M-Baker to be homeless ?
PDR
IMHO, Chalgrove is used for much more than the Meatboxes. All 0/0 and slow speed testing is done there on the airfield by a large seat test department. It has Cartridge production and extensive storage facilities on site. As for the F35 testing in France? It's probably because The weather there is much better for high altitude testing and the test area (Caseaux) is much bigger and restriction free.
However...There are a couple of 'new' alternate routes for the proposed Oxford to Cambridge Expressway which pass either side of the airfield. I suspect the OCC's little eyes light up when they think of a 5000 home development next to a new motorway
��Ker Ching..��
Just my personal opinion of course!
However...There are a couple of 'new' alternate routes for the proposed Oxford to Cambridge Expressway which pass either side of the airfield. I suspect the OCC's little eyes light up when they think of a 5000 home development next to a new motorway
��Ker Ching..��
Just my personal opinion of course!
Well aside from the obvious issue that Benson is an active military airfield and MB are a commercial organisation whose aircraft are on the civil register, so there could be significant regulatory confusion, there's the other point about whether Benson's infrustructure and emergency facilities are suitable for fixed wing operations?
PDR
PDR
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In December, I wrote the following to Grant Shapps in his position at the All Part Parliamentary Group for General Aviation, following his response to Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:
I received a reply to my e-mail, which stated that the AAPG GA group will make sure the relevant Working Groups are made aware of (the e-mail's) content and the important role General Aviation can make to the area.
Since then, although Adonis has left, Sajid Javid has announced that Iain Stewart, the MP for Milton Keynes South is to be the ‘standard bearer’ for the Cambridge-Oxford corridor, according to the Oxford Mail, quoting the press release https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...silicon-valley .
Mr Stewart is a vice-chair of APPG-GA, so should surely insist that the NIC report on the CaMkOx ‘corridor’ must included an assessment of the potential benefits to the area resulting from preserving and developing aerodromes within the area.
Dear Mr Shapps,
I note your excellent letter to the Rt. Hon. Sajid Javid MP dated 6 Dec 2017 and welcome your support for the protection of our national aviation infrastructure.
As you are probably aware and as your APPG colleague the Rt. Hon. The Lord Adonis PC will certainly confirm, the National Infrastructure Commission recently published its report 'PARTNERING FOR PROSPERITY: A new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc which concerns ‘some of our most productive and innovative places, delivering growth and prosperity for the whole country.’
The NIC report is certainly comprehensive; however, apart from a single mention of the area being within an hour’s drive of an international airport, there is absolutely no mention or consideration of the potential benefits which could be gained by encouraging development of existing minor, or even disused, aerodromes for business or private aviation in the CaMkOx arc. This is a glaring omission, particularly with the publication of EASA’s Opinion 06/2015, concerning Commercial Air Transport operations at night or in Instrument Meteorological Conditions using single-engined turbine aeroplanes. Quite obviously, CAT-SET (IMC) operations, together with the development of GNSS instrument approach procedures, have considerable potential in bringing benefit to the CaMkOx arc.
Not only must our aerodromes be protected from brownfield development, but surely they should also be considered in major NIC reports such as that to which I refer.
Lastly, in today’s Oxford Mail, the headline article concerns a potential new town near Great Haseley, between Oxford and Thame, to be known as Harrington. This would be situated at junction 7 of the M40, within the CaMkOx arc - and is only 4 miles from Oakley aerodrome and 3 miles from Chalgrove aerodrome. The development of either aerodrome to provide business or private aviation facilities for this new town should surely be considered.
I note your excellent letter to the Rt. Hon. Sajid Javid MP dated 6 Dec 2017 and welcome your support for the protection of our national aviation infrastructure.
As you are probably aware and as your APPG colleague the Rt. Hon. The Lord Adonis PC will certainly confirm, the National Infrastructure Commission recently published its report 'PARTNERING FOR PROSPERITY: A new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc which concerns ‘some of our most productive and innovative places, delivering growth and prosperity for the whole country.’
The NIC report is certainly comprehensive; however, apart from a single mention of the area being within an hour’s drive of an international airport, there is absolutely no mention or consideration of the potential benefits which could be gained by encouraging development of existing minor, or even disused, aerodromes for business or private aviation in the CaMkOx arc. This is a glaring omission, particularly with the publication of EASA’s Opinion 06/2015, concerning Commercial Air Transport operations at night or in Instrument Meteorological Conditions using single-engined turbine aeroplanes. Quite obviously, CAT-SET (IMC) operations, together with the development of GNSS instrument approach procedures, have considerable potential in bringing benefit to the CaMkOx arc.
Not only must our aerodromes be protected from brownfield development, but surely they should also be considered in major NIC reports such as that to which I refer.
