Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:47 pm
T J Johansen wrote:AviaS199 wrote:A few months ago, I was hanging around Dan Webb's bookstore in Oakland (a great place). One of the customers told us about the time, back in '74, when he was changing planes on the Canary Islands. He looked out the window of the terminal and saw numerous CASA 2.111s and HA-1112s lined up, waiting to be scrapped. According to his story, the Canary Islands were the end of the line for the '40's-era Spanish warbirds.
Can anyone corroborate?
This photo from airliners.net show one Casa in 1969. I participated on a thread at a Norwegian forum some time ago where I believe another photo was posted of CASA 2.111s in the Canaries. Unfortunately that forum is currently down. Here is the other one though!
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... 0492989/L/
T J
AviaS199
Just to prove that the guy in the store wasn't full of it, here is the photo from 1974 showing a pair of Heinkels on the ramp at Las Palmas.
http://www1.airpics.com/viewclean.php?i ... ckground=3
T J
Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:21 pm
Just a quick note on the CAF Heinkel which I had the Opportunity to fly in several times a a flight mechanic. It wasn't quite as benign as you might think. It did have some strange habits and the drum type brakes sucked. As a mechanic you should think about this. German design Spanish built with British engines. SAE, metric and British Standard. The tools alone put you over gross weight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:15 pm
Why would they go to the Canary Islands for scrapping? Do they have an aluminum foundry there? Maybe they just pushed them into a pit, or into the ocean?T J Johansen wrote:Just to prove that the guy in the store wasn't full of it, here is the photo from 1974 showing a pair of Heinkels on the ramp at Las Palmas.
Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:31 pm
bdk wrote:Why would they go to the Canary Islands for scrapping? Do they have an aluminum foundry there? Maybe they just pushed them into a pit, or into the ocean?T J Johansen wrote:Just to prove that the guy in the store wasn't full of it, here is the photo from 1974 showing a pair of Heinkels on the ramp at Las Palmas.
Brandon, the aircraft probably didn't go to the Canary Islands in 1974 for scrapping. They were probably there on active service taking part in the Western Sahara Campaign, as part of 46 group based at Gando Air Base, which is where the picture was taken. (Gando Air Base occupies the eastern side of the airport, with the civilian airport using the western side. 2 parallel runways, both 10,000 ft long).
One of the CASA 2.111's may in fact be the Cavanaugh Flight Museum aircraft (B2-I-27), as it was based at Gando with 46 Group from 29th January 1974, until 21st January 1975, when it returned to Seville. It flew a total of 85 hours during the year providing "ground troops with reconnaissance, aerial supplied provisioning and ground attack capabilities".
Can anyone zoom in on the aircraft, and see if they are still wearing the two tone green camo scheme they were given during the making of the Battle of Britain movie in 1968?
Julian
Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:46 pm
Chris wrote:Just a quick note on the CAF Heinkel which I had the Opportunity to fly in several times a a flight mechanic. It wasn't quite as benign as you might think. It did have some strange habits and the drum type brakes sucked. As a mechanic you should think about this. German design Spanish built with British engines. SAE, metric and British Standard. The tools alone put you over gross weight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's not fun and must have been a real drag, but what an end result.
Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:29 pm
Chris wrote:Just a quick note on the CAF Heinkel which I had the Opportunity to fly in several times a a flight mechanic. It wasn't quite as benign as you might think. It did have some strange habits ...
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate at all?
It's a thought that once you take the B-25 Mitchell out of the count there are very few W.W.II or 1930s era twin engine bombers flying. In development terms it's easy to forget that when new they were the cutting edge of attacking aircraft, and their designers and users had to accept elements of performance compromise that weren't good news - such as dubious single engine safety at low speeds...
And, again, they weren't designed to operate of concrete, but round, grass airfields - so brakes were not so crucial - then.
Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:18 pm
The Merlins on the Heinkel were not pressure injected but had float type carbs on them. Also the LG speed was 104 kts so you had to climb at a steep angle on take off to avoid exceeding the LG speed. With the float type carbs, the steep deck angle was very close to shutting off fuel flow to the engines thus creating a very quiet enviroment very close to the ground. 
Also, in flight, if you crossed the crontrols such as right aileron, left rudder, rather than correcting itself when you released the controls, it would continue to fly in that condition. Wierd.[/quote]
Also, in flight, if you crossed the crontrols such as right aileron, left rudder, rather than correcting itself when you released the controls, it would continue to fly in that condition. Wierd.[/quote]
Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:19 pm
Sorry duplicate post
Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:50 pm
Thanks Chris,
The initial issues would be a factor of the late engine modification to Merlin, one presumes, but the crossed controls item would be a type characteristic, unless the keel area of the Merlins was a factor.
I'm away from my library at the moment, but I wonder what Eric Brown had to say about flying the Heinkel He 111?
The initial issues would be a factor of the late engine modification to Merlin, one presumes, but the crossed controls item would be a type characteristic, unless the keel area of the Merlins was a factor.
I'm away from my library at the moment, but I wonder what Eric Brown had to say about flying the Heinkel He 111?