RAFMT

She actually can, and did, run after restoration. She went to the Carmen's Cart Marking ceremony after restoration, as well as attending a number of other functions around the WW1 centenary. Unfortunately the management of the museum upset the team of volunteers responsible for all of the vehicles (some of whom were on this forum), and the team walked out. So there is nobody left there with the knowledge or inclination to run it.

There should not a be a letter after the slash. The letter indicated the command, in the example above M for Maintenance Command. The number after the slash was the number of the Group to which the station/unit belonged. If it really does say "7/" it is very unlikely to be an RAF marking I'm afraid.

I'm going to sound all pessimistic now, however.......Nobody wants to take on what is likely the equivalent of a black hole for money. For a start it's spent 3 years partially dismantled while exposed to the elements. It will need a complete inspection to find any parts now too corroded to remain structurally sound (those wings are rather heavy after all). Then a decision will need to be made as to whether any of them can be repaired or if replacements will need to be manufactured. And after putting it all back together, it will need to either be kept under cover (expensive to build) or require an almost constant effort at keeping it maintained (for reference, see the marine craft at Hendon for what happens when the locals object to building a shelter). If not then they may find their insurers wont cover them when (not if) bits fall of and injure someone.

A lot of British/Commonwealth material supplied to the USSR during the war was actually paid for by the USA on their behalf. So in this case the USSR asks for fighters, Britain says we can supply some Hurricanes as £X per unit. USA lends USSR the cash on paper, but in reality sends it straight to Britain*, on the basis that the debt is settled post-war. *And it probably wasn't cash, but other material needed by Britain. Ah, the joyful labyrinth of the byzantine lend-lease agreements!

A colleague found this sketch while perusing a file on the RAF's operations in Somaliland in 1920. Thought it might be of interest to others, so sharing it here. I like the idea of using the rubber sock absorbers from aircraft to hang the stretcher, must have been fun for the casualty!

I agree with Richard, a Commer DF van

Not a Sea Hornet. It looks to be two separate aircraft. The one on the right is a Corsair - you can see the distinctive undercarriage door between two of the figures.

Something many groups have been pointing out for a while was that a number of weapons listed as "Obsolete Calibre" (and remember that list was just a guideline and not actually part of legislation) were actually still in common use in other countries, meaning the ammunition and components to create it were still relatively easy to come across. But yes, like previous attempts at legislation it all comes down the human element, in this case the need to prove intent.

As Matchfuzee said, it sounds like one the many and varied Armadillos.

I'm guessing the plate in the first photo means Allan Taylor contract number? Allan Taylor converted Fordson 7Vs as well as WOT3s. Reynolds dis their conversion of WOT3s.

5MT Coy, transporting unloaded US fighters to Speke where they are made ready for service. Is yours an Allen Taylor of Reynolds conversion Tony? I can't remember the difference without the databook in front of me.

Had another look, and I'm not saying it isn't ?50, but it could just as easily be ?S(O/D). Ted, great bit of detective work there!

Ted - I'll take a look and see what I can find when I'm next in the office. The photo above also shows the aluminium screw on letters for the RAF on the door.

Hi Mark, Not sure if this helps at all? No mention of part numbers anywhere I'm afraid.

Here are the areas covered by each RSU. This photo was probably taken prior to the introduction of command letter markings. What would be nice, is if someone were to track down the source of the photo. That would add a whole lot of info that gets lost when a photo is disassociated from its context.

In Egypt and India vehicles were all registered via the War Department.

Because pretty much every airfield had them sitting around not being very useful? Besides, many crashed aircraft have a chance of spontaneously bursting into flames, whilst having ammunition on board.

Unfortunately, there are no known records for wartime census numbers currently. It's unlikely that any have survived. If the vehicle remained in service for the introduction of the "modern" reg system, eg 12AB34, then the old census number is recorded on there. However, they don't usually give any service prior to when the card was drawn up.

I would say it's for general runway clearing, rather than explicitly for explosives. Just pushing off bits that may be left when a "failed landing" occurs. Yes there is a gap underneath, but we aren't dealing with jet engines, anything small enough to go under that gap isn't likely to cause much consternation. And could easily be removed with that ubiquitous bit of station kit: Erk, Broom Carrying, Mk. 1

Of course, you're right Ted. I blame the brain fart on lack of sleep due to being in and out of the quacks with heart issues. I would also have guessed fleet number, but I wasn't sure if an MU had that many vehicles, so was trying to take a look first.

This one has come up before. As Noel7 said, the whole bottom corner has clearly been repainted. The roundel has been covered over, probably because it was supposed to be on the nearside. The 41 could indicate 41 group, of which 9MU was a member, but all MUs in 41 Group were Aircraft Storage Units while this photo is usually captioned as a crashed aircraft being recovered. 43 Group handled aircraft salvage, and more intriguingly, 49MU was one of those.

So said Turnus, and Aeneas killed him!

Thank you Pete, I had noticed that about the grass but didn't want to raise it in case it was just me and everyone else piled in with "haven't you seen grass before?" Larry, I'd be the first to agree that orders weren't always followed exactly, it's just that I'm not sure this particular photo illustrates that. (Also, the AMOs regarding colours always have variations of the handy "existing stocks of [colour] will be used up first" line. Covers a multitude of sins. As does "vehicles will not be repainted until..." potentially leading to Khaki Green No 3 with Dark Tarmac No4/Light Green No5 colour scheme to still be in use quite late)

I wouldn't agree that all other colours look normal, but then I think this is a situation where we will have to agree to disagree. To me that upper colour is either Black, or Dark Tarmac.

Type 2703 was most likely added because someone realised the RAF were still using Fordson and Case Roadless conversions.