Lastly, in today’s Oxford Mail, the headline article concerns a potential new town near Great Haseley, between Oxford and Thame, to be known as Harrington. This would be situated at junction 7 of the M40, within the CaMkOx arc - and is only 4 miles from Oakley aerodrome and 3 miles from Chalgrove aerodrome. The development of either aerodrome to provide business or private aviation facilities for this new town should surely be considered.
Since then, although Adonis has left, Sajid Javid has announced that Iain Stewart, the MP for Milton Keynes South is to be the ‘standard bearer’ for the Cambridge-Oxford corridor, according to the Oxford Mail, quoting the press release https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...silicon-valley .
Mr Stewart is a vice-chair of APPG-GA, so should surely insist that the NIC report on the CaMkOx ‘corridor’ must included an assessment of the potential benefits to the area resulting from preserving and developing aerodromes within the area.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - do you think that will make the slightest difference?
There is absolutely ZERO political capital in airfields whereas someone who can get houses built will be the next Political Messiah in the UK..............
There is absolutely ZERO political capital in airfields whereas someone who can get houses built will be the next Political Messiah in the UK..............
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not holding my breath
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must be a Corbynista - because its the Tories who encouraged all the things you seem to think are bad..........
But, seriously, what politician is going to stand up to save/expand local airport/airfield over "15000 houses"???
But, seriously, what politician is going to stand up to save/expand local airport/airfield over "15000 houses"???
The use of old' airfields for housing or wind farms is now par for the course at the eastern end of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. Former RAF Oakington site is now Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn are earmarked for future mini towns' and Graveley is a massive wind-farm despite local opposition. Alconbury being developed for mixed-use' and argie-bargie' going on over Wyton'.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
I remember the campaign to shut Coventry from the local upmarket villages, then when finally it was to close and the plans were revealed to turn it into a huge quarry with all the trucks etc driving through the said villages, the local campaign to keep it open started.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant idea to convert Coventry to an open cast mine.
They could even keep the airfield open.
I have thought it could be put to good use as an atomic bomb urban testing range.
Failing that a conventional weapon bombing range.
Either way its not as if it would be any uglier.
They could even keep the airfield open.
I have thought it could be put to good use as an atomic bomb urban testing range.
Failing that a conventional weapon bombing range.
Either way its not as if it would be any uglier.
tescoapp, thread drift is a way of life on this forum but can I just say that I find your post just a drift too far? My main complaint though is that it is "inappropriate and unacceptable", to coin a catch phrase much in use these days. You may blame the ugliness of Coventry on the Luftwaffe, I suppose much as they would blame us for the ugliness of much of Berlin, which was rebuilt in the same concrete of the 50s and 60s.
Back on thread, I find Nutloose's:-
both alarming and persuasive. HMG can be merciless to aviation companies that do not bend to its will. Sir Frederick Handley Page demurred from joining one of the two new groupings required of him. His Herald (with flatbed height sills) lost the bid for a short range tactical transport, and the RAF got the turkey all kneeling Andover instead.
At least that was a joined up attempt to rationalise the British Aircraft Industry, unlike this...
Back on thread, I find Nutloose's:-
The cynic in me wonders if this plan to possibly build on the place was put forward before MB put their hands up and admitted guilt over the Reds ejection. The cynic in me also wonders if it will be quietly dropped now.
At least that was a joined up attempt to rationalise the British Aircraft Industry, unlike this...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just two Meteors.
Martin-Baker?s old campaigner King Air enjoys enhanced ramp presence after refurbishment
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
both alarming and persuasive. HMG can be merciless to aviation companies that do not bend to its will. Sir Frederick Handley Page demurred from joining one of the two new groupings required of him. His Herald (with flatbed height sills) lost the bid for a short range tactical transport, and the RAF got the turkey all kneeling Andover instead.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chug/nut: HP and Andover is another of the we wuz robbed myths.
The Reqt. was as old as the Korean War. Fairchild C-119F was offered, free, but not taken up. Rotory schemes included Fairey Rotodyne. DH pitched Caribou.
RAF Budget opened up in 1961, so Martlesham fly-before buy, Herald, 748. We today would add Fokker F-27.
The employment politics of it sort-of neutralised: Radlett and Woodford were both about to be empty after Mk.2 V-craft/Blue Steel and before settling on the prime Skybolt platform for operation 1968->70. If Sir Fred was diddled by anyone it was by the fellow with whom he was trying to agree a share price for his firm - Sir Roy Dobson at HSAL. He sold Ministers on the notion that no Victor-upgrade could take Skybolts. So no future business could be factored into a price acceptable to HP's Board.
Award to kneeling 748 was not spiteful, but logical. Nail in Herald was by no Minister, but by BEAC Associate Company Aer Lingus, 1956 Launch Customer for F-27, rejecting Herald - Leonides or Dart. They did so for the same reasons that, decades later, Channel Express would phase out Heralds for F-27s.
