dark light

mark_pilkington

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 1,652 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Surviving ADC Cirrus Engines in the UK #748448
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    Hello Mothminor – yes it would seem likely that the Hermes at Hooton Park is the one recorded as belonging to the Aeroplane Collection likely from the B2 wreck and hence “not” an ADC Cirrus II

    I have hence removed reference to an ADC Cirrus II display engine in the Aeroplane Collection

    I have also relocated Hooton Park from Wales – lol – thanks to all those pointing it out – from here in Melbourne Australia it looked close enough to Wales

    in reply to: Surviving ADC Cirrus Engines in the UK #748459
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    Revision 1 (thanks anneorac and Mothminor)

    – It seems that the following ADC Cirrus Engines survive in the UK.

    ADC Cirrus I
    – none

    ADC Cirrus II
    – (This in fact seems incorrectly identified – Cirrus Minor II)  RAF Museum Hendon
    – c/n 276 in Avro Avian G-EBZM (Static)  -The Aeroplane Collection – Hooton Park, Cheshire
    – c/n D1-2 – Science Museum London
    – c/n? Aeroplane Collection – incomplete (c/n? / condition? / Photos? / Location?)
    – c/n? Vintage Racing Special #44  (built on a Buick chassis by Frank Cuttell from Mittagong NSW – exported to UK)
    – c/n 408? – 1928 G-Type Amilcar (car built by Ian Bingham in UK, ADC Cirrus based on Crankcase/Crankshaft from Hughes Trading Victoria – swapped for sectionised ADC Cirrus I)

    ADC Cirrus III
    – c/n 80 DH60 Moth G-EBLV (flying) – Shuttleworth
    – c/n ? Static restoration- private owner “CirrusADC/Ralph” KP Forum 2017

    Cirrus Hermes II
    – c/n F86 – Aeroventure (ex BA Swallow)
    – c/n ? – Avro Triplane replica (flying) – Shuttleworth
    – c/n ? – DH60X Cirrus Moth G-EBWD (flying) – Shuttleworth
    – c/n 241 – Parnell Elf G-AIIN (flying) – Shuttleworth
    – c/n? – Desoutter I G-AENP (flying) – Shuttleworth
    – c/n? – Spartan Arrow G-ABWP (flying)- Red Hill

    Cirrus Hermes IVa
    – c/n? – part of Blackburn B2 G-ADFV Remains – The Aeroplane Collection (c/n? / condition? / photos? / location ?)

    UNK Marks
    c/n? – (Model?) Solway Aviation Museum – The Aeroplane Collection (c/n? / condition? / photos? / location ?)
    (is this the incomplete ADC Cirrus II? listed above)

    c/n? Cirrus powered Avro Avian restoration imported from Australia/NZ by Ron Souch?

    c/n? Cirrus? powered Westland Widgeon imported from Australia by Ron Souch?

    Any more?
    Any info to fill in the blanks on those listed above?

    in reply to: Surviving ADC Cirrus Engines in the UK #748482
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    Blackburn B2 G-AEBJ at Shuttleworth has an inverted engine fitted, originally a DH Gipsy III, it may now be a DH Gipsy Major?

    I am relying on the BAPC 1993 UK Engine List in relation to a Cirrus being associated with a B2 wreck?

     

    in reply to: There's one born every minute, so the saying goes #748513
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    Hearsay and Urban Legend.

    Just Ricks persuasive “storytelling”

    No evidence an engine was ever really found, recovered or scrapped.

    No evidence that any engine found was in any way related to that specific pre-war flight and aircraft type.

    It simply follows the usual TIGHAR model of contrived BS built on a foundation of Urban Myth.

    in reply to: Surviving ADC Cirrus Engines in the UK #748517
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    So at this point it seems like the following ADC Cirrus Engines survive in the UK.

