-2’s and pre-war DC-3’s used single row Wright Cyclone (1820) engines with significantly different engine cowls and narcelle intakes to the wartime C-47 which used Pratt & Whitney twin row Twin Wasp (1830) Engines.
The wright Cyclone results in a wider radius cowling.
The DC3 at Moorabbin is one of three original pre-war DC-3’s surviving in Australia.
Many pre-war DC-3’s also had their passenger doors on the starboard or RHS, this being inherited from the original American Airlines specification (VH-ANH was built as a RHS door example for American Airlines but modified post war in Australia to a port or LHS entry door). Note DC-2’s were predominately on the LHS.
some civilian DC-3s were built with the pratt and Whitney twin row engine, these were DC-3A models.
JDK’s link in his previous posts show a DC-3 (DST) and DC-3A with the differing engine cowls.
The early DC-3 (DST) in JDK’s link shows a Wright Cyclone with the top area covered in as per DC-2’s this was discontinued early on DC-3’s and even later DC-2’s (there was a period of concurrent production).
All C-47’s were built with the twin row engine and therefore the “narrower” engine cowl.
DC-3’s, C-47’s and C-47A’s had a different engine narcelle structure to the later C-47B. The C-47B the most numerous model built – was designed to fly over the mountains with high altitude engines and have large intake structures behind the engine on the engine narcelles for the superchargers.
(HARS C-47B example – astrodome retracted and therefore not obvious – but note large supercharger intakes over narcelle)
Many C-47’s were modified back to civil airliner configuration post war and re-defined as DC-3’s.
Most were converted to LHS passenger entry doors and retained their Pratt & Whitney twin row wasps thereby approximating DC-3A’s, some retained their cargo doors for freight use.
In Australia the RAAF disposed of the C-47’s and C47A’s but retained their C-47B’s.
Many of the C-47’s and C-47A’s were obtained by ANA and Ansett Airlines who had purchased quantities of low hour Hudson engines and converted their former RAAF aircraft back to full DC-3 configuration by replacing the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasps with Wright Cyclones as well as fitting the LHS passenger door in place of the cargo doors.
As commented by others the square windows were a feature of the DC-2, DC-3 and C-47 family so there is no differentiation between the two based on that feature.
In summary the features to examine depending on the particular model being depicted would be engine type and associated cowl, door type and side, and narcelle intakes, as well as the astrodome on the top of the cockpit on the C-47 military versions, (although again in some cases retained on post war civilianised “DC-3” ‘s !
Below is an image of a preserved RAAF / RAN C47A similar to the headline photo at the start of the thread showing the streamlined nacelles of the earlier versions of the C-47 “Skytrain”, as compared to the C-47B above, but also note the unique and original C-47/C47A cowlings with the large carb air intake (often deleted on the civilian conversions) as compared with the DC-3A and C-47B, also note the retracted astrodome mounting.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
