Selwyn

Pat, Yes that is what I mean but it is also shorter front to back. The story goes that the 100 series Avons had problems with gas ingestion when the guns fired causing severe engine stall.It was noted that the Armstrong Siddedley (AS) Sapphire engine which was used in the Mk2/5 did not have this problem. In the late 50's the UK Aviation industry was nationalised and to put it in VERY simplistic terms AS and Rolls Royce became government owned and ostensibly the same company. The stall problem had been traced to the front section of the Avon so (again in very simplistic terms !) they fitted the front section of the Sapphire to the RR engine which resulted in the 200 series Avon, which gave more power due to improved air flow and also cured the stall problem. it also resulted in the engine having an overall shorter length. When test run as the Jet pipe was further up the rear fairing, the jet blast impacted on the fairing, hence the redesign. If I remember correctly there were several rear fairings used. The original fairing(F1-5) the 200 series fairing (F6 ) The Fga 9, (f6 with brake chute housing) the T7, original fairing with chute fairing. Some export trainers with 200 series had a similar (same?) fairing to the FGA 9. Selwyn

Trevor, sorry to dissapoint you but the diameter of the Hunter tailpipe was the same on all Hunter marks irrespective of the engine fitted. I know I have measured them! The part no is the same. The difference in the rear fairing was fue to the 200 series engine being shorter thus the end of the tailpipe was further up inside the fairing. . Selwyn

Had a look in my Copies of "Wings of Fame" last night as this book series has articles about A4 and Canberra in the Falklands. There are a few pictures in there showing the British 1000lb on bomb trollies. What was noticable was that they were all displaying a single lug, not a twin lug configuration. The twin lug system was introduced after the Mk12 bomb so it appears that the Argentine bombs were of a previous mark to this. Selwyn

STOP THE PRESS! NEW DATA! Gentlemen I have been consulting my references and I can confirm that the British Bombs used by Argentina are DEFINATELY NOT Mk 17! The Reason is, Quite simply, that the British mark 17 bomb is a PRACTICE BOMB and is largely inert filled but it did have a small (30lb-50lb ) HE bursting charge for spotting purposes. so whatever the mark used it wasn't this one! Selwyn

Tony The mounting points I refer to are the bomb to pylon mounting point not the pylon location on the aircraft.. if you see spilkes picture you can see the three mounting points on the Uk bomb the outer s have bail lugs fitted and the centre point is fitted with the bomb lifting lug used when you are moving bombs by crane. Selwyn.

Bobski Critique! No arming wires on the PWII and there should be a RBF flag on the CCG's! Selwyn (Rapidly running for cover, you will find me cowering under my desk!)

Spike, You are obviously familiar with the Mk 20 /22 as you probably loaded them to Tornado. On the top were three mounting points, the centre used as the transit lug and the other two at 14"centres. The centre mounting is the original suspension point the other two were added on later marks. on earlier jets (Hunter FGA and Sea Vixen definately) the centre suspension lug looked a bit like a "lollipop". and went up inside the pylon ERU The blanks in the 14" points were removed and turned over ( i dont know if you can remember but these had spigots on them) which engaged in holes on the pylon base plate to stop the bomb "spinning" on the pylon. Selwyn (a very old plum!)

Tony I understood that the FAA Skyhawks used a single centreline British 1000lb bomb on ops and the Navy skyhawks used two wing mounted 500 lb bombs. The rationale was that a Skyhawk had problems getting off the deck with a big bomb, the installation was not strong enough for catapult launch. A lot of the UXB's that hit the RN ships were UK 1000lb bombs which proved easy to defuse as they dropped them too llow and did not give adequate arming time, and they used the Uk 947 fuze which the BD guys were very familiar with. Selwyn

Graham. MACE is used on US weapons (Mk 80 series ) on RSAF Tornadoes. it is fully compatible with NATO 14 and 30 inch suspension points. I think it has not been perpetuated on the grounds of cost, only RAF and RSAF tornadoes use it to my knowledge, (german and italian Tornadoes use bail type) remember small production runs are expensive! it is noticable that the the Typhoon ha reverted to Bail lug suspension. Selwyn.

Jorge. First check out the post from Jane's It is very hard to destinguish between the Marks of British bombs as they all share the same outer case, the differences in Mark No's being in the method of suspension and the type of explosive filling. in fact some later marks of bombs in service are reconditioned older cases with the explosive fills removed and replaced with more modern explosive types, and re- engineered with NATO standard Lug systems. The bombs originally had single point suspension (The british standard at that time ) when designed postwar. (They are not the same as WWII 1000lb bombs!) I do not believe that the Argentinian Bombs were Mk 17's. British 1000lb bombs were no doubt supplied to Argentina with the Canberra Bombers (or perhaps with Lincolns? (both aircraft used single point suspension systems) probably before the advent of the MK 17 which has 14" twin store carriage . The only picture I have of an Argentinian 1000lb Bomb in situ (in a copy of wings of fame if I remember ) appears to show single point which means it is probably a much earlier mark. (and no doubt officially classified as unsuitable for external carriage!) but I must stress this is just speculation. As the Argentinians also used a tail unit which was also externally similar to the current 114, to depict a Skyhawk with a British 1000lb bomb just use any Available British free fall bomb (not retarded or with proximity sensor !) on your model as dimensionally they are indestinguishable. Although I think the external markings may be different. you would have to check references on this. Selwyn

Jennings I believe the Hunters mainly used the 68mm SNEB rockets. The changeover from 3inch to SNEB took place in the mid sixties so I suppose it is possible that they used the 3 inch early on. Selwyn P.S 60 lb refers to the rocket warhead there were a few different sizes of head used on these rockets!

