Amongst some of life's injustices was the fact that 'they' managed the pee-tube.
I recall Col. Bob reminiscing about the pee tubes in the Whirldwind when he flew as CP for Christian Salvesen in the Antarctic. Evidently the off-ship sorties could be quite lengthy and nature could sometimes beckon while airborne. However, after digging through the various layers of clothing my godfather descibed (sometimes in too much detail) the challenge of extracting his John Thomas (shrunken by the hostile climate) and attempting to align it with the tube. Evidently after a couple of awkward efforts he settled on abandoning the pre-flight cuppa and waiting until he was back on terra firma, or in this case, ship.
It is a bit of a sign-of-the-times when you find out that a cab in your Logbook is now a star in a museum.
Ah well, if you discover how to slow the sands of time .. do let us know! My father once wrote to me while I was at one of your British boarding schools that I should in the future "embrace each season of life with enthusiasm" and in preparation for which, should I live to retire, I have this vineyard in mind which is in need of revival. Yes, making wine is how I would wish to round-off the years!
Oh, but this is about Wessex .. couple of questions:
In the cutaway (yes I know its a Whirlwind) I assume that the Wessex had a similar arrangement to that of the Whirlwind in that the engine driveshaft passed through (or near) the cockpit on its way to the main transmission? Given this arrangement and with nose-mounted engines .. was the Wessex's cabin quieter, compared to .. say the Sea King?
Whirlwind cutaway showing the driveshaft passing from the nose-mounted engine through the bottom of the cockpit and onto the main transmission
Secondly, why was the Whirlwind so much lighter on the controls compared to the Wessex?