Jump to content

flandersflyer

Members
  • Content Count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by flandersflyer


  1.  

    The bomb bay was divided to Ministry specifications to carry differing loads available at the time. There were no cookies, block-busters etc in those early times. Shorts always said they could change the bomb bay to a single open area but the Ministry refused (and also refused Shorts original design of a 112ft wingspan). The Stirling was more agile than either the Lanc or Halifax due to its high wing loading and was said to have been able to out turn a JU-88 when being attacked (mainly due to the JU-88 being faster)The Stirling gave invaluable service as a bomber in the early years but then as a supply aircraft dropping vital equipment to resistance groups all over Europe and then going on to being one of the main aircraft for towing gliders on D-Day, Market Garden etc. If only someone had the fore-thought to have kept at least one of every type from back then.

    yes....the central division of the stirling`s bomb bay limited it to 2000LB ordnance...

    if you look at the angle of attack of the wings....this severe angle was needed to get the thing off the ground...

    thats what the high undercarrage was all about as well...

    the stirling in many ways was the `nearly` aircraft....the RAF learned a lot of invaluable experience with it in how to handle large numbers of heavys....

    there were some crews though who swore by it.....

    to summerise...

    yes, it did have some limitations....mostly imposed by short sightedness within the air ministry....

    but it served in drop roles such as market garden and for dropping SOE operatives where its under turret mounting proved useful for bailing out of.....


  2. take a look at the beardmore engine then here:

     

    these were fitted to the FE.2b aircraft....which was an artillary flyer/observation aircraft used by the RFC during WW1.

     

    to the O/P:

    how do you find the general construction & design of the Thornycroft in comparison to the Dennis?

    /QUOTE]

     

    Hi Glenn.

     

    Where is that Beardmore? Looks like a nice bundle of tricks but I wouldn't want to have to keep it clean!

     

    The Thorny does not seem to be as refined as the Dennis although there is not a lot in it. They are both true Subsidy lorries and generally very similar.

     

    The American lorries are much more distinct. The Autocars are a very nice job indeed with bushes at every wearing surface so refurbishing them was relatively straightforward. They are even bushed for the shackle pins at the non-moving surfaces. The FWD by comparison is quite crude. The casting and machining quality is 'just good enough' and I get the general impression that the engineers did a good job of the transmission and driveline but then lost interest and threw the rest together. It can't be that bad though, as all of them have lasted 90 years.

     

    Steve

    theres some guys that go under the heading of `the vintage aviator LTD`...their based on new zealand....

    they managed to grab the Beardmore from out of a shed in south america where apparantly a couple of FE2.bs ended up after the war...

    here:

     

    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/taxonomy/term/199

     

    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/beardmore-engine/beardmore-engine-build

     

    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/mercedes-engine/mercedes-engine-restoration

     

    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/oberursel-engine/oberursel-ur-ii-rotary-engine-build-history

     

    i think as the war ground endlessly on the general quality of equipment would`v been `just enough`....take the hispano suiza engine for instance....the french didn`t really have the time to get it reliable.....its a case of how many units can you get to the front...it doesn`t matter if they dont last as the avarage life expectancy of an RFC pilot during `bloody april` was 2 weeks....yes thats 14 days.....

    the hispo was a motor with a lot of potential....but it was the wolseley company that got it to run right...then sold it as the wolseley viper

    here:

     

    300px-WolseleyViper.jpg

     

    the germans also had their own problems to contend with....they were using a synthetic oil...but their rotary engines such as the oberursel and particularly the siemens halske didn`t like it...


  3. The lorries were certainly close enough to be within range of enemy shells, and close enough to be seen, but never close enough for shiny bits to be seen unless the sun glinted on them.
    well most of the `heavys` guns would be ranged on known map references...such as jumping off points and ammunition dumps...

    these places were often refered to as `windy corner`....and were usually well behind the front line.....

    even `TOC H` was well within range of shelling....

    TOC H was a rest and refuge from the noise and bombardment of `modern scientific war`..

    The tank `Fray Bentos` ( a mark IV male) went on a bit of an odysey around no mans land and the german lines...Fray Bentos held out for 3 days after bogging down....apparantly there were german soldiers crawling over it trying to get in..... :)


  4. Thanks, Tony! I would have to say that the definitive answer is (in no particular order) 'yes, no, maybe, possibly'. Too many variables, I think, - individual companies may have had their own individual policies. Were engines painted after ancillaries were added, if so, probably everything was painted, if they were fitted after painting the block, probably not, unless they were painted before fitting. Company workshops were probably less likely to paint everything than Heavy Repair Shops with MRUs somewhere in between.