BIT OF A STORY RAF Wittering Harrier OCU, 1980ish. Friday, Ten minutes to mid day shift change. A FLM - Flight line Maniac (sorry Mechanic!) is detailed by the line chief at the last minute to go down to the gas compound and collect a nitrogen trolley that has just had four new full bottles fitted. Our man is in a hurry he's off to see a girlfriend on a long weekend, so he speeds down to compound in the old liney landrover to pick it up. On arrival the gas trolley is found pulled out of the now locked compound and the "gas man" has long gone. The bottles are on the trolley but the feed pipes had not been connected (usually done back at the line) he reverses up to connect. "OMG!" no towing pin in the landrover! A quick search through the pocket of his overalls, thankfully he has a large GS screwdriver stashed in the pocket from his last job, that will serve as a quick replacement! Now he's on his way back to the line via the unused taxiway, a bit fast but he's in a hurry. Suddenly a thud! Nitrogen trolley detaches from landy and veers away in the direction of a line of parked cars. (belonging to RAF Regiment personnel) Trolley strikes a brand new car side on at speed. One of the top two bottles (not properly secured in the trolley clamps as he didn't check...!) slides forward, punches hole in car door, hits passenger seat frame, diverts upwards and puts large dent in car roof panel. Enter one VERY uninpressed Flight Sargeant RAF Regiment car owner type person! Strangly THE FLM did not see his girfriend that weekend..........! F/S tried to claim from the RAF for a new car. the RAF said he should not have been parked on a taxiway! His case was if he couldn't park there why was there a marked parking space with a sign saying for F/S RAF Regiment ? Eventually, after a lot of wrangling he did get a new motor out of them. The FLM got 28 days. Selwyn PS It was NOT me! I was an Armourer!

Just a quick note. Early Hunters didn't have a smaller bore tailpipe! the difference is in the Tailpipe cover fairing!. The reason for the change was the introduction on the Mk6 Hunter of the 200 series Avon engine, which although it gave far more power than the 100 series in early Hunters, was actually shorter in overall length. The Tailpipe of the Hunter is mounted/supported on a rail system within the rear fuselage. so when the fuselage is split for engine removal the empennage/tail can be pulled back. but the tailpipe, still attached to the engine does not move backwards with the tail. Access to the tailpipe mounting bolts is then obviously very easy. When the 200 series engine was adopted they did not change the existing Tailpipe length as this would be a major (Read costly!) engineering change, but the tailpipe when fitted to the shorter 200 engine sat "further up" (forward) in the existing tailpipe fairing. It was found that the jet blast from the tailpipe now impinged on the existing tail fairing. so it was redesigned to allow for this (A much cheaper option than redesigning the tailpipe!). The fairing was then modified again on the FGA9 to incorporate a brake chute. Selwyn

The RAF Typhoons are not supporting operation Odyssey Dawn, they are undertaking Operation Ellamy! Selwyn

Shelled out £14 quid for this on Friday What a dissapointment! It has obviously not been proof read correctly, loads of typo's, repeats, basic errors, (at one point says how good the Gnat was to fly!) incorrectly labelled Pictures, (a Jet Provost instrument panel with Gunsights!!?) and basic ommissions, (Would it not be simple to mention at some point that the Strikemaster was fitted with internal machine guns under the intakes?). This book, with a bit more attention to detail, could of been so very much better. Selwyn

The jump seat was normally used by the flight Engineer on takeoff and landings to assist the pilot. After takeoff he would go back to his normal position. A perfect example of this is in the film "the Dambusters" at the start of the film the Flt engineer ( Played by Robert Shaw I believe!)assists on shutdown,at the end of the Gibson crews Last mission of their tour, and again when they go on the actual mission on takeoff. the engineer helps with the throttles,flaps etc. Selwyn.

Ahh! wonderful! the delights of the 79 Pistol an 52 Det. Gets me all warm and nostalgic! Selwyn

The "Revised Nose" is just an (optional)airburst sensor, all you need to do is file it back to the normal bomb nose shape. selwyn

The clue is in the question "Based on" is quite right! the Paveway III and GBU 24 superficially Look the same but they are not interchangeable, main visual differences on PW III are the hardback, the "teeth" between the fins on the tail, and The arming vane. Paveway IV features on Tornado GR4 but not on the GR1 as illustrated. Selwyn

These are British Mk 22 practice bombs with what looks like retarded tails.(pic not too clear!) By the way these bombs are not concrete filled they are actually hollow! Earlier marks of 1000lb practice bomb were filled with an explosive substitute, (not Concrete!) the missing weight on these bombs is made up by having a very thick skin construction. These Bombs are consequently very strong and can be recovered and used again. Selwyn By the way the blue colour is called officially "deep Saxe Blue" BS 381c Hue 113

And that is why The British forces use BS 381c hue 633 (6 =Grey, 33 colour number) and a Official Name RAF Blue Grey, No interpretation needed. I think everyone accepts all colours to FS or BS or RAL or whatever look different depending on wear, light fading and light conditions when a picture is taken. So what exactly is your point? Selwyn?

many thanks!. Selwyn

Many thanks guys Selwyn

And you must remember that all N European based RAF vehicles in WW2 were painted in Brown or green camoflage colours, RAF blue dissapeared in 1939/40 and did not reappear until 1947! Selwyn

When loading or reloading the Brownings on a spitfire I was lead to believe by an old RAF armourer that you did not have to remove the upper wing gun panels. Apparently the armourers had worked out a way to reload ammo and cock the gun mechanism by just accessing through though the bottom wing panels. Doing it this way apparently considerably increased the speed of reloading. All the (few) pictures of reloading I have seen are taken from such a position that the top of the wing is not in view. can anyone out there confirm that this was the case? Selwyn