Your right Dave. That's in our kiwi world. We must also mention people, they are measured in cm's as well. It was interesting to see how much freight the C130 took to the ice. Tonnes would have been a better description of the load.
Unfortunately i didn't have my camera on me,but about 2 weeks ago i saw a truck/trailer unit with what looked very much like a Mosquito fuselage(less nose/tail) and 2 very large wheels(Lancaster?) as the load,going into the GM compound. At the time,thought the fuselage was too large for mossie but looking at the pics in the Mosquito link,it would have been that size.
Intriguing pictures, the kind you see of celebs getting up to mischief taken by the paparazzi.
No idea what sort of plane this is:
It's a Slingsby T.38 Grasshopper, which was a British built version of the DFS SG 38 previously mentioned.
The gun is an 8.8cm 88.
Just a few years ago there was a glider trailer parked near the Wgton Gliding Club premises at Paraparaumu Airport. The trailer was reputed to contain a derelict Primary Glider ( that is, one of the Zogling/Dagling/SG 38/T 38 Grasshopper type ) and I recall hearing it being referred to as " the Mead ".
That was the Mead Primary ZK-GHE. Built by ATC Feilding 1969-70, f/f 4Apr70 Registered to Alf Crowe, Feilding, (of course!) in December 1972. Supposedly passed on to the Hastings ATC at some stage, but vandalised at Paraparaumu. Registration cancelled January 1992.
Retirement is something for the young. Once you are old you never seem to have the time.
Thanks Dave, brilliant set of photos. Number 6 is a classic, that`s the man himself - Barnes Wallis - on the gantry,probably checking the authenticity. Unfortunately the new film wont have a technical authority of that stature. Was nice to meet you and James at HARS, hope you enjoyed your visit. Simmo
To davidd, some posts back, re toothpickers at 75 (NZ) Sqdn. There are at least two photos of 75 toothpickers that survived through to the end of the war. PB418 AA-C Charlie, as flown by the Russell crew in March and April 45, and proudly displaying 100 op's marked:
And the most famous ton-up 75er, NE181, JN-M "The Captain's Fancy" was a toothpicker, shown here with the Ware crew in April 45:
I've also seen reference somewhere to a 75 toothpicker Lanc that was re-fitted with the new paddle blades, commenting on the significant performance increase. Makes you wonder why they didn't re-fit them all?
Chris Don't think that higher performance was the reason for changing from toothpicks to paddle blades. I have checked through the RAF pilots notes for Lancaster (Mks. I, III and X) as well as Dakota, but no mention of any differences between performance with or without paddle blade props, but the Mosquito FB VI, XVIII and FB 26 notes have some interesting details which give some hints of what might be expected after the changeover from the earlier to the later type.
On page 26 (item V of Section 20) of AP 2019E, L & T-PN, it states:-
Propellers. Paddle blade propellers tend to overspeed when power is increased rapidly or during dives. Rapid movements of the propeller speed controls or of the throttle levers should be avoided when this type is fitted.
On page 37 (Part IV - Emergencies), para 66 (Engine Failure in Flight), sub-section (i) it states:- The handling characteristics of individual aircraft differ considerably according to load and type of propeller, and it is therefore recommended that, except in case where it is known to be less, as with narrow blade propellers and light loads, safety speed should be assumed to be 200 m.p.h. (174 knots) I.A.S.
Sub section (iv) of para 66 states:- The drag of a windmilling paddle-bladed propeller is very high and, unless feathering action is instantly taken when this type is fitted, control of the aircraft can only be retained at the expense of a rapid loss of height. This will be aggravated if the live engine is at + 18 lb/sq.in.
Paddle blade props were somewhat heavier than the toothpicks (the "narrow blade" of above quotation) simply because of the greater amount of metal involved, and one would imagine that they might be somewhat slower to accelerate, and slower to de-accelerate than their lighter predecessor. Perhaps the constant speed units ("governors") were not quite up to controlling them as intended because of this weight difference. Also the greater drag of these props following engine failure is emphasised. I was told by an old-time NAC DC-3 pilot that the paddle blades made better air brakes at lower RPM on landing approaches for the same reason (he having also flown the hired TAA freighter used by NAC in the 1950s).
Interesting to see that no real advantages for these props are claimed, although the one real advantage was that they provided greater blade area for the absorption of horsepower for a given diameter. History says the inspiration to develop this prop type was the case of the Lockheed Ventura, whereby this aircraft's designer was reluctant to move the much larger P&W Double Wasp engines further out on the wing if he could avoid it, and the propeller company came up with this option. Also fact that the Mosquito, Lancaster and Mosquito pilot's notes make no claims of greater efficiency or speed is noteworthy. Of course using smaller diameter props also keeps propeller tip speeds below certain critical levels for a given RPM, thus avoiding annoying additional prop noise at high settings. Anybody else care to comment on this? David D
Well researched as always, Dave and certainly explains a lot. Certainly the most alarming feature is in the statement about overspeeding with rapid increases of power - one way to f*ck an engine.
Perhaps the constant speed units ("governors") were not quite up to controlling them as intended because of this weight difference.
Within the governor was a fly wheel that was driven by engine rpm and its weighted arms opened valves that let oil into the hub, the pressure from which actuated the piston in the hub (via a distributor valve), which drove a moving cam, which was toothed and keyed to the blade butt, subsequently altering the blade angle. I suspect the extra blades' weight for no increase in oil pressure entering the hub had some impact on why it took longer to change blade angle; although centripetal force acting on the rotating blades with greater weight and mass explains the change in speed of actuation more thoroughly.
Of course using smaller diameter props also keeps propeller tip speeds below certain critical levels for a given RPM, thus avoiding annoying additional prop noise at high settings. Anybody else care to comment on this?
I do believe this was one off the solution's to fix the sound resonance problems on the Lockheed L188A Electra's with the higher rated Alisons, the early model lower powered kept with the rounded tips - structure strengthened and skin thickness increased but most retro fitted with the later square tip later on, one thing pointed out was the larger paddle props had less stress on the engines.