    ADC Cirrus I
    – none

    ADC Cirrus II
    – RAF Museum Hendon ( c/n? / condition? / Photos? / Location?)
    – c/n 276 in Avro Avian G-EBZM – Static (The Aeroplane Collection – Hooton Park, Cheshire)
    – c/n D1-2 – Science Museum London
    – c/n? Aeroplane Collection – incomplete (c/n? / condition? / Photos? / Location?)
    – c/n? Vintage Racing Special #44  (built on a Buick chassis by Frank Cuttell from Mittagong NSW – exported to UK)
    – c/n 408? – 1928 G-Type Amilcar (car built by Ian Bingham in UK, ADC Cirrus based on Crankcase/Crankshaft from Hughes Trading Victoria – swapped for sectionised ADC Cirrus I)

    ADC Cirrus III
    – c/n 80 DH60 Moth G-EBLV (flying) – Shuttleworth
    – c/n ? Static restoration- private owner “CirrusADC/Ralph” KP Forum 2017

    Cirrus Hermes II
    – c/n F86 – Aeroventure (ex BA Swallow)
    – c/n ? – Avro Triplane replica – Shuttleworth
    – c/n ? – DH60X Cirrus Moth G-EBWD – Shuttleworth
    – c/n 241 – Parnell Elf G-AIIN – Shuttleworth
    – c/n? – Desoutter I G-AENP – Shuttleworth

    Cirrus Hermes IVa
    – c/n? – part of Blackburn B2 G-ADFV Remains – The Aeroplane Collection (c/n? / condition? / photos? / location ?)

    UNK Marks
    c/n? – (Model?) Solway Aviation Museum – The Aeroplane Collection (c/n? / condition? / photos? / location ?)
    (is this the incomplete ADC Cirrus II? listed above)

    c/n? Cirrus powered Avro Avian restoration imported from Australia/NZ by Ron Souch?

    c/n? Cirrus? powered Westland Widgeon imported from Australia by Ron Souch?

    Any more?
    Any info to fill in the blanks on those listed above?

    in reply to: Surviving ADC Cirrus Engines in the UK #748604
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    Its not clear exactly what the production numbers of the various ADC Cirrus models were, the aircraft production numbers are more readily available and are likely the best source of estimates unless the ADC/Cirrus records exist in a Blackburn Archive somewhere?

    The ADC Cirrus Mk I was developed for, and hence primarily used in the original DH Moths (now known as the Cirrus I Moths), there was only 39 of those built before production moved to the DH60X Cirrus Moth (Cirrus II Moths) which was fitted with the upgraded ADC Cirrus Mk II engine.

    The ADC Cirrus engines were utilised in other early pre-war UK civil types, including use of the early ADC Cirrus Mk I, but I assume its total production run must have been under 100 at most? given DH being the primary user only consumed 39, that these other types were (in 1925-1928) all small production runs and the introduction of the ADC Cirrus II would have been taken up by all types?

    Avro Avian – 405 built( but majority built post 1927 and fitted with ADC Cirrus II, and later the Cirrus Hermes & Genet Major)
    Avro Baby – 9 (seems most used a Green Engine, and one used a Le Rhone Rotary)
    DH (Cirrus I) Moth – 39
    Short Mussel – 2
    Westland Widgeon – 26 (many built post 1927 and fitted with ADC Cirrus II or III) 

    Based on Stuart McKay’s wonderful references, and the Air Britain DH 60 Production lists, and below sourced from Wiki – de Havilland DH.60 Moth

    • DH.60 Moth, (later known as the Cirrus Moth or Cirrus I Moth)
    Prototype and early production aircraft powered by a 60 hp (45 kW) ADC Cirrus engine. (later described as a Cirrus Mk I Engine). 8 pre-production and 31 production aircraft built.
    • DH.60X Cirrus II Moth (initially known as the Moth Type X or Experimental Moth)
    Introduced in 1927 this variant had a slightly larger wingspan by 1 foot, increased length by 2.5 inches and decreased distance between the upper and lower wings. Powered by an uprated 80 hp (60 kW) ADC Cirrus Mark II engine, 333 built. (many were later upgraded to Cirrus Mk III or Cirrus Hermes engines, and eventually to Gipsy engines)

     

    Sourced from Wiki – ADC Cirrus
     

    Cirrus I

    Avro Avian Avro Baby de Havilland DH.60 Moth Short Mussel Westland Widgeon

    Cirrus II

    Avro Avian de Havilland DH.60 Moth de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth Piaggio P.9 Short Mussel Westland Widgeon Bloudek XV Lojze

