Cartwheels on Airfields

Yes EGDGDFC&BAR is correct, Carnabys' links are all RPARs sited close to dissused PAR bases.
these are solid concrete circles which are different from first pic which is 'spoked wheel' effect.

So we know what they ain't!

Here's a shot of St Mawgans RPAR, so that you can see from a better angle. Note the white posts marking the "no go area", clearly visible in the aerial shots in your links Graham. The two concrete bases from Mawgans two earlier PAR's are out of shot to the left by some way but visible on GE.
As I said, not what appears in the original GE image at the start of this thread.

[IMG]/community/33212=585-BAC 1-11.jpg[/img]

mawganmad;33208 wrote:

Yes EGDGDFC&BAR is correct, Carnabys' links are all RPARs sited close to dissused PAR bases.
these are solid concrete circles which are different from first pic which is 'spoked wheel' effect.

So we know what they ain't!

We better get Scampton checked for the missing apprentice !!

PNK;33264 wrote:

I did wonder how we got from "wheel" mark in grass to slab of concrete.

If you max zoom to Scampton's I believe it could be concrete.

But apologies to all those investigating my PAR red herrings .

Graham

No idea what these are, but here is the one at Bicester.

maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.91439,-1.1316984&z=18&t=h&hl=en

I suspect the one at Scampton was also in the middle of the field before the hard runways were built.
Could be something to do with the bombing circle maybe?

Delboy;33292 wrote:

here is the one at Bicester. Could be something to do with the bombing circle maybe?

Now you've got me going Delboy - here is the one at Grantham

(nice bomb store layout, but the buildings have gone)

Graham

Could it be that this "wheel" isn't on the airfields at all?

Could it be a compass reference point of some sort within the mapping program? All the examples appear to be orientated in the same way.
If you look carefully at the Bicester image, you can just make out the words "Google Maps" (i think) printed all around the image, a kind of watermark if you like. Could it be something to do with that?

If the images within this thread are all from GE, perhaps it would be worth checking another mapping program, not affiliated with GE, to see if the "wheel" appears.

Certainly the Scampton example is too close to the runway/taxiway to be a facility or aerial of any kind, at least in my opinion.

Just a thought.............

I'm with you on that last sentance EEGYDEEGEY, generally a safe area is cleared back to a certain distance on both sides of a runway where no concrete obstacals (or other) should appear. The Scampton one is odd.

But they do look like physical features rather than a water mark:confused: