fv1609

The Pigs, at first I thought the ERM was 10 BK 82 but it can't be that as it was a GS, so I think it is 13 BK 82. FV1611 chassis number 21382, the engine number was 6361, sold at Ruddington OSDC on 5/8/69 I have no pictures of it although I have the two before. (Although 13 BK 81 is restored it poses as 03 BK 41 to assume an identity of an ambulance, but there is more to a Pig ambulance that painting Red Crosses on it!) Anyway 13 BK 82 was an APC, the other Pig is not FFR but could be FFW but probably an APC. Not enough close detail to determine if they are products of Sankey or ROF.

You bet, so hope there will be generous extracts in the book. I note that the trial was the GW Wing RAC & FVRDE hot whether trials, but was it given a name? I know that Ex Starlight was exactly a year before. I am not sure which of these two it was but I did have three (I think) reels of 8mm cine of these firings. The problem was that they had not been developed. They were taken by Capt Peter Russel (RIP) who became Cyclops EME he gave me a lot of his archives & stuff, including these films. For several years I tried to find somewhere that could process them, Peter did try in the USA but it seemed there could have been as many as 80 different ways that film should be processed & trial & error would have to undertaken so the odds were not good & it was going to run into thousands for a company to set a processing system so in despair I gave them back to Peter. Sadly he died shortly afterwards & the films & other bits promised did not come my way so I assume they were chucked out, probably after the cans being opened to see inside! He did leave me a lot of photos & other stuff. In that report is there much on Vigilant? I have a special interest in that too, I used to have a fair collection of that stuff, including the ill-fated Clevite launcher for the USMC. In Ex Triplex West 1963, I note that Carver favoured Vigilant over Malkara. It is always interesting hearing the views of the contractor & user. I was in contact with a salesman for Vigilant from Vickers Armstrong & Col Val Cockle (RIP) who went on to form 20 Trials Unit who was responsible for rejecting Vigilant twice! Similarly I have been in contact many Malkara users but also Fairey/BAC people. You get different takes on things eg Malkara 'jinxed & get static shocks touching the controller' yet this was shown by the contractor in the field to be the fact that it got damn hot very quickly in the sun. Pig commentary to follow.

Oh wow. I have heard it said the canvas is to downgrade the appearance so it doesn't look like an armoured vehicle, which is complete nonsense! The canvas is there stretched over rails around the roof edges to form a layer of air to help reduce heat transfer to the crew. More comprehensive answer to follow.

Terry first problem is finding the documents, been here a year & not unpacked books fully yet, let alone get them in a findable order. When I do find them I can scan the relevant pages, but complete documents aren't feasible I'm afraid not just the time to do it but I have no broadband I'm just using a mobile phone link that is bandwidth limited, although I have bought more it just seems to get used up just as fast!

I expect that took a while to do Terry. Out curiosity I compared it with the list in the Fieldmouse Provisional UHB WO Code No.17766 1953. Things are much the same although some items had not yet been codified with a FV number or a VAOS Section. Rummaging in the tool bag there used to be Can, filling, flexible spout (Wesc Patt.) LV6/MT1 Pt. No. 32797 I can't find that in the later tool bag but see that it moved to its own holder. In the original Spanner American FA17057 it gives DE as 1 1/8" which is later corrected to 7/8". Also in the original tool bag there were no BA spanners. Only spotted one typo Terry, Wire, copper, soft, Nk. 20 SWG. You want a later UHB I have Army Code No.12174 1969 & CES Army Code No.33044 1973. There was no stowage diagram in the Fieldmouse UHB but I have the Stowage Sketches also designated WO Code No.10766 1954

Lizzie I can sense your frustration of the lack of audience participation but the thing is that this is serious & specialist thread that many of us hesitate to comment for fear appearing foolish & assuming someone more knowledgeable will chip in with points that may not have already been covered by your comprehensive appraisal of each photo. So please keep them coming & do you have any Humbers in the collection?

Not as such Wally

Yes Andy I had to override my spell checker

Richard I have got to be careful as that is the other one. But those were development names for the whole systems, the name I was fishing for was for the test vehicle project itself. I have actually used the name in a recent post

Iain it does all get rather confusing as I have myself demonstrated today! I have a useful book from 1976 by AR Adams "Good Company" on the Story of the Guided Weapons Division of the British Aircraft Corporation. He describes how Red Heathen spawned Red Shoes & Red Duster, but trying to keep track of the two parallel developments at Bristol & Luton is not always easy. I notice though that he mentions 5 stages of the XTV series. Relevant to the picture he says "One feature of Bloodhound development was that, having no supersonic wind tunnel, it was all done by flight test. In fact during the period from 1951 to 1959 some 500 test vehicles and missiles were fired, starting with the test vehicle trials in the UK and leading up to development firings at Woomera of missiles of the same standard as those fired in Service acceptance trials." Of course there were not as many as 500 of these test vehicles, as a feature was that they were recoverable as demonstrated by the Q4 doing its stuff.

Richard yes I am sure you are right Yes again I am sure you are right My suspicion is that this large white bobbin thing fits into that hollow in the nose & is probably what is referred to in "At the nose of the missile is a spike on which it lands at the end of the flight, parachutes having slowed down the speed of descent". The only unanswered question now is the name of the test missile, although I have given what clue I can :-D

Iain XTV & XRD are not the terms used on the caption to the photo, if they are related I don't know. This is quite early on, it is not a Thunderbird prototype as such but a "ram jet test vehicle, powered with Thor motors, that is recoverable.......produced by the Bristol Aircraft Ltd & Bristol Aero-Engines Ltd under the Ministry of Supply research programme. It has contributed to the development of a surface-to-air missile on which the Bristol firm is at present engaged". Incidentally up until a year ago I had a 5 GHz "rat-race" mixer from the IFF system for Bloodhound that I used to use on 5.7 GHz. Went in the scrap bin with all the TWTs, waveguide etc, wish I had kept it now.

I don't know what a "MID" is Tony so I don't know if you get one. But you do get an apology because you were correct that it was in connection with Bloodhound.So sorry about that I see you posted that at 1810, but I completely missed that post. The problem here is that there is no broadband & I am using a phone connection that comes & goes. When it comes back I try to answer everything in the backlog in sequence, but if a post comes in whilst I'm working down the list I can tend to miss it if I am not careful enough so sorry. You are the only person questioning the white thing which I think is very significant & should give a clue to the name of the test vehicle.

Yes Wally I wasn't expecting that level of detail but these are indeed Thor rocket motors powering this recoverable ram jet test vehicle.

Gordon you are right to guess it might be the other one, but please see my corrected post that Richard had identified it correctly as testing the ram jets for what was to become Bloodhound. So outstanding issues are: What is the thing on the ground & what is the name of this test vehicle (not the Q4!) as I believe the two things are related in a corny sort of way.

Time for a full view.

Ah there you are Wally I knew you would be around soon. Nope this is British but you are halfway there.

CORRECTION Sorry Richard & everyone. Richard you are correct, it is indeed testing for what became Bloodhound at that stage it was Red Duster

I only meant it in the very broadest sense, this is more tactical than strategic.

Missile yes Tony but not a drone. Yes Woomera another take on not liking it up 'em :-)

Yes well done Richard spot on. Yes I am sure you are right, this was a private venture being part of a Ministry of Supply research programme.

Yes well done Tony Nope but it is that sort of thing & era

Not specifically Tony, but they probably didn't like it up 'em

Yes Tony Yes that is a hint, or part of one, but not in the literal sense you are thinking. No, no, yes, yes, no.

Yes Andy, two in fact Nope but good guess but just carefully read my recent replies :-D