Evening All,

It’s been about 6 months or so since I posted this topic so I thought I would post an update for those interested.

I have had a reply from Rolls Royce and it reads as follows….
——————————-
Hello Patrick,
Your question has been forwarded to the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust which looks after the history of Rolls-Royce.

First, however, as I read your message I get the impression that you believe that Church Broughton was the RR Hucknall site. Just to clarify, this is not so: RR Hucknall lies just to the east of the M1 between junctions 26 & 27 and its airfield, opened in 1916, is still in use by RR’s Merlin Flying Club. Church Broughton, home of 27OTU where mainly Australian aircrew did their training on Wellingtons, was used by the Company for a while from about 1945 as Hucknall had no tarmac runways which were better for jet aircraft. The Flight Test Facility used the hangar which still exists on the CB airfield site.

Following is the basic info on both the Trent engine and the Meteor aircraft which became the first turboprop aircraft to fly.

The engine, designated RB50 Trent, was built to investigate combinations of jet thrust and propeller propulsion. It first ran in June 1944, and over 1000 hours of subsequent ground and flight testing provided information which gave Rolls-Royce an early lead in the use of propellers and reduction gears in conjunction with gas turbine power units. Basically the Trent was a Derwent 2 in which the gearcase at the front of the engine was modified to drive a five-blade propeller via a long shaft. It was really only a ‘proof-of-concept’ project, and never intended as a practical powerplant. Conversion of the Meteor to take the Trent was done by RR and its programme of testing yielded invaluable experience in turboprop handling. The Meteor was a Mk.1, EE227/G, and its first flight took place in September 1945 at Church Broughton airfield about 22 miles WSW of the RR Flight Test Aerodrome at Hucknall.

Modifications to the Meteor included a strengthened undercarriage with an additional six inches of ground clearance for the 7ft. 7in. Rotol propellers. These propellers absorbed 750 hp with a residual thrust from the engine of 1000lb.

The machine was first flown with independent controls for the throttle and the propeller constant speed unit, and unless the coordination of the controls was correct, very rapid changes in thrust were encountered which severely upset the characteristics of the machine.
As a result of these unsatisfactory flying qualities, smaller diameter propellers (4ft.10½in) were fitted which would absorb only 350 hp and the jet pipe diameter decreased to raise the thrust to 1400 lb. Although this made the Trent-Meteor virtually a jet-propelled aircraft, it enabled flight development of the engine to continue and provided useful data for the single-lever-control which was used in later testing. With the incorporation of this scheme the excellent flying qualities of the Meteor were restored. The Trent Meteor carried out around 100 hours of test flying.

I’m sorry but I don’t have any info on Eric Greenwood who was a Gloster test pilot.

I have attached photos of both the Meteor and the original engine with the larger propeller. These photos are the copyright of the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust and must be credited as such if published.

I hope this answers your questions.

Regards
Peter Kirk
RRHT Engine Data
(c) 2005 Rolls-Royce plc
————————————-

I’ll post another update shortly as I’m after some information……

Regards,

Pat.

James,

Many many thanks for all your help, and of course to every one else who has contributed. Amazing, they are no longer just photographs of aircraft; they are photographs of aircraft with identities and serial numbers, some of which now appear to be offering up their stories.

I do have other questions though – sorry!!!. I’m still learning about the aircraft, but what are the markings on the fuselage? What are the 3 stripes on the tail fin? It may be a black and white photo but it looks to me like 3 different colours – but of course I could be wrong.

What does the ‘T’ and ‘M’ signify? What is the missing letter? What squadron would it have been attached too? And how would I find out about what action it saw / took part in? Would this be recorded any where?

Thanks again,

Patrick.

Er, from the book RAF Flying Training and Support Units, published by Air Britain (http://www.air-britain.com/), that is useful for info about RAF units that are or were not squadrons – and thats about all it has on this unit. This book currently appears to be out of print, though…

Flood

Er, yeah, sorry about that. It did occur to me once I posted it – duh!!! I had a search of the website, but no joy. I have a sent a request to see If I can get hold of a copy.

By all means, if anyone knows of any other channels of investigation such as other books to look out for, websites I may have missed or people or places to get in contact with then I would be happy to hear all suggestions.

Regards,

Pat.

Morning All,

As an aside to the project that I am currently workingon , can anyone help me with the attached photo.

The serial number looks like Z4893 or could it be Z4693?

How would I go about trying to find information about this particular plane?

I’m trying to put some stories to most if not all of the photos and this would be as good a starting point as any.

Any and all help would be gratefully appreciated.

Regards,

Patrick.

Hi All,

As Glyn has now informed me it is Z4693 a Hurricane 1, which served in the Middle East and was struck off charge in 1945 – Z4893 did not exist.

Glyn and everyone else – are you able to shed any more light on this particular aircraft in terms of it’s history? I just think it would make a good side project for me as indeed would the history of any of the other aircraft on my site that have visible serial numbers. It would be nice to give the photographs some narrative rather than just saying what it is!!!

As ever, and all help is most appreciated.

Regards,

Pat.

104 – Queen Bee (TOC RNARY Fayid 28/8/41, to 775NAS at Dekheila, conv Tiger Moth 9/43, comms dutys to 2/46) and Albacore

118 – a pyramid
119 – the Sphinx
125-126 – pyramids
152 – pin ups

Ha Ha – very funny. I did wonder, but the camels threw me slightly :p :p

Pin Ups!!! – OK come on then, which ones?

Pic 104 – How did you ascertain all that info from the pic? Can you eloborate on the abbreviations (and by the way why is abbreviation such a long word? 🙂

Many thanks for your help though,

Pat.

Hi Nermal, no ignore me, you are right, I’ve checked again. There are a couple of other shots of the same plane with Churchill in front of it – I’ll post these later when I get home so you can verify for me!!!

Regards,

Pat.

Nermal, as promised – these photos are from a different source, but it is definitely the same plane!!!

See what you think.

Regads,

Pat.

Getting a few in today!
105 (Churchills visit) looks like a Lockheed Lodestar – Nermal

Hi Nermal,

I was led to believe that this was Churchill’s personal transport. I’m sure I read somewhere that is was a converted Liberator II codenamed ‘Commando’.

Of course I could be wrong :confused:

Regards,

Pat.

Also, whilst I’m in research mode, I’m trying to find out how to go about searching for ex war photographers.

I have had an e-mail from someone who has identical copies of 2 photos on my website. On the back on the 2 photos is a red stamp which reads ‘Official Photographer No. 102’.

Surely there must be some record somewhere that details who this photographer was.

And imagine if he was still alive – what a story that would be.

As ever, any and all help would be most appreciated.

Regards,

Pat.