mtskull

1 hour ago, utt61 said:

FWIW, my feeling would be that it is more like to be a date given the era from which it originates. That layout was not uncommon then. Does 21/10/14 seem plausible?

Do "21" and "18" bear any resemblance to the dimensions of the prop?

I (respectfully) beg to differ. Why use a mixture of standard and Roman numerals to refer to a date?  Look closely and you will see that the numbers refer to inches: 21” x 14”.  Simon Brown is correct, this is the usual way to mark the diameter and pitch of a propeller. 

I forgot to mention, when I drove past a couple of weeks ago there was also a very tidy Bedford QL in a yard a mile further up the road. It wasn’t there today though. 

That’s the one.

I spotted what I believe to be an AEC Militant in a yard by the side of the road in Ingleton, North Yorkshire yesterday. Sorry, didn’t get a photo as I was riding past on a motorcycle but it is located on the left of the A65 (as you head NW), just before the Co-op filling station. I believe the business is called “Brian’s used Tractors” and pretty much everything there appears to be for sale, so maybe worth a call if you fancy saving it. I wasn’t able to assess condition but the cab roof is definitely missing.

3 hours ago, simon king said:

You can’t save everything, but if you think that the money and manpower spent so far could have better helped to put some wings on the Hampden, Brigand, Wallace and Southampton fuselages, or contributed towards the (admittedly private) Whitley and Stirling projects, then yes why spend so much on the recovery and attempted stabilisation of flaking and fizzing aluminium. 

The point is that the existing partial examples of the Hampden, Brigand, Wallace etc. are not under threat; whatever components they lack can be added in the future as and when resources permit, whereas the Dornier would not have had a future if it had been left where it was. At risk of repetition, this is the last example of a highly historically significant type. That is what justifies the effort and expense of its recovery and conservation.

7 hours ago, cosrec said:

almost  six years since this happened is everbody convinced this was a worthwhile project or an absolute waste of hard earned publicly donated cash 

It is the only example of the Do 17 known to exist. Of course it was (and is) a worthwhile project.

On 7/28/2019 at 12:21 PM, LarryH57 said:

I'm sure we have all joined a major A road at a roundabout and obviously given way to the right  - but if we came to a roundabout and saw a vehicle in the distance travelling down a very straight A road and there was no likelihood the vehicle would be at the roundabout before us, logic would say it would be safe to join or should we wait for that vehicle to cover the final 500 yards to the roundabout? The HWC offers no proper guidance.

You can only give way when there is something to give way to. At risk of straying into pedantry, the answer is in the definition of the words “give way”, i.e. “yield” (which is the word actually used in some other countries).  Unless  you and the other vehicle actually want to travel over the same bit of road at the same time, there is no conflict and therefore no need to yield anything. Waiting for a vehicle 500 yards away to pass would be like waving a white flag to somebody who isn’t even fighting you.

Here is the very first part of Rule 185:

”Give priority to traffic approaching from your right unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights”.

In the case you mention, the “boy racers” would be not necessarily be contravening Rule 185 but they would certainly be contravening the part of Rule 167 which states:

”Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users”, particularly the example: “when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down”.

3 hours ago, johann morris said:

It looks like the tank has been repaired previously, if so, the metal underneath that patch is going to be truly rotten and to be repaired properly is going to need to be cut out. As others has suggested try solder first, good luck.

Jon

There is no previous repair or patch, what you can see towards the middle of the photo is some tape covering the drain plug hole.  The damage is confined to a handful of pinholes within the rusty strip (the way the tank was mounted couldn't have been better designed to trap water). I have since cleaned it up with a wire brush and it isn't actually too bad, so I am optimistic. I won't be soldering for a few weeks though, as the tank is currently standing on its end.in a molasses bath to remove all the remaining rust.

Andy

On 15 May 2019 at 8:42 AM, johann morris said:

Or just cut the area out, weld in a patch and just to be on the safe side, coat the inside with a sealant such as POR.

Jon

Thanks Jon. Being a dab hand with the MIG, this would normally have been my first thought (once the issue of purging had been overcome).l

In this case the complication is the proximity of the damaged area to the riveted and soldered end seam;  in order to weld to clean metal it would first be necessary to drill out a large number of rivets, unsolder the seam, take the tank end out and then remove all traces of solder adjacent to the area that's going to be patched. After patching, rivet the end back in and re-solder, then repeat the operation at the other end.....

As it looks as if am going to be sealing with solder come what may, I think I'll give all the drilling, cutting, welding and riveting a miss. In the end, if for some reason a soldered repair isn't successful, then I'll be no worse off than I am now and it will be time to let the professionals look at it.

Andy

Hi

Thanks again for all your suggestions, in the light of which I have been having a rethink....

I have been fortunate in finding somebody local with experience of petrol tank repair and, although he is no longer in the business of repairing them, he did offer to purge the tank for me. After steam cleaning at 155 degrees C for 45 minutes there was no hint of petrol vapour present and he proved the process by dropping a burning rag into the tank (while I stood a long way away).

With that part of the process out of the way, I am inclined to try Rick's suggestion of running solder into the pinholes, of which there are only 2 or 3 at each end of the tank. There is a lot of work to do elsewhere on the vehicle before the tank needs to go back on, so before we get to the soldering stage each end of the tank is going to spend a few weeks in turn immersed in molasses solution to get rid of all the rust.

My logic is that there is nothing at stake except the cost of a little solder and flux and, if my soldering efforts turn out to be unsuccessful, we can still revert to plan A and call upon the professionals.

Andy

1 hour ago, MB1944 said:

While I agree that it is possible to repair fuel tanks at home it can be  very dangerous. People need to be aware of the serious risk of explosion, if the tank is not thoroughly purged of any vapour before the application of any heat.