The Reqt. was as old as the Korean War. Fairchild C-119F was offered, free, but not taken up. Rotory schemes included Fairey Rotodyne. DH pitched Caribou.
RAF Budget opened up in 1961, so Martlesham fly-before buy, Herald, 748. We today would add Fokker F-27.
The employment politics of it sort-of neutralised: Radlett and Woodford were both about to be empty after Mk.2 V-craft/Blue Steel and before settling on the prime Skybolt platform for operation 1968->70. If Sir Fred was diddled by anyone it was by the fellow with whom he was trying to agree a share price for his firm - Sir Roy Dobson at HSAL. He sold Ministers on the notion that no Victor-upgrade could take Skybolts. So no future business could be factored into a price acceptable to HP's Board.
Award to kneeling 748 was not spiteful, but logical. Nail in Herald was by no Minister, but by BEAC Associate Company Aer Lingus, 1956 Launch Customer for F-27, rejecting Herald - Leonides or Dart. They did so for the same reasons that, decades later, Channel Express would phase out Heralds for F-27s.
tornakaden, it seems to me to be a question of chickens and eggs. HMG wanted the British aircraft industry merged into two groups, BAC or HSAL, with HP it seems destined for the latter group. That would seem to me down entirely to the Minister, and if HSAL wanted to make it into a fire sale then it was merely profiting from HMGs edict. Wiki's take (I know, I know..) is:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Dart_Herald
HP did themselves no favours by building the HPR3 with piston engines while Fokker used turboprops from the start. The time lost in hanging Darts on the Herald cost them much of the civil market to the F27 and 748, it is true. The design though lent itself well to military development and use, and was the obvious choice for the RAF (given that it was UK produced and the F27 wasn't).
I would suggest that HMGs hands were all over the take it or leave it bid for HP by HSAL, and hence the Andover being foisted on the RAF. The question is, does the same hold true for Homes England, Chalgrove, and MB?
one hope of improving sales was to develop the Herald as a military transport. The Royal Air Force had a requirement for 45 tactical transports to replace piston-engined Vickers Valettas, and Handley Page began work in 1960 on the HP.124 to meet this need. This would have a new rear fuselage with a rear loading ramp under the raised tail. The HP.124 was considered favourite to beat Avro's 748 derivative, the Avro 780, with the high wing of the Handley Page expected to give easier loading than the more expensive Avro. While short-field testing of the prototype Herald 200 at RAF Martlesham Heath in 1961 showed off the Herald's good handling and ability to operate from unprepared airstrips, other obstacles were more taxing. The Minister of Aviation, Peter Thorneycroft, refused to sign a contract for the HP.124 unless Handley Page would agree to a merger with British Aircraft Corporation or Hawker Siddeley as part of the government's policy of consolidation of the British aircraft industry. As Hawker Siddeley offered less than half the valuation that Frederick Handley Page placed on the company, the merger did not occur, and the RAF's order went to the Avro 780, which became the Andover. The Herald Series 400 was a simpler tactical transport with a strengthened cabin floor and side loading doors that could be opened in flight for dropping of supplies or paratroops. Eight were built for the Royal Malaysian Air Force.
HP did themselves no favours by building the HPR3 with piston engines while Fokker used turboprops from the start. The time lost in hanging Darts on the Herald cost them much of the civil market to the F27 and 748, it is true. The design though lent itself well to military development and use, and was the obvious choice for the RAF (given that it was UK produced and the F27 wasn't).
I would suggest that HMGs hands were all over the take it or leave it bid for HP by HSAL, and hence the Andover being foisted on the RAF. The question is, does the same hold true for Homes England, Chalgrove, and MB?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 6th Feb 2018 at 13:36.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Yes, HP even had a backend mock up built for the Herald ramp assembly and were using his RR as a loading demo, The article I read he was given the option, join the consortium or get no more contracts from UK PLC, he chose the latter and the inferior Andover won.
and lets face it, someone saw legs in the idea.
Antonov An-26
Shame MB couldn't rent a site at Hullavington off Dyson as he wants to keep the airfield open and build his excellence centre while retaining parts of the old camp.
and lets face it, someone saw legs in the idea.
Antonov An-26
Shame MB couldn't rent a site at Hullavington off Dyson as he wants to keep the airfield open and build his excellence centre while retaining parts of the old camp.
I'm sure Qinetiq would welcome MB to Llanbedr with open arms. The main runway at 2286m is significantly longer than Chalgrove, plus it's got good security, so good that the civil flying club which used to operate on weekdays has now folded because it couldn't operate at weekends too as the gates were locked.
I thought Qinetiq had pulled out of Llanbedr years ago?