    Cirrus III

    Avro Avian Blackburn Bluebird Cierva C.17 de Havilland DH.60 Moth de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth Dudley Watt D.W.2 Emsco B-4 Cirrus Koolhoven FK.41

    Sourced from Wiki – Avro Avian

     

    Avro 581 Avian
    First prototype, one 70 hp (52 kW) Armstrong Siddeley Genet.
    Avro 581A
    Modified first prototype, one 85 hp (63 kW) ADC Cirrus and reduced span wings.
    Avro 581E
    Further modified Avro 581A for long distance flights, with new wings and modified fuselage.
    Avro 594 Avian I
    Preproduction aircraft, two built.
    Avro 594 Avian II
    Initial production, 85 hp (63 kW) Cirrus II engine, nine built.
    Avro 594 Avian III
    Modified engine mount and tubular steel struts, 33 built.
    Avro 594 Avian IIIA
    95 hp (71 kW) Cirrus III engine, 58 built.
    Avro 594 Avian IV
    Revised undercarriage and ailerons, 90 built.
    Avro 605 Avian
    Two Avro 594 Avian IIIs were converted into floatplanes.
    Avro 616 Avian IVM
    Steel tube fuselage. Powered by 105 hp (78 kW) Cirrus Hermes I or 100 hp (75 kW) Armstrong Siddeley Genet Major, approximately 190 built.
    Avro 616 Sports Avian
    Version for racing with reduced drag, 16 built.
    Avro 616 Avian IVA
    modified one-off long range version for Charles Kingsford SmithSouthern Cross Junior, 120 hp (90 kW) de Havilland Gipsy II engine, with additional fuel tank and revised 30 ft span wings.
    Avro 616 Avian V
    Long range single-seater again built for Charles Kingsford Smith, Southern Cross MinorBill Lancaster would later attempt to fly solo from England to South Africa in this aircraft, and die in the attempt.
    Avro 625 Avian Monoplane
    Low-wing monoplane development, two built.
    in reply to: Surviving ADC Cirrus Engines in the UK #748653
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    So according to a 2003 “UK Aero Engines” survey by BAPC, there were only 4 ADC Cirrus Mk II Aero Engines and 1 ADC Cirrus mk III Aero Engines on display in the UK, and apparently no ADC Cirrus Mk I’s?

     

    in reply to: New Spitfire cockpit for sale #748714
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    If its only a static reproduction/display fuselage without a confirmed identity/provenance then the price being asked might be a bit ambitious?

    “Offers are sought in excess of £170,000”

    in reply to: Still more of TIGHAR's Earhart "evidence" – isn't #749394
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    I wonder if Rick is trying to implement an “Exit Strategy” so he can retire from ongoing involvement- or to improve his legacy?, ie close down the Earhart / Nikumaroro theory by killing off the main pillars of TIGHARs claims and then claiming he has simply followed the “scientific process”.

    Or perhaps he thinks there is a new series of books and talk back show opportunities on “how I debunked” the “castaway” theory?

    in reply to: Shorts Belfast – Australia #749396
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    It is being reported on various facebook pages that it has recently been placed onto the US civil register and is undergoing active overhaul to return to flying operations.From Facebook

    in reply to: Help on another Avro Anson Frame ID #749463
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    Photo 1

    in reply to: Wright Gipsy Engine #751896
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    Here is some scan extracts from my Moth Aircraft Corporation Brochure for the “DH Gipsy Moth”, as this 25 page brochure makes mention of MAC being owned by Curtiss Wright, it too must be a 1929 vintage production, yet it is clearly at odds with the other 8 page example?

    in reply to: Wright Gipsy Engine #751928
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    A google search on the Wright Gipsy powered DH60GMW Gipsy / “Gypsy” Moths led me to this zombie thread and the earlier conversation that I was participating in, I am intrigued by @Barnstormers 1930 “Gypsy Moth” brochure but wonder if that might be a “typo” by the Marketing Dept as an earlier 1929 Moth Aircraft Corporation DH60 Brochure and 1929 Curtiss-Wright Gipsy Engine manual I have in my collection both use the classic DH spelling of Gipsy, but I do note he refers to other original Curtiss-Wright documents also using “Gypsy”?

    in reply to: Has TIGHAR gone dark? #757295
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    And despite no mention of it in the Tighar Facebook or Tighar forums – google discovers on Mike Campbells Earhart blog that “surprise surprise” the DNA testing of the skull and bone remains confirms they are NOT Earhart!