John

I'm with you on that one. I'm certainly not brave enough to apply heat from a blow lamp on to a petrol tank.

The problem is, it isn't just a matter of filling one hole; the corroded areas are full of pinholes and deep pitting. (How to get that clean enough to solder?) . Also, the corrosion extends to the seam, so it would be more a matter of: purge tank, drill out rivets, unsolder seam, cut out corroded area, weld in new piece (to galvanised metal), re-rivet seam, re-solder seam. 

I'll leave all that to the professionals (if I can find any).

Andy

Thanks; we did ask Northern Radiators but they were only interested in doing a resin coating repair.

Hi

Can anybody recommend somebody to repair a petrol tank (preferably in the West Yorkshire area)?

The tank in question is approx 20 gallons capacity, measuring 48" long, 12" wide and 10" deep. It is made of galvanised steel, with riveted and solder sealed joints. It is generally sound but unfortunately the last inch of the bottom of the tank at both ends has corroded into pinholes where water has been  trapped between the tank and the chassis outriggers that support it.

We have considered slosh sealants and have had quotations for repairing the tank with a resin coating but, although we will use these methods as a last resort, we would prefer a more traditional repair if at all possible. 

Thanks

Andy

Looking good! (Especially when compared to the pile of pieces that you started with). 👍

23 hours ago, andypugh said:

I think that the idea is that a tank full of water is verifiably not full of petrol vapour. 

You can then arrange the tank to allow you to work in a bubble. 

My meaning precisely (and a very small bubble at that).  Make no mistake, an empty petrol tank, whether washed out or not, becomes a bomb in the presence of a source of ignition.

On 9 August 2018 at 9:38 AM, Old Bill said:

. We will have to pull the tank off and unsolder the end plate outer skin to have a look. More excitement with a propane torch on a petrol tank!

 

Please, please tell me you are going to fill it with water first!

It's very tricky; what appear to be spats might indeed be something else. 

Still going with the notion that these are spats and working on the basis that this must be a single engined aircraft (no part of nacelle visible),  everything that can be seen is consistent with it being a Magister, except that it appears too big (although that might be a trick of perspective).  Any other thoughts?

On 5 August 2018 at 10:35 AM, simon king said:

Don’t know why people just don’t google TK620 as I did. It pulls up a picture taken on the same occasion from a different angle, with the camouflaged B35 in exactly the same position. Why overcomplicate?

Not over complicating, just looking at facts rather than making assumptions.  How can we be sure that the aircraft in the first photo is TK620? -the serial number isn't legible as it is in the Google photo. It certainly begins TK; that can be seen under the starboard wing, but a search of the serial number database shows dozens of Mosquito B.35's with serials in the TK series. 

There is no evidence that the Google photo was taken on the same occasion; Two Mosquitos being refuelled whils parked side by side could not have been a unique occurrence.

Having further studied and enlarged the photo, I'll play Devil's advocate for a moment:

I accept that the aircraft in the background can't be a Harrow (which raises the question: what on earth is it? And to what aircraft does the wingtip with multiple aerials belong?).

Details of the Mosquito are certainly consistent with it being a B.mk35 but, as for the serial number,  without a better resolution image I think we're making too much of a leap of faith by taking as definitive the suggestion that the aircraft is TK620.

There's another clue here: look at what the man carrying out the refuelling is wearing; looks like dark overalls and forage cap. Might he not be dressed somewhat differently if this photo was taken on a sunny day in Egypt?

14 hours ago, No Signals said:

I reckon if someone can recognise the type of distinctive 'wheel spat'  on the aircraft in the background it might tie it closely down to one site or another by the shared Squadron types?  Over to the aircraft recognition experts.

The distinctive wheel spat appears to belong to a Handley Page Harrow, which would fit with the photo being taken in Egypt.

15 hours ago, Stanley01 said:

 

You will definitely need the highway authority, or it’s approved contractor to carry out the work, due to public liability insurance reasons ( usually a figure of £5m) . This won’t be cheap and at the end of the day you won’t end up "owning" the section of altered footway, it’s still the highway authority's.

 

Admittedly this was 18 years ago but when I dropped the kerb (and lowered the footway) for access to my drive, the local authority allowed me to carry out the work myself; the only work carried out by an outside contractor was the final surfacing. All that was involved was a site visit from a man from the highways department, who listened as I explained what I proposed to do, expressed surprise that I wanted to do it myself, gave me a specification to follow and told me to go ahead. I'm pretty sure that nobody ever even came back to check that it had been done properly.

On 27 May 2018 at 5:45 PM, rustexpert said:

These are a good place for re-sleeving brake cylinders; they usually have a few weeks lead time so don't delay getting them there. Have used them several times. Always done a good job for me and not too costly.

http://classiccar-brakes.co.uk/contactus.htm

I have used this company many times and found them to be friendly, helpful and knowledgeable. With turnaround times in the order of a couple of months, they are not quick but the cost is reasonable and the quality excellent.

A word of warning: DO NOT send your parts to the address shown by a Google search; it is out of date and your parts will get lost. Make sure you use the address from their own website.

22 hours ago, edinmass said:

That one hole without soot on top of the piston should be investigated, it may mean a manifold vacuum leak or a poorly sealing exhaust valve, or ignition problem on that one. 

Agreed; although in my experience a clean piston amongst sooty ones suggests a water leak into the cylinder.

21 hours ago, john1950 said:

Back track up the wires and find the solonoid.

Thanks for that; we will certainly back track up the wires. We know where the solenoid is; it is integral with the starter but, in the absence of a wiring diagram, I wouldn't rule out there being another relay in the circuit somewhere. That said, evidence now suggests that it is the auto box neutral sensor which is at fault.