- Posts: 5843
- Thank you received: 567
- Forum
- Open Forum
- Miscellaneous Research Topics
- General Airfield or 20th Century Military Architecture Discussion Topics
- Class A - numbers and costs?
Class A - numbers and costs?
- Paul Francis
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
30 Mar 2009 17:59 #21
by Paul Francis
You can tell a builder from an archaeologist by the size of his trowel. Mine is a small one!
Replied by Paul Francis on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
Mawganmad what are your sources for this 'new' information on Heathrow? If I may quote you 'Its a misnomer that Heathrow was planned as a military transport base'. If it was planned in 1944 with three runways how does that fit in with the airport theory? I agree that the VHTs pre-date the VHBs but to say Heathrow was designed from the beginning as a civil airport in 1944 is outrageous. Wheras if you said that it was designed from the beginning as a VHT with a view that in the future it might become the 'new' London airport then I can live with that.
You can tell a builder from an archaeologist by the size of his trowel. Mine is a small one!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Peter Kirk
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 12446
- Thank you received: 1029
30 Mar 2009 18:27 #22
by Peter Kirk
No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)
Replied by Peter Kirk on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
Apparently there is evidence to suugest that the third runway was built knowing full well it was never to be used and that it was a waste of resources.
No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mawganmad
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2807
- Thank you received: 18
30 Mar 2009 20:00 #23
by mawganmad
James Thomas
Replied by mawganmad on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
NP I am slightly surprised by some of your posts lately, and I have spoken to you about this subject.
At the moment I am trawling through the Flight (very good and detailed at every stage) and Aeroplane files, and have been in contact with a chap who has copied local government archives, all the evidence is there re the construction of the new London airport from the outset (earlier than '44 in fact), but under the guise of military VHT standards to pass very contentious site planning and development (locals certainly didn't want it and parliament questioned position and mass access, all c.44). Also no evidence at all that the RAF needed a new large transport base, the ones already built were more than adequate for the needs of the time. There is evidence that this three R/W layout was envisaged to help with the siteing of the mid airfield terminal layout that it eventually got.
If you have contrary evidence I would love to see it, as I'm in the middle of writing a major piece on the place, and I want to get it right, but the above has been well discussed on the Heathrow thread, which you have joined in but not challenged there?
Seriously Paul, there is nothing outrageous about it, and nothing to feel whether you can live with or not.
At the moment I am trawling through the Flight (very good and detailed at every stage) and Aeroplane files, and have been in contact with a chap who has copied local government archives, all the evidence is there re the construction of the new London airport from the outset (earlier than '44 in fact), but under the guise of military VHT standards to pass very contentious site planning and development (locals certainly didn't want it and parliament questioned position and mass access, all c.44). Also no evidence at all that the RAF needed a new large transport base, the ones already built were more than adequate for the needs of the time. There is evidence that this three R/W layout was envisaged to help with the siteing of the mid airfield terminal layout that it eventually got.
If you have contrary evidence I would love to see it, as I'm in the middle of writing a major piece on the place, and I want to get it right, but the above has been well discussed on the Heathrow thread, which you have joined in but not challenged there?
Seriously Paul, there is nothing outrageous about it, and nothing to feel whether you can live with or not.
James Thomas
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- rhj999
- Offline
- New Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 8
- Thank you received: 1
31 Mar 2009 04:24 #24
by rhj999
Replied by rhj999 on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
The following document has some very good information regarding the cost of bomber stations:-
ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstrea ... 2whole.pdf
ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstrea ... 2whole.pdf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- sumter
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 114
- Thank you received: 0
31 Mar 2009 09:06 #25
by sumter
Replied by sumter on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
rhj999 - Thank you for that document - it's very useful.
sumter
sumter
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mawganmad
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2807
- Thank you received: 18
31 Mar 2009 09:40 #26
by mawganmad
James Thomas
Replied by mawganmad on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
Wow, that is an amazing document, very detailed in every aspect of Bomber Command costings.
James Thomas
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Paul Francis
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5843
- Thank you received: 567
02 Oct 2010 17:07 #27
by Paul Francis
You can tell a builder from an archaeologist by the size of his trowel. Mine is a small one!
Replied by Paul Francis on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
The War against Japan springs to mind when looking at the military application of Heathrow.
You can tell a builder from an archaeologist by the size of his trowel. Mine is a small one!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Granite
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 186
- Thank you received: 8
02 Oct 2010 20:12 #28
by Granite
Replied by Granite on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
why are FAA airfields excluded, surely places like Crail conform to class A standards?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- carnaby
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5026
- Thank you received: 440
02 Oct 2010 21:24 #29
by carnaby
FAA stations generally had 33 yard wide runways. Crail's long runway was only 1,200 yards. All well short of Class 'A' requirements.
Graham
Plan A is always more effective when the problem you are working on understands that Plan B will involve the use of dynamite
Replied by carnaby on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
No -Class 'A' required a 2,000 x 50 yard main, plus 1,400 x 50 yard subsidiaries.why are FAA airfields excluded, surely places like Crail conform to class A standards?
FAA stations generally had 33 yard wide runways. Crail's long runway was only 1,200 yards. All well short of Class 'A' requirements.
Graham
Plan A is always more effective when the problem you are working on understands that Plan B will involve the use of dynamite
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- canberra
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5639
- Thank you received: 122
03 Oct 2010 08:46 #30
by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
Well the likes of Shawbury, Marham and Leuchars werent class A airfields by that definition.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Forum
- Open Forum
- Miscellaneous Research Topics
- General Airfield or 20th Century Military Architecture Discussion Topics
- Class A - numbers and costs?
Time to create page: 0.044 seconds
