- Posts: 5026
- Thank you received: 440
- 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?
- carnaby
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
03 Oct 2010 09:02 #31
by carnaby
Marham conformed to the January 1941 requirements (AIR10/4038 ), and of course became a VHB station.
Class 'A' (1942) was the standard for all future stations for contemporary bombers. (AP3236)
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?
CorrectWell the likes of Shawbury, Marham and Leuchars werent class A airfields by that definition.
Marham conformed to the January 1941 requirements (AIR10/4038 ), and of course became a VHB station.
Class 'A' (1942) was the standard for all future stations for contemporary bombers. (AP3236)
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 09:10 #32
by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic Class A - numbers and costs?
Are you sure Marham conformed?? It closed in 44 for runways to be laid.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Peter Kirk
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 12446
- Thank you received: 1029
03 Oct 2010 09:26 #33
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?
In January 1941 the standard for bomber stations was 1600yds for the main and 1100yds for the two subsidiaries. Marham would have satisfied those requirements I suspect. What I am not sure about is the surface as at that time grass was still the main runway type. So did Class A (or its 1941 equivalent) specify that it must be hard runways?
No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- carnaby
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5026
- Thank you received: 440
03 Oct 2010 09:33 #34
by carnaby
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?
Good point.
In 1942 Marham had four grass strips of 1,700, 2,100, 1,466 and 1,600 yards.
Interestingly AP3236 does not say that any of the the strips had to be 'hard'. There are many other stated requirements for Class 'A' eg, peri-tracks, radius of curves, slopes, margins etc, but not surface.
Strangely the document states that three emergency runways were constructed with 'paved' runways.
Hmm
Graham
In 1942 Marham had four grass strips of 1,700, 2,100, 1,466 and 1,600 yards.
Interestingly AP3236 does not say that any of the the strips had to be 'hard'. There are many other stated requirements for Class 'A' eg, peri-tracks, radius of curves, slopes, margins etc, but not surface.
Strangely the document states that three emergency runways were constructed with 'paved' runways.
Hmm
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.
- daveg4otu
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
03 Oct 2010 09:34 #35
by daveg4otu
It was completed with 6 runways - 3 parallel pairs in a Star of David configuration .....although I believe that 3 were only used occasionally if at all.
See my Hampshire,Dorset,Devon,IOW Airfields sites..
www.hampshireairfields.co.uk/
Replied by daveg4otu 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.
It was completed with 6 runways - 3 parallel pairs in a Star of David configuration .....although I believe that 3 were only used occasionally if at all.
See my Hampshire,Dorset,Devon,IOW Airfields sites..
www.hampshireairfields.co.uk/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Paul Francis
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5843
- Thank you received: 567
03 Oct 2010 11:55 #36
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?
Originally three runways for the War in Japan campaign! Six runways post-war
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
03 Oct 2010 12:01 #37
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?
There is a nice photo of Heathrow looking like Marham or Sculthorpe after rebuild in 1944-5, with a Hawker Tempest II flying over it. Very obviously a three runway pattern - but not for long.
No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Paul Francis
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5843
- Thank you received: 567
03 Oct 2010 16:32 #38
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?
Not long PNK because of VJ Day!
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.
- 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
