Originally posted by Distiller
@1) The first operational night fighter radar was FuG 202 “Lichtenstein BC” on Me110’s

Can I ask when the FuG 202 came into service? I didn’t think radar-equipped Bf 110s were in service until mid-war, but I confess to not knowing a great deal about German airborne radar.

I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by the first part of question 1. Like all radars, the first airborne interception radars worked by sending out radio energy and receiving the re-radiated energy. I suspect that this isn’t what you mean, and if you can clarify what you want to know I’ll do my best to answer.

With regard to the second part, the first British AI radar which saw large-scale operational use (AI Mk IV) consisted of a single display with a vertical line down the middle. The distance down the line where the target blip appeared indicated its range from the night fighter, and the extent to which the blip was larger to the left or the right of the line indicated the bearing of the target relative to the night fighter. There are a large number of books available on the subject, many of which include drawings showing these displays which are much easier to understand than my explanation.

As regards U-boats, I don’t know a great deal off the top of my head, but I do know they did have some radar equipment, certainly in the latter part of the war. This was, IIRC, for the detection of aircraft whilst on the surface, rather than for seeking ships to sink. U-boats were also equipped with radar detectors which would indicate if an Allied aircraft had seen the U-boat on radar, giving it time to crash-dive. However, the Allies started using microwave radar which this detector could not receive and thus the Allies were able to attack a lot of U-boats on the surface without warning.

I’ve not looked at the job description yet, but what everyone may be forgetting is that Duxford, as part of the Imperial War Museum, is a national museum. Employees are therefore members of the public sector and not private companies. I’m sure everyone realises that the public sector has always paid less than the equivalent in the private sector. However, there is greater job security and other advantages. It also has the benefit that it mean that someone applying for the job isn’t doing it for the money, but because they are committed to the goals of the organisation. I certainly wouldn’t want to see someone in a senior role at Duxford who only took the job in order to earn a great load of cash, and I’m sure no-one else would either. If you wouldn’t apply for the job because of the pay level, then you are obviously not suitable for the job!

Personally, I would say it’s good enough that a nose section has been preserved. I didn’t know there was one at Carlisle – I must go down there sometime! It would be nice if an entire aircraft had been preserved, but at least a nose has been kept in order to tell the story.

To those who say the AEW3 is of no importance, I would say that the story of the AEW3 is an important part of British aviation history and is similar in some respects to the TSR2. Just because the AEW3 never saw operational service does not make it irrelevant. I’m sure no-one here would advocate getting rid of remaining TSR2 aircraft and components! The decision to end both projects were major blows to the British aviation industry. OK, the TSR2 was a greater success than the AEW3, but both had the rug pulled from under them before they were properly developed.

Gateguard,

I was interested in your post and the locations you mention. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t think BA had announced where the aircraft were going to go, yet. As such, surely it’s a bit premature to criticise one location or another when any of them may or may not get a Concorde?

If I’m wrong, and the decision has been made, I’d be very interested to see the complete list of who is all getting a Concorde.

However, one last comment I would make. Why should Duxford (or Yeovilton) get a Concorde? They already have examples, even if they are prototypes. Surely it’s better for other locations to have an example, so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see it. Yes, I’d rather see it flying, but seeing it in a museum is better than nothing at all. Although I’ve been to Duxford a couple of times, it’s not easy for me to get to it and it seems fair to spread the remaining aircraft around a bit.

I do agree that the US shouldn’t get them, since they did nothing but criticse the project. Keep them all in the UK and let the US tourists come here and see them!

Sorry, I forogt to mention that, as I’ve already explained, interest in aircraft and touching are not related. Anyone can become interested, nay passionate, abotu aircraft without touching museum objects. The subject of replicas and so on has already shown how kids (and adults for that matter) can be engaged without causing damage to historical aircrames.

I’m with you Steve.

Airworthy aircraft need repairs and maintenance and are not necessarily historical artefacts. I don’t have a problem with touching these airframes. After all, they have to be touched to get in and out of them and to fly them!

However, when an aircraft is placed in the care of a museum, it is so that it can be preserved for future generations. Touching these is a problem and all those who do this are putting these airframes in peril for their personal gratification, which I consider extremely selfish. It’s clear I’m not going to change anyone’s mind – those who touch are unwilling to listen to the facts – but it doesn’t change the situation that they are damaging our heritage.