     

    Speed was less important than getting it right, though, with MRUs throughput seems to have been a factor, but more to prevent a build up of waiting vehicles than the need for repaired vehicles for work. Company workshops appear to have done the minimum, MRUs completed the repair plus their version of overhaul and certainly repaired faults they found over and above the breakdown, Heavy Repair Shops overhauled to 'as new' spec and standard.

     

    I'm not sure they considered shiny bits being seen by the enemy as a reason to paint. Even shiny bits dull somewhat when covered in dust or mud and the enemy were never really that close, at least not close enough to spot a shiny hub cap or fuel line under a bonnet. I suspect every external piece of brass was painted simply because it was easier to paint everything than paint round bits. Also, shiny bits would have provided more of a temptation to locals for 'borrowing' to sell on as salvage. Salvage would have fetched a decent price, especially at a time when the local farmers were having their fields turned into battle fields.

     

    As for definitive, well, I'm sure there is definitive somewhere, I just wish that every time I find definitive that something else wouldn't turn up to contradict it.

    I wonder if the crew of `Fray Bentos` thought this?

  5. Out of curiosity seeing as there appear to be quite a lot of brass fittings to these engines, are they painted or left in the raw so to speak? My personal view is that they would have been painted as bright shiny bits on a military lorry wouldn't do, but what do I know?
    take a look at the beardmore engine then here:

     

    imagesCAKKIIOX.jpg

    is this enough brass n shiny bits for you?..lol

    these were fitted to the FE.2b aircraft....which was an artillary flyer/observation aircraft used by the RFC during WW1.

    Beardmore were from Glasgow and their engines had a reputation for being very reliable and of good workmanship.

     

    to the O/P:

    how do you find the general construction & design of the Thornycroft in comparison to the Dennis?

    from where I am looking I would say the thornycroft was a superior product....but then again I can only speculate as I am not there on the scene to witness construction close up..

    although the pics and talk you are providing is outstanding and will in itself prove to be an important historical document in time.

    Keep it coming fellas.

    Glenn.

    GLMelectrical

    imagesCA2LD5PF.jpg

    imagesCAH8F8IM.jpg

    imagesCAIW4AM1.jpg

    imagesCAQLBFB4.jpg


  6. I enjoyed watching all the solutions that the guys came up with...such as the pattern making and the lathe work...

    i remember about 20 years ago when i was living in shrewsbury for a while...there was this scrappers out on the edge of town....

    now, i had a little look about that place and it was full of old stuff....i bet you there was some of these old truck chassis and various other items there....

    think its gone now though that place...

    I used to work in fabrications about 8 years ago before i got into sparkying....at that time i was working as a plater/welder and as was quite rightly pointed out in the Dennis thread old cast can be a pig to weld....it can tend to just gas up and not take....

    but you can always TIG it with argon gas and de-oxidised stainless rod....welds cast lovely does stainless...and you wont need to preheat the casting either when using the TIG process as its a really localised heat...but if using nickel rods with a stick plant....then you will need to take the chill out of the casting first....and theres a correct way to do it:

    always start on the outside with the heating torch in a circular motion and gradually work inward till the area you wish to weld is a dull red....never work from the centre outward as this can cause the casting to develop stress fractures that will only become apparant after its all cooled down...once its all a dull red then start getting them fillets in....as soon as the casting has been welded re-heat to a dull red then chuck a load of dry sand over the welded area....so it can all normalise gradually...if it cools down too rapid then it can develop stresses and crack...or the weld can seperate and never..never quench any weld....but particularly cast.....

    You can repair ally with TIG...but it has to be really clean beforehand so a good buff with a scotchbrite pad....and dont forget of course you need to be in AC to weld aluminium:)


  7. Timbo

     

    I have been involved in wireless since school days in the 1970s when radio shops, the small ads in "Practical Wireless", and radio club junk sales were still full of interesting stuff of this and earlier vintage. There isnt much to do with 1950s and 1960s radio that I havent seen (and havent wasted pocket money on :nut: )

     

    Having seen the front panel it looks more useful than a waveform monitor - more like a combined test meter and low spec oscilloscope - I suspect a lot of technicians and Radio Amateurs would have gladly traded an AVO for it in the 1950s !

     

    Regards

     

    Iain

    it may be a phase shifter

  8. hi...

    just signed up after some time spent reading about the guys in devon with the dennis....

    i myself work as an electrician but have a keen interest in old technology and WW1 aviation...in fact anything really from that era...

    i`m particularly interested in early engines and the like..

    anyway....thanks for taking the time to read my first post.

    Glenn.:-)

×
×
  • Create New...