What airliner type, please?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. Yes, agree. Thanks, Dave.
p.s. I've just had a look at Flight (17/11/38) "The Albatross in Detail". A good deal of info plus a cutaway.
.
p.s. I've just had a look at Flight (17/11/38) "The Albatross in Detail". A good deal of info plus a cutaway.
.
Last edited by Stanwell; 7th Jan 2016 at 15:34. Reason: add ps
Hi Dave,
Great picture of what looks to be a tidy cockpit. Yes: separate pitch-levers - maybe the Heron was to be unique in combining pitch control with throttle.
It appears that, like the post-war Heron (and Dove?), the applied pressure of the wheel brakes was commanded by variable displacement of the captain's thumb-control on his/her spectacles. The differential effect for steering would be controlled with the rudder bar. I wonder if the brakes were hydraulic or (like the Heron and Dove) pneumatic. My guess would be pneumatic.
The original tail-fin config mentioned by Stanwell is best visible on that video at 1:13 and 1:35.
Great picture of what looks to be a tidy cockpit. Yes: separate pitch-levers - maybe the Heron was to be unique in combining pitch control with throttle.
It appears that, like the post-war Heron (and Dove?), the applied pressure of the wheel brakes was commanded by variable displacement of the captain's thumb-control on his/her spectacles. The differential effect for steering would be controlled with the rudder bar. I wonder if the brakes were hydraulic or (like the Heron and Dove) pneumatic. My guess would be pneumatic.
The original tail-fin config mentioned by Stanwell is best visible on that video at 1:13 and 1:35.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Leatherhead
Age: 85
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Airiner Type please ?
Going back to the original thread, the aircraft was a Fokker F22 which was at Heston Airport in 1938/9 then owned by British American Air Services and photographed by Joe Connolly , an Airwork engineer at the time. The picture was shown in Air Britain's Archive magazine 2013/4.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cyprus
Age: 91
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I beg the OP's indulgence once more and speculate further on the Albatross's ground angle? The only way to dump the lift and increase the drag on landing in those days was to get the tail-wheel on the ground as soon as possible and thereby stall the wing, this must have been significant on an aircraft as sleek as the Albatross. I still think that the length of the leg was decided by the distance from it's optimum hinge point to the nearest available wheel stowage space but the reduced landing run must have been a valuable by-product.
And what a beautiful selection of photographs this de-rail has produced.
.
And what a beautiful selection of photographs this de-rail has produced.
.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OP, 'Marbles', in his post #10 asked if we could identify the gentleman third from the right in the group posing in front of the Fokker XXII.
He was apparently later to become famous for achieving a couple of 'aviation firsts'.
OK, I give up - who is it then?
I'll second Lancman's comment re the beaut selection of photos.
Thanks, chaps.
He was apparently later to become famous for achieving a couple of 'aviation firsts'.
OK, I give up - who is it then?
I'll second Lancman's comment re the beaut selection of photos.
Thanks, chaps.
Lancman,
That's an interesting observation about the landing run. I see from the Flight article that the mailplanes had split-flaps and the later Imperial Airways ones had HP slotted-flaps.
DH must have decided they needed more lift and drag than the split-flaps provided.
That's an interesting observation about the landing run. I see from the Flight article that the mailplanes had split-flaps and the later Imperial Airways ones had HP slotted-flaps.
DH must have decided they needed more lift and drag than the split-flaps provided.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marbles,
A little more info on your Fokker XXII:
It was an ex KLM machine with the name 'Roerdomp' (Bittern) and was acquired by British American Air Services in 1939.
In 1941 it was impressed into the RAF and operated by the Air Observers Navigation School.
After that, it served with 1680 Flight, Abbotsinch, where it was re-named 'Sylvia Scarlet'.
It was lost on July 3rd 1943 when it suffered an in-flight fire and crashed into Loch Tarbot with the loss of all on board.
A little more info on your Fokker XXII:
It was an ex KLM machine with the name 'Roerdomp' (Bittern) and was acquired by British American Air Services in 1939.
In 1941 it was impressed into the RAF and operated by the Air Observers Navigation School.
After that, it served with 1680 Flight, Abbotsinch, where it was re-named 'Sylvia Scarlet'.
It was lost on July 3rd 1943 when it suffered an in-flight fire and crashed into Loch Tarbot with the loss of all on board.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd been trying to work out the relationship between the Fokker FXXII and the FXXXVI which look so similar.
