Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 18:26:53 GMT
Page 144 should read 150 built, I crashed 149 delivered. GCE 'O' in maths i.m.c
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 11:30:37 GMT
May I please point out in the interests of accuracy that the Royal Pakistan Air Force was created as such on the 14th August 1947 at the time of partition. It did not become the Pakistan Air Force until the 23rd March 1956 when Pakistan became a Republic. I was at Drigh Road in RPAF days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 7:46:34 GMT
In response to PJ post of Jan 2nd: I fail to agree:
Auster Mod 2310 introduced the modified tail-plane and horn balanced elevators to the Mk.6 and is dated 6-6-52. An additional mod No.2599 was also introduced to remove the lead balance weights from the elevator horns and this was dated 27-10-53. The mods are applicable to Mk.6/7/10/6A and Terrier A61 Srs.1. Photographs in the Auster book on p.40 show a SAAF Mk.6 with the modified tail-plane/horn balanced elevators, p.133 shows Mk.6 VF544 with same as does the one of Mk.7 WE555 on p.135. The mass balanced weighted rudder was never altered until the Beagle mods were introduced on civilian aircraft.
I have been shown RWS item in last magazine, where from his privileged position as part- editor he continues to deny Auster utilised the 'slash' in their designation. What more could I do than put the official document photograph on Ab ix ? Nobody has said if any amendments we make the effort to put here will appear in print in Vol 2? Am I wasting my time?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Jackson on Jan 12, 2020 18:07:13 GMT
Thanks for the further corrections, gents. Whiskers — “PAF” was my misunderstanding of the first formal name of the air force. I appreciate your intervention and accept that it was “Royal” in its early years. I have now found that pilots’ ‘wings’ carried “RPAF” in the centre. Ian — Thanks for drawing my attention to page 133 and the picture of VF544, where the (new) horn-balanced elevators and (original) mass-balanced rudder are clearly visible. I had not been aware of that picture until the book was published and, consequently, had to prepare the AOP.6 drawings without its benefit. Were the horn-balanced elevators introduced at a certain point in AOP.6 production and/or fitted retrospectively? It would be helpful if you could tell us, so we have an idea of the numbers involved. The Mod effective date you quote of June 1952 would suggest that the change to elevators was a few months before the end of production [WJ-series] in March 1953. I assume, by default, you agree with me that no AOP.6s flew in UK (or, for that matter, South African) military service with BOTH horn-balanced elevators AND horn-balanced rudder. Further, can you enlighten me regarding the point at which the original, separate trimming surface was dispensed with and replaced by a tab in the elevator — Mk 4 or Mk 5? This was a further case of my having a dearth of photographs for drawings research. I have no idea whether we are wasting our time, but I hope our deliberations, here, will at least find their way on to the pages of books already bought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 13:59:29 GMT
Hi Paul, I had noticed the erroneous silhouette of the 4 being identical to the 5, but I assumed it was a printers error. When F-BEEJ was imported I had a small involvement. It had the trimmer 'vane', into its life as G-AJXV. It seems to me that few are interested in corrections - I will let you struggle on, while I work on the real things. I m c
|
|
|
Post by mickywest on Jan 14, 2020 16:18:23 GMT
Wonder who was flying this?
|
|
|
Post by mickywest on May 15, 2020 18:29:41 GMT
'Taylorcraft Plus C2' postcard rather sweet pre-war scene and post-war an 'Outre-mer' sale ? (F-DABK?? disgorging F-OAPL) F-OAPL later crashed at Tien Yen 01May54 (ICARE Magazine)
And 'Biffo' eats Auster #2 F-DABK/F-OAPK
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 16:41:16 GMT
Items copied across from an AB-IX discussion (January 28 2021)
Ian Callier Web sites are only as good when they are kept updated, the Auster heritage site was created by Micky & Mikey, both long dead. Ideally the website should be taken down. Unfortunately it was copied into 'OUR' Auster volume one with little to no checking. So now we have Auster 'the bee's knees" churning out the same errors but with a-b name attached to it! At the publication of Vol 1 - it was proved that the total production for the drone was incorrect - The same incorrect drone total appears in Vol 2. There is no point - the book is done, & out there - nobody is going to receive any amendments, despite us having a website where all amendments could be correlated. In the 1960-70s we used to publish an insert/update. ian3430C
Stig Jarlevik Yes I am aware of the issue of either 149 or 150 B3s built. So was obviously the authors of Auster Vol 1 (and even Mike Draper when he wrote his Sitting Ducks book) since they vary between 149 and 150 (see pages 143-144) The authors of the Auster volume probably based their final statement that 149 were built because of the delivery documents while Mike leans towards 150. Both the fuselage numbers allocated and his footnotes indicates he had 150 in mind when he wrote his book. It would be interesting to know if you have acquired any further information that 100% proves the 150th aircraft was actually built and delivered? If not there is a sort of stalemate between the two theories right now. Any further issues with the Auster Vol 1 (I have not received my Vol 2 yet, but I think it is in the pipeline right now!) Ian Instead of just saying there are "loads" of faults in the book, why not say what in your opinion is wrong so we all can agree to that and change it? Paul Jackson did just that after reading through the Percival book, and took his findings to our other website. Perhaps something for you to do as well?
