Thanks Robert,

yes. I am aware of those. Corgi also released a Mk I collectible “with Pilot’s Notes” (S.Tuck’s from memory) but the Notes with them are Mk II as well.

I think I am sorted out off board…but in any case, thanks for the heads up.
I have 6 different versions of the Mk II (different dates, updates etc) so buying duplicate would be slightly annoying!!!

Darryl

Is anyone interested in the GA of the round type undercarriage unit?

i will check Tony. It may well be a ‘closed loop’ hydraulic system’ as your chap refers to, in which case gravity would provide little help as he says!
I will see if the pump design is double cylinder…this would make both the forward and aft movements ‘pressure’ movements hence suggesting both add

Cheers Tony,

Yes, if that is the case then the “Raise / Lower lever” would serve two functions… to unlock the pins and to close/open the hydraulic line for the appropriate pump action. Then the pump could move as normal and use both the forward and back stroke to generate pressure.

If the cylinders are the same then I should probably be right about the “stroke” “movement” but I hate it when you have to put an interpretation on things..you are never quite sure you are right. Far better that the cylinders turn out to be different and the manual can be read at face value!

Having said that, there are numerous examples of ambiguos, unclear and even conflicting information being put in Pilots Notes.

regards

Darryl

Thanks guys!!!!

PM’s on the way,

Mike..I’m NOT suggesting you have misread them for one minute, but the Pilot’s Notes seem odd..then again, it is interesting that the two terms are used…30 “full strokes” and 15 “full movements”

Are the entries concurrent or are they separated by other sections… It is strange, as Tony mentioned, that it takes more to lower than to raise…
However one reading of “stroke” would be a single push forward OR pull back….and of “movement” one full cycle..ie back and forward. So 15 “movements”
would equate to 30 “stroke” on that reading. The context may be very important. If the entries are in the same paragraph, one after the other, this is less likely..but if one is in a “taking off” section and theother in a separtae “landing” section..then my alternative reading is much more likely.

This would be closer to what Bob Doe describes (20) and the difference may just be that things never quite work as advertised??

I would have thought that 1 pump of the handle would move 1 “unit” of fluid which would move the gear 1 “unit” of travel. If the system allowed slack, then I see how the gear might come DOWN with less pumps, but up? Strange. I do know that some of the old manuals are contradictory in some places, (say as to Radiator temp allowed) so I suspect my alternative reading MAY be the right one….can you get any sense of context?
Enquiring minds need to know!! *G*

cheers

Thank you all!!!

Glad to see that the Mk I will be faithfully rendered in that operating system, cheers Mark. I thought you might have problems getting it registered. I’m not totally sure how you would go here with that.

20/21 sounds great just sitting here miming it , that looks pretty close.

Thanks, I have Sigh for a Merlin (in fact on about my third copy!) I will see if I can find it.

I can relate to having seen/put/left something “somewhere”. I have come to believe “somewhere” is an extremely large area!

thanks all

PS, ..no luck on the early DH “flyspray/bike” pump shaped pitch control?

I don’t know the answer

Ok, so now I am in trouble!! 🙂

Mark,
Thanks, I think it is that restoration that I have a picture of showing the unit. I suppose that is for show and the gear doesn’t actually have to be PUMPED on her. I can’t wait to see her!. AR213 is a pretty late one and looks more like a Mk II at first glance into the “office”.

I have the GA for the unit and am in the process of organising a working mock up for the simulator. I guess we will just use an educated guess or find another aircraft that still flys with one (Ansons used similar, so did some others I believe ) .

If all else fails we will time some old film and get on a water pump to approximate.

Thank you Sir

Thanks Bruce

You’ve confirmed everything I thought…now I just have to hope someone will come up with a clear photo of an original unit.

Thank you Antoni, thank you All.

I had mistaken the windscreen from a photo of a PR.IX and my not-to-clear photos of the FR.IX. I now see the internal bullet proof windscreen, thank you.

Further measurements of the cockpit structure last night indicate that the channel selector will fit near the Type 35 but it is tight. I think I will go ahead and put it there.

cheers

.