dark light

RadarArchive

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 898 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: mystery object #1067475
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    These cradles do certainly have a rubber ring inside them.

    I must confess to being slightly confused – all the images I can find of hernia bars are of American ones which seem to simply be a metal bar which attaches to the end (front and/or back) of the bomb to be lifted. Clearly, this is different and would encircle the drop tank with the bar at right angles to the tank. I can find no images of these in use. I have no doubt that this is indeed how they were used, but it would be nice to see an image of it, and I can’t find one online anywhere. Can anyone help?

    in reply to: mystery object #1069031
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    JASE, Thanks for this. I guess we have a winner! Any chance anyone has a photo of hernia bars like these in use?

    in reply to: mystery object #1069819
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Thanks for all the suggestions guys.

    One problem I do have is that neither object has a data plate with an RAF Stores Ref No, an MoD arrow or other markings that would identify them as RAF equipment. Nor is there any indication of where such a plate was fitted but has been removed. I do therefore wonder if these are indeed RAF equipment at all. I should mention that the ‘crash kit’ is written on by hand and not stencilled or any any way officially applied.

    There is no manufacturer’s data plate either, with name, type number, etc, etc, so nothing to tie these back to a maker which might provide some clues.

    I don’t know what, if anything, all this means, but thought I would mention it in case it prompts some more thoughts.

    in reply to: mystery object #1070530
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    I’ve measured these two bits of kit and they are both 1585mm or 62½ inches long. The diameters of the circular part are slightly different, however. The upper one has a diameter of 360mm or 14¼ inches, whilst the lower one is 13¾. I don’t know if this helps in any way with working out exactly what they are, but it might.

    in reply to: mystery object #1070972
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    I can check tomorrow, but I’m pretty sure they are at least a foot in diameter. For that reason, I don’t think they have anything to do with fire hoses as I think they are just too large, although I can certainly understand the thought process behind this.

    I’ll try and remember to measure them and post accurate details tomorrow.

    in reply to: What Prop ? #1070973
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Have you tried contacting Hartzell direct? Details can be found here: http://www.hartzellprop.com/

    As they made the prop, I would be surprised if they don’t recognise the type, and hence what aircraft type it would have been fitted to.

    in reply to: Anson tyres sought #1075971
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Eric, Cheers for that, but we’re OK for the tailwheel and tyre. It’s just the mainwheels that we need.

    in reply to: Anson tyres sought #1076027
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Thanks for that, but Twin Otter mainwheel tyres are a different size (11.00-12). I’d prefer to try and trace the correct size if possible.

    in reply to: Do you recognise this throttle box? #1087347
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Spot on Dai. Thanks. How did I miss that?!?

    in reply to: Concorde Project On The Thames #1088424
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    It’s interesting that I’ve still not been able to establish if the intention is definitely to have visitors go through the interior of the aircraft, which seems to be what the press release suggests, although does not make explicit. If this is the case, how is the aircraft going to be fitted out, because getting seats and all the other cabin fittings is simply not an option. Does anyone know if these issues have been resolved?

    in reply to: Concorde Project On The Thames #1089046
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    The list of interested parties who have been consulted makes interesting reading. I am particularly intrigued by a glaring omission from this list: British Airways. As the owners of the airframe, I would have thought they would be the first organisation to approach about the feasibility of the project. Unless BA are on board, I would expect the project is dead in the water.

    The other aspect that intrigues me are the references to visiting Concorde. Does this mean go on board, or just look at the aircraft from outside? If the latter, I’m not sure it will attract enough people to repay a £20 million investment. However, the former is, I think, unlikely. My understanding is that the aircraft is completely stripped and literally just a bare metal tube, although I assume most if not all of the floor panels are still in place. With all the spares having been sold off at auction when the aircraft were retired, there is zero chance of fitting out the interior. I can’t see many people paying money to see a stripped out Concorde, when they can hop on a train to Weybridge and see a fully restored aircraft there.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m not against this project. I think it would be wonderful to see a fully restored Concorde open to visitors in the heart of London. I just don’t see how it can happen. If anyone can explain to me how it will happen, I would be delighted to find out.

    in reply to: Falklands Nimrods #1135674
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    XV227, XV228, XV230, XV232, XV243, XV244, XV247, XV249, XV255, XV258, XV260 and XW664 – credit to ‘Falklands the Air War by the late lamented BARG team published in 1986

    Seaking,

    Thanks very much for this list which certainly answers my original question. It’s also great to see the photo of some of them at Ascension, but at least my curiosity is now satisfied. Obviously, I was reading the wrong books!

    in reply to: Mystery airline badge #1113154
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Thanks for the offer, but I’m pretty certain the Board of Trade is the answer I was looking for, so there’s no need to bother posting on pprune this time. Thanks nonetheless.

    in reply to: Mystery airline badge #1113370
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Thunderbird167 – thanks very much for that, which seems almost certain to be correct.

    Bazv – thanks too for that, which I had thought of but couldn’t figure out how to post images.

    in reply to: Just what were the RAF expecting to fight? #1114172
    RadarArchive
    Participant

    Could be Duxford – same pattern building anyway.

    I’m afraid not. This is a Hurricane of No 79 Squadron, who were never based at Duxford. They did, however, spent much of the immediate pre-war period (and I assume this is pre-war, with civilians allowed on the station) at Biggin Hill, so my money would be on that station.

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 898 total)