Cheers Stig Jarlevik
Cheers Stig Jarlevik Air Britain member 09564
Malcolm Fillmore As the compiler of the production lists in the first (and second) Auster volume, may I assure Ian that I certainly challenged a lot of the information on the Auster Heritage site listing. My starting point was the original AB publication by Nigel Ellison and Richard MacDemetria and then the vast array of both official registers, AB specialists, the RAF Record cards and masses of other published and unpublished material. And yes, I found a considerable quantity of duff information in the process which I sought to eliminate. But, one is aware, that as soon as one goes to print, further information turns up!
Malcolm Fillmore
[i]Bernard Martin[/i][/b] Sadly, I fear that Ian is correct in the current A-B book publishing era. Although I have a much better picture of how the erroneous/incomplete data came to be repeated in the recent False Dawn and Auster books, even a summary would probably be described by some as a public washing of A-B dirty linen or exposing serious failures within our A-B administration. Nonetheless, I feel that the membership (or at least the part that subscribes via AB-IX) deserves some background. Suffice to say that when False Dawn came upon the scene, many members who have been part of A-B for a long time, initially expressed the view “Who is Tom Wenham !?” While I was soon impressed with his detail in the narrative chapters and certainly the excellent expose of the political involvement and machinations of the people involved, it also soon transpired that it was a book of two halves, with the detailed individual airframe histories (as are expected in A-B Type history books) seemingly separately compiled and, in many instances, factually at odds with the earlier narrative of the book. Usually with such books, if a respected A-B Specialist exists, they are asked to participate in the production from the outset. In this instance, it was sadly not the case and, after the book appeared in print, some dozen pages of corrections were submitted by our Specialist. Inconceivably, these were not even acknowledged or addressed by those involved in the production and, unsurprisingly, we lost our Specialist, who had amassed details of the individual airframes in far more detail than available elsewhere. Thus, when it came to the later two Auster books, that availability of factual data and detail was not forthcoming. Although all three books were excellently produced and presented in layout and photographic content terms, as Ian has said, they now appear in public under the once respected A-B name and, the average or casual reader, of course, will not necessarily be aware of what is missing or incorrect. Unfortunately, some of the myths and legends and many earlier assumptions made on the basis of less than complete or readily available data at the time, have now found their way again into posterity. No-one more than myself appreciates just how much time and effort has to be expended to get such books into production in the first place, but with other pressures (not least of a management role in A-B as Chairman) on Malcolm Fillmore, more time was ideally required than was available (not helped by having an irrelevant forced publication deadline) and trying to get help from others on the individual histories at a late stage was not a wise decision. Personally, I think that assembling corrections/additions even now WOULD be useful, even if availability via the Forum or AB-IX would still not reach all buyers of the books. When A-B DIGEST was the House Journal and available to every A-B member, that would have been the obvious central location, but now that we have lost the original A-B founding concept of a Members’ collective, even AvWorld in it’s new guise, would not cover every member, although depending on the final size of the listing (providing an opportunity for an article including more photos), such a location may be a feasible outlet.
I reflected a little before launching into this thread contribution, but, as always as a life-long supporter of A-B, if it helps in any little way towards better future actions, it is worthwhile.
