dark light

cdp206

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 384 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: INFO WANTED ON WARTIME HELICOPTER #1333427
    cdp206
    Participant

    Most likely one of these.

    http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Hoverfly.htm

    And probably wound up doing something like this (an unidentified Vought-Sikorsky Hoverfly aboard an equally unidentified carrier – deck trials in 1944. From ‘Pictorial History of the Fleet Air Arm’ Rawlings, J. D. R. 1973)

    in reply to: Hucknall Sat 1th June #1333453
    cdp206
    Participant

    I’m not sure, but I am told there will be a large selection of all sorts of vehicles, so I’m confident that there will be something for everybody……..and even a funfair and bouncy castles to keep my kids happy.

    The top thing of course is that the list of flying participants is surprisingly not that bad either, considering is is not actually an airshow per-se

    Bomberboy

    I completely agree. Sometimes it’s these shows which are perhaps more rewarding for the spectator than the ‘over-subscribed’ larger shows. You can get up close and personal with many of the exhibits, but that’s just a personal view and doesn’t count for anything here.

    Given you’re a member of a car club Bomberboy, I’m surprised you aren’t off to the Newark Kit Car Show this weekend – it also coincides with the Cockpit Fest there as well. Both shows are weekend-long. Spoilt for choice really.

    I might not partake in a bouncy castle tough – a) no kids and b) salami and cheese butties might not be too good. Indigestion and all that!

    in reply to: Hucknall Sat 1th June #1333466
    cdp206
    Participant

    Bomberboy – what vehicles will be along? Classics/vintage, I assume. Any classic competition cars at all (of the rallying variety) – he asks, hopefully?!

    Just checked the long range weather for the weekend and Saturday looks to be very good.

    1Group – I have the salami and strange cheese!

    in reply to: Identification help needed. #1333699
    cdp206
    Participant

    You could always try: http://www.worldwar2exraf.co.uk/

    in reply to: Hucknall Sat 1th June #1334030
    cdp206
    Participant

    I’ll be there 1Group! 😉

    in reply to: Latest News on "Dambusters" remake #1335902
    cdp206
    Participant

    Why would you want a flying Mosquito in a DB remake? The aircraft had nothing to do with Chastise weapons – the Mosquito was the chosen delivery platform for Highball, but that’s about it.

    I completely agree about the Wellington though. The aircraft used in the original DB was in fact MF628 (T.10, hence the blanked-off front turret position), which of course we all know sits in the RAF Museum. The aircraft in film was actually flown in its training role colour scheme anyway. Would they let it go, being the most complete Wellington airframe? I somehow doubt it!

    In reality, will the remake ever come to fruition anyway? The rumour mill seems to be working well here!

    in reply to: General Discussion #314855
    cdp206
    Participant

    Can I give you a pat and ride on the ripples?

    in reply to: Top Tens #1928914
    cdp206
    Participant

    Can I give you a pat and ride on the ripples?

    in reply to: General Discussion #314864
    cdp206
    Participant

    Oh I just found this cat story and I love it !!! 😮 😮 😮 😀

    THE HARD AS NAILS CAT !!!!

    That story actually made it onto Radio 5 last night! It was just as funny then, too. Aren’t cats brill! Just wish mine was so active.

    in reply to: funny cats #1928924
    cdp206
    Participant

    Oh I just found this cat story and I love it !!! 😮 😮 😮 😀

    THE HARD AS NAILS CAT !!!!

    That story actually made it onto Radio 5 last night! It was just as funny then, too. Aren’t cats brill! Just wish mine was so active.

    in reply to: Appointment In London – Channel Four Now #1251289
    cdp206
    Participant

    Thnaks for that 682al. I suppose what flagged it up was the upper surfrace camouflage looking a little pale and ‘sandy’ in nature but the thing which really caught my eye was the pale coloured spinners, an obvious feature on the Dambuster’s film aircraft. For Dambuster’s, they were pulled of out storage from an MU at RAF Hemswell.

