I am an ex-RAAF engineer working at the restoration division of the Fighterworld Aviation Heritage Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown NSW Australia.
We are in possession of a three laminated wooden propeller with the decal of "The British and Colonial Aeroplane Company Ltd Bristol Eng embossed on the blade. The only identification markings are the "D" 2600 and "P"1320 embossed on the side of the hub/boss.
In addition we have contacted Bristol/BAes but they cannot help us under their GDP regulations. Strange?
In most cases my research has led me to possibly the Bristol Boxkite "push" propeller but the 3 laminations are questionable seeing that most props of that era were 6 laminations especially the "pull" props regarding strength and durability. This could have maybe been an earlier prototype.
The blades were partly coated and badly eroded with what looks like the old animal hide technique and many splits at the tips indicating possible ground impact. There are also pin hole indications of possible leading edge metal (brass?) protection sheathing that has been removed. We know through research that many propellers were made in England from Maple; Spruce etc, prior to and during WW1 to support aircraft manufacturing in Europe, possibly explaining why metric sizing was embossed instead of imperial, but still cannot identify the propellers origin.
During 1912, Sir George White, the founder of The British and Colonial Aeroplane Company, sent 2 Bristol Boxkites to Australia on a promotional tour of Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. Both aeroplanes were finally bought privately by a Doctor in N.S.W. but the Australian Government purchased 4 for the Australian Flying Corp (AFC) that supported training pilots up too and throughout WW1. This gives us cause to believe a possible connection but we cannot speculate as a definite at this time.
We at Fighterwold request any help we can get from this international forum, to pinpoint its post manufactured use and any history associated with it, whether it be a Boxkite or other type of aeroplane.
I have attached some photographs in support.
We are in possession of a three laminated wooden propeller with the decal of "The British and Colonial Aeroplane Company Ltd Bristol Eng embossed on the blade. The only identification markings are the "D" 2600 and "P"1320 embossed on the side of the hub/boss.
In addition we have contacted Bristol/BAes but they cannot help us under their GDP regulations. Strange?
In most cases my research has led me to possibly the Bristol Boxkite "push" propeller but the 3 laminations are questionable seeing that most props of that era were 6 laminations especially the "pull" props regarding strength and durability. This could have maybe been an earlier prototype.
The blades were partly coated and badly eroded with what looks like the old animal hide technique and many splits at the tips indicating possible ground impact. There are also pin hole indications of possible leading edge metal (brass?) protection sheathing that has been removed. We know through research that many propellers were made in England from Maple; Spruce etc, prior to and during WW1 to support aircraft manufacturing in Europe, possibly explaining why metric sizing was embossed instead of imperial, but still cannot identify the propellers origin.
During 1912, Sir George White, the founder of The British and Colonial Aeroplane Company, sent 2 Bristol Boxkites to Australia on a promotional tour of Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. Both aeroplanes were finally bought privately by a Doctor in N.S.W. but the Australian Government purchased 4 for the Australian Flying Corp (AFC) that supported training pilots up too and throughout WW1. This gives us cause to believe a possible connection but we cannot speculate as a definite at this time.
We at Fighterwold request any help we can get from this international forum, to pinpoint its post manufactured use and any history associated with it, whether it be a Boxkite or other type of aeroplane.
I have attached some photographs in support.
Comment