     

    No wonder “White Bird” is the new focus and half the Board finally woke up!

     

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     

    “Nikumaroro bones”: No DNA match for Earhart

    By earharttruth on February 2, 2021

    I’d been wondering why we haven’t heard recently from TIGHAR (The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, which has yet to recover a historic aircraft) or any of the other Earhart miscreants operating out there, when Tom Williams, a longtime reader of this blog, sent me an email Jan. 30.  (Boldface and italics emphasis mine throughout.)

    I watched a program on the Science Channel on Thursday (Jan. 28), Conspiracies Decoded,’ Season 1, Episode 6 titledFinding Amelia Earhart,’ ” Williams wrote.  It is regarding the bones discovered’ in a museum in Fiji after the Ballard fiasco which were supposedly the ones examined by Dr. [D.W.] Hoodless in 1940.

    Finding Amelia Earhart,” subheaded, “Experts examine remains that may solve the disappearance of Amelia Earhart,” did indeed premier Jan. 28, 2021 on the Science Channel and Discovery Plus.  I hadn’t heard about it and it made not a ripple in the media, for obvious reasons.  My home cable package doesn’t offer either of these relatively obscure channels, and I thanked Williams for his perspicacity. 

    Erin Kimmerle Ph.D., executive director of the Florida Institute for Forensic Anthropology and Applied Sciences and associate professor of anthropology in the University of South Florida College of Arts and Sciences, is the latest “expert” to weigh in on the Earhart “mystery.” 

    For a complete history and analysis of the Nikumaroro bones and TIGHAR’s failure to sell them as Amelia Earhart’s, see my March 19, 2018 post, Les Kinney joins ‘The Truth at Last’ conversation, Shreds TIGHAR’s latest false Earhart claims.

    Presaging the “Finding Amelia Earhart” program by well over a year was an unbylined University of South Florida story of Oct. 14, 2019, “USF Forensic Anthropologist Testing Human Remains Believed to Potentially Belong to Amelia Earhart,” which, if not for the Internet, would probably have never made it off the USF campus:

    World renowned USF forensic anthropologist Erin Kimmerle is featured in a documentary produced by National Geographic about aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart, who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean during an attempt to fly across the world.

    Kimmerle was selected to test bone fragments stored in the Te Umwanibong Museum and Cultural Centre located in the western Pacific island of Tarawa, Kirbati [sic].  They were first discovered on Nikumaroro Island, Kirbati, three years after Earhart’s radio signal was last transmitted in 1937. However, the bones went missing after being sent to Fiji for examination.

    . . . National Geographic archaeologist Fredrik Hiebert, Ph.D., recently learned of the bones’ existence and contacted Kimmerle to determine if they belong to Earhart.  Kimmerle is known internationally for helping locate and identify human remains, including those discovered at the former Dozier School for Boys in Marianna, Florida.

    We needed the world’s best expert on missing people,” said Hiebert.  It was just natural to reach out to Erin Kimmerle.

    Kimmerle used the bone fragments to reconstruct a skull she believes belonged to a female.  She also assessed the remains’ height, age and ancestry, and considered Earhart’s dental features and known sinus condition.  In addition, bone fragments were sent for DNA testing to determine whether or not they matched any of Earhart’s relatives.

    The exact cutline from the Oct. 14, 2019 USF story: “A female skull was reconstruct [sic] from bone fragments found near Amelia Earhart’s last known coordinates.”  Although this grammatically butchered caption does not reflect well on editors at USF, readers can be sure that the alleged “Earhart bones” are no such thing.  We can only hope that this will end this ridiculous claim.

    The National Geographic documentary investigates a number of theories as to what happened to the aviation pioneer.  Kimmerle’s role could be the final step in solving this 72-year-old mystery. The film aired on the National Geographic channel October 20 [2019].  The film did not offer a final resolution to Earhart’s last moments.  (End USF article.)

    For a review of the above referenced NatGeo program of Oct. 20, 2019, please see NatGeo’s ‘Expedition Amelia’: Dead on Arrival.”