    I know what you mean about the ‘weathering’ effect. I thought it look as though someone had gone bonkers with the Nitromors – not disinilar to a friends rally car I was helping to build a few years ago. We thought we’d do it ourselves (because we’re Yorkshiremen and therefore, aledgedy ‘tight with cash’) and wound up nearly gasing the neighbours! In fact, Newark Air Museum’s Bucaneer looks like it too!

    in reply to: Appointment In London – Channel Four Now #1252237
    cdp206
    Participant

    I missed the first ten minutes so therfore missed TW862. The only obvious serial I saw was NX782. With regards to the Squadron codes the usually authritative Bower & Rawlins’ Squadron Codes notes that the letter combination ‘IH’ (those seen in the film), were never (knowlingly) allocated. The squadron, No. 188 DID exist, but only for a short time in WW1 as night fighter training unit at Throwley, Kent. It only lasted between December 1917 to March 1919 and used 504K’s, Sopwith Camels and Sopwith Pups. After disbandment in 1919, it never reformed.

    One thing which did strike me was the similarity, in camouflage at least, to the Lancs used in the Dambusters, which appeared just over a year after Appointment in London – are they the same aircraft, pulled out of storage for both productions? Does anyone have the serials for the Dambuster’s Lancasters? From what I understand, the only one of those aircraft to carry a ‘correct’ serial was the one used to portray Gibson’s aircraft; all the rest retained their own serials. Just curious!

    in reply to: B.o.B. Lanc this evening #1252526
    cdp206
    Participant

    40 missions sounds more realistic, although I was sure the caption/passage reads 40 hrs. I’ll have to check and make sure I’ve got it wrong. However, after having ha d quick read through it, I can see where you reference to hours comes from, as there is a short section on servicing which does state something along the lines of ‘…those aircraft lucky enough see 500 hrs…’ before they saw any sort of major serving. The intervals, apparently were 500 and 1000 hrs, by any stretch of the imagination, plenty of ops.

    So what is/was the life expectancy of the Lancs main spar, as its probably one of the hardest worked, non-‘mechanical’ parts of the airframe?

    I like the car market analogy, though and I can see its validity. However, the accountants might also say that, once it has become a ‘clasic’, its value increases in proportion to rarity and to some extent, its marque. Mind you, I’ve seen a few cars on the Historic Rally Car Register and they driven just as hard now as they were when they were new! The same doesn’t appear to go for classic aircraft, perhaps for obvious and necessary reasons!

    in reply to: B.o.B. Lanc this evening #1252583
    cdp206
    Participant

    It’s not. Most / all W.W.II aircraft were built to a job which would last a very short time in modern eyes. In other words a Spitfire was expected to be in front line use for probably weeks, maybe months, certainly not years. But they’d go on to second line duties or foreign use, and be expected to last through that. They were, generally ‘overbuilt’ in being tougher than the front line environment/time required. In the case of the B-17, there’s no way it would all suddenly fall apart on the 26th mission! Engines, props, fittings and fixtures would be replaced as necessary, in service. If it became too much of a job, it would be junked and a new one from the production line would be taken instead. The allies’ production success was one of the war-winners, often overlooked.


    Cheers

    An interesting observation. I suppose one way of looking at it is the 25 hrs quoted might be referring to its expected operational life and not airframe life. I remember (but I’ll check again at some point in Lancaster At War (by Garbett & Goulding) mention is made that a Lancaster had a life expectancy of 40 hrs. You’re right JDK in that at 41 hrs, the whole thing would collapse in on itself. Does the ’40 hrs’ therefore refer to its life expectancy on operations? I.e, it wasn’t expected to last more than 40 hrs worth of offensive bombing missions? I found it odd when I first read it about twenty-two years ago and the direction of this thread has just reminded me of it! If it was only 40 hrs, then the Base Servicing stations or Bracebridge Heath would have been VERY busy, not just repairing battle damage Lancs but also replacing sometimes large portions of fatigued airframe!

    in reply to: Appointment In London – Channel Four Now #1252642
    cdp206
    Participant

    Good call! I didn’t know that was on and I haven’t seen it in ages. Worth 90 or so minutes of anyones time. Not too many 1950’s ‘special effects’ either, prbably due to the amount of genuine archive footage used. It was a bit slow in places but luckily didn’t go all melodramatic. Very enjoyable.

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 384 total)