It seems that the design of the FXXXVI (indicating 36 passengers and crew) was Tony Fokker's response to a KLM requirement for European routes.
The aircraft's passenger cabin was luxuriously fitted out and much trouble was taken with sound-proofing.
It was many years before anything on either side of the pond could match it for passenger amenity, I'm told.
Albert Plesman, KLM's autocratic CEO, then decided that it was going to be just a bit too big for his needs and no further orders followed.
As was noted earlier, just the one example was produced.
Plesman made up his mind that what he really needed was something about two-thirds the size and at half the price.
Fokker then came up with a scaled-down, 'economy model' version of the FXXXVI - the FXXII (22 passengers).
Four of these were built, using 500hp P&W Wasps (compared with 750hp Wright Cyclones for the FXXXVI).
Accidents aside, the FXXIIs gave satisfactory service on European routes until the two survivors, together with the sole FXXXVI,
were sold to British interests in 1939.
JW 411 provided details of these in his post #8.
While all these aircraft were reported to have had excellent flying qualities, there was, of course, quite a difference in passenger comfort
between the two models.
The two-bladed Wasp powered (and lightly insulated) FXXII cabin was painfully noisy, whereas the three-bladed Cyclone powered
(and well insulated) FXXXVI was quiet enough inside that conversation could be conducted in normal tones.
So, I guess, as always .. You get what you pay for.
It seems that the design of the FXXXVI (indicating 36 passengers and crew) was Tony Fokker's response to a KLM requirement for European routes.
The aircraft's passenger cabin was luxuriously fitted out and much trouble was taken with sound-proofing.
It was many years before anything on either side of the pond could match it for passenger amenity, I'm told.
Albert Plesman, KLM's autocratic CEO, then decided that it was going to be just a bit too big for his needs and no further orders followed.
As was noted earlier, just the one example was produced.
Plesman made up his mind that what he really needed was something about two-thirds the size and at half the price.
Fokker then came up with a scaled-down, 'economy model' version of the FXXXVI - the FXXII (22 passengers).
Four of these were built, using 500hp P&W Wasps (compared with 750hp Wright Cyclones for the FXXXVI).
Accidents aside, the FXXIIs gave satisfactory service on European routes until the two survivors, together with the sole FXXXVI,
were sold to British interests in 1939.
JW 411 provided details of these in his post #8.
While all these aircraft were reported to have had excellent flying qualities, there was, of course, quite a difference in passenger comfort
between the two models.
The two-bladed Wasp powered (and lightly insulated) FXXII cabin was painfully noisy, whereas the three-bladed Cyclone powered
(and well insulated) FXXXVI was quiet enough inside that conversation could be conducted in normal tones.
So, I guess, as always .. You get what you pay for.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from this thread where Flybiker7000 tempted us to drift into a discussion on the DH91 Albatross...
Browsing through Fleabay last night, I noticed that there's a Dinky Toy die-cast model of the Albatross for sale (I didn't know they'd done one).
The seller doesn't seem to know what it is.
Looking at the photos, it seems to be quite an accurate scale model (aside from the period three-bladed tin propellors and toy undercarriage).
The asking price of AU$95 caused me to raise an eyebrow until, a couple of items down, I saw a Dinky Toy flat-bed Foden lorry for only AU$4000 (What??).
So, if anybody's keen enough for a piece of DeHavilland and Dinky Toy history, PM me and I'll let you know the Fleabay item no.
Browsing through Fleabay last night, I noticed that there's a Dinky Toy die-cast model of the Albatross for sale (I didn't know they'd done one).
The seller doesn't seem to know what it is.
Looking at the photos, it seems to be quite an accurate scale model (aside from the period three-bladed tin propellors and toy undercarriage).
The asking price of AU$95 caused me to raise an eyebrow until, a couple of items down, I saw a Dinky Toy flat-bed Foden lorry for only AU$4000 (What??).
So, if anybody's keen enough for a piece of DeHavilland and Dinky Toy history, PM me and I'll let you know the Fleabay item no.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Marbles, we all give up. It's time to come clean.
There have been two suggestions for the person in the picture; Roly Falk, and Clyde Pangborn.
Both long shots, IMHO!
Who is it?
There have been two suggestions for the person in the picture; Roly Falk, and Clyde Pangborn.
Both long shots, IMHO!
Who is it?