    The caption of the photo of the skull and bone fragments above virtually jumps out and mugs anyone who can read above a third-grade level: “A female skull was reconstruct [sic] from bone fragments found near Amelia Earhart’s last known coordinates.”  This statement is absurd.  What “last known coordinates” are they referencing, and how were bones found wherever those “last known coordinates” were located?  What exactly are they asking us to believe?

    Further confusing the issue are the bone fragments stored in the Te Umwanibong Museum and Cultural Centre located in the western Pacific island of Tarawa, Kirbati [sic], according to the USF story, which states they went missing after being sent to Fiji for examination.  Without any explanation as to how these magical bones were found, we’re told that “National Geographic archaeologist Fredrik Hiebert, Ph.D., recently learned of the bones’ existence and contacted Kimmerle to determine if they belong to Earhart.”

    You may detect a distinct aroma emanating from the foregoing two paragraphs; I certainly do.  This stink is created whenever our media and academe team up for some good old-fashioned Earhart research — it’s the unmistakable stench of deceit, and in this case it’s overwhelming. 

    “The [Jan. 28 Science Channel] program . . . announces the results of the DNA test were NEGATIVE, NOT Amelia Earhart,” Williams continued in his email.  “I did a quick internet search for that Earhart DNA test result and have found NONE.  And I checked the University/Institute website and there is no mention whatsoever regarding that investigation.. . . Sounds like another MSM boondoggle, where they made a big deal of the attempt, but bury any results that don’t fit their agenda

    in reply to: Has TIGHAR gone dark? #757297
    mark_pilkington
    Participant

    The other thing that may have dampened Gillespie and the former board members support is the lack of evidenced submerged Electra wreck on the reef in Ballards search in 2019 but also a likely negative DNA test on a partial skull from Kiribati!

    Tighar went silent too went the chemical analysis of the magic patch did not match 1937 duralium but did match WW2 aluminium samples (ignoring the fact that its dimensions are proven not to fit the Lavatory window).

    so without the Patch, the sextant box, the skull or submerged aircraft wreck, the Tighar hypothesis is looking rather weak, and hence he is no longer crowing that he found Amelia!

     

     

    from Tom King’s blog with guest Tighar contibutor Joe Cerniglia in November 2019.

     

    >>>>>>>>>>>

     

    Making Room for a New Guess

    by Joe Cerniglia

     

    “The problem is not what might be wrong, but what might be substituted precisely in place of it….You make a hole for a new guess.”[1] – Richard Feynman

    Robert Ballard and crew members of the Expedition Vessel Nautilus have concluded their mission to Nikumaroro. From August 9 to August 21, 2019, Ballard and his team scanned the ocean floor adjacent to Nikumaroro for signs of large pieces of Amelia Earhart’s plane. The Nautilus’ search area was more extensive than any search of the island’s deep water margins to date, reaching, at times, a distance more than a mile from shore. However, no Electra, fragmentary or otherwise, was found. In related work, a team supervised by Fred Hiebert, archaeologist-in-residence for National Geographic, searched human bone collections held by the Te Umwanibong Museum and Cultural Centre in Tarawa, Kiribati and found a fragmentary skull. Although details of the provenance of this skull are lacking, members of the team believe it may be the same skull that was discovered in 1940 on Nikumaroro and sent on to Fiji for analysis in 1941. If the skull, retrieved from Tarawa and now undergoing analysis in Florida, yields DNA that can be matched with that of relatives of Amelia Earhart, Ballard has promised to return to the island to resume the underwater search for Earhart’s vanished Electra 10e.

    And if the skull does not display a clear biological link to Amelia Earhart, then, since the airplane has also not been found, must the Nikumaroro hypothesis finally and irrevocably now be said to have been disproven?

    Many bloggers and screenwriters have already sharpened their pencils and begun to write that it has.

    Those who wanted the Earhart mystery solved had pinned their hopes on a large piece of the Electra peering through the murky depths at the camera lights of Argus and Hercules, the remotely operated vehicles of the Nautilus. The failure to find the Electra, however, should not invite hasty conclusions.

    The missing airplane may, however, be an opportunity to reexamine what we think we know or what we suppose must be true in order for the Nikumaroro hypothesis to be correct.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 1,652 total)