BERNARD MARTIN (Air-Britain Membership No: 2238)
|
|
jagan
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jagan on Jan 30, 2021 0:54:14 GMT
Thanks for the further corrections, gents. Whiskers — “PAF” was my misunderstanding of the first formal name of the air force. I appreciate your intervention and accept that it was “Royal” in its early years. I have now found that pilots’ ‘wings’ carried “RPAF” in the centre. Same thing with the RIAF - even though Independence was achieved on 15 Aug 1947, the IAF retained the prefix Royal till 26 Jan 1950 when it became a republic.
|
|
|
Post by mpf on Jan 30, 2021 17:58:06 GMT
With regard to the proper names of the Indian/Pakistan Air Force - can anyone be definitive as to whether the Indian Air Force was indeed the Royal Indian Air Force PRIOR to independence? And, during the war, were Indian operations simply as part of the Royal Air Force or were they separate? If part of the same, when did they separate?
|
|
|
Post by geoffnegus on Jan 31, 2021 10:16:02 GMT
With regard to the proper names of the Indian/Pakistan Air Force - can anyone be definitive as to whether the Indian Air Force was indeed the Royal Indian Air Force PRIOR to independence? And, during the war, were Indian operations simply as part of the Royal Air Force or were they separate? If part of the same, when did they separate? The Indian Air Force became the Royal Indian Air Force in March 1945. I've tried to several times to obtain a precise/formal date for the change, but without success. It was before 12th, when it was announced on New Delhi Radio.
|
|
jagan
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jagan on Jan 31, 2021 18:33:00 GMT
Geoff, Malcolm,
A news report dated 13 March 1945 mentions that it was called out in a radio broadcast in New Delhi the day before (i.e the 12th). it goes on to state that the "Viceroy disclosed in a message of congratulations".
The minutes of the Air Council meeting that happened on the same day (13 Mar 45) in which it was confirmed that the King Emperor approved the proposal for the IAF to use the prefix. So it could be the king approved it the previous day, but it was communicated to the world officially New Delhi Radio (12th Mar) and via the Air Council Meeting on the 13th.
On 11 April 1945, a Draft Air Ministry Order was framed saying that the King Emperor had been pleased to approve the request to use the prefix Royal
And 19th April 1945 that AMO was published in the Air Ministry Orders
The re-drawn RIAF Badge (aka Crest in IAF terms) was done in April 1945 but was not communicated till about September 1945
|
|
|
Post by ursirius on Feb 10, 2021 16:32:25 GMT
Comments and suggested corrections to Volume 1
133 “At a later stage production Austers [AOP.6] added a larger horn-balanced tailplane”. See comment regarding page 95. I have never seen an AOP.6 in Army service with horn-balanced rudder, or elevators. However, there are some civil conversions masquerading in military colours and having tail surfaces they never wore when with the RAF.
Paul, you only have to look at that very page to see an AOP.6 with horn balanced elevators, and similarly two pages later for a T.7. Looking at phots of in service AOP.6's and T.7's, it does seem clear that later aircraft were so fitted.
|
|
|
Post by ursirius on Feb 10, 2021 20:59:02 GMT
Can anyone explain to me the difference between a J/1B and a J/1N. There is an inference in volume 1 page 116 that there was a difference in fuel system.
|
|
|
Post by ursirius on Feb 24, 2021 3:20:11 GMT
Comments and suggested corrections to Volume 1
122 J5F “essentially, standard 36ft wings with 24 inches removed at each tip”. In fact, the wings were not clipped, but re-designed throughout their length with, for example, ribs closer together and an extra bay inboard of the ailerons.
The J/5F also featured new, shorter span ailerons. Concerning the D4, which also had the short span wings, "Auster – The Company and the Aircraft" page 129, states it was ". . . fitted with Aiglet's ailerons . . . "; presumably this should read Aiglet Trainer's ailerons. With reference to the D5, "False Dawn" page 42 states "The design that emerged was a combination of the Basic J/1 fuselage and wing . . . melded with the tail and undercarriage of the J/1U Workmaster. In fact it could be argued that the J/1U was a redesigned J/5R Alpine but with a standard length wing and the highly efficient and proven aileron system of the J/5F Aiglet Trainer . . ." This brings up a couple of comments/questions. Firstly, surely the Alpine already had standard length wings and, secondly, I can find no reference in "Auster – The Company and the Aircraft" to anything different in the Aiglet Trainer aileron system. However, in discussion on the J/5Q & & (page 123) it is stated that the J/5Q ". . . was fitted with new ailerons with greater balance area and modified shrouds which resulted in very accurate lateral control sensitivity". Paraphrasing the "Auster Production Histories" for J/5L Aiglet Trainer, c/n 3135, the aircraft was retained by Auster as a demonstrator; first flew 4 May 1955. Modified to J/5R Alpine first flew 12 November 1955. Varied between J/5L and J/5R status between then and September 1959 when sold as a J/5R to Crop Culture (Aerial) Ltd, Bembridge. Did this possibly result in the use of ailerons aerodynamically similar the J/5Q & R on J/5L Aiglet Trainers?
|
|