shorehambysea.com

General Category => Shoreham Discussion => Topic started by: Nelson on October 07, 2018, 09:30:16 am

Title: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Nelson on October 07, 2018, 09:30:16 am
I am assured this is not a doctored photograph and a highly magnified look doesn’t betray any joins. The footbridge (in the distance) was opened in 1921 and the suspension bridge demolished in 1923 – so what are the large sheds to the right of the footbridge?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 07, 2018, 07:37:32 pm
Could that be where the concrete ships were built  ?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 08, 2018, 09:59:58 am
I wondered that too johnjohn but running a line on the map from the Norfolk Bridge to the right of the footbridge ends up near the bottom of the Ferry Road area.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 08, 2018, 10:38:30 am
This is really a curiosity. There were areas of undeveloped land to the East of the footbridge - so maybe that land was used for a temporary structure.. maybe to build seaplanes??  But those structures look too big for such.  And why would concrete ships not be built on a dock with slipway?

I have had a look at aerial photos from 1920 (top) and can't see anything, and 1927 (bottom) shows empty land.. so these structures were short lived.  However the road Riverside turns up on maps around this time (in the 1927 photo) and takes a fairly arbitrary route East from Ferry Road and an inexplicable turn South -I wonder why?  Was this (concrete I seem to recall) road built to service a hangar or works?  Are there slipways to the river that would afford access for a seaplane?

PS. We often see photos of Seaplanes in the Adur next to the Norfolk bridge etc... but why are they there?  The proximity to the airport is irrelevant as you could not get a plane from the airport to the river.  Where would you launch a seaplane from?   Presumably from where it was kept or manufactured - which, unless you have a way of transporting on land, would mean a hangar or field with access to the sea or some calm inland waters.  In which case for them to get to the Norfolk Bridge would indicate land between the Harbour and the Bridge (assuming the footbridge did not exist).  Where has a shallow slope from bank to water and isn't already congested?   Golden Sands or where Watercraft was.

Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 08, 2018, 10:53:33 am
Nelson, Sorry I didn't read your second post. Yes it can't be on the river bank... so ignore my conjecture!  I think it is here and immediately below the red line... That indicates it was, as you correctly said, on the SW corner of Ferry Road and Old Fort Road junction.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 08, 2018, 10:57:16 am
But by 1924 that parcel of land was built on...
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Doug Attrell on October 08, 2018, 11:00:31 am
Interesting. I'm wondering if they could be Bessonneau hangars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessonneau_hangar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessonneau_hangar)
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Lofty on October 08, 2018, 01:56:46 pm
Once again eagle-eyed Nelson has got us all going !

Looking at the location in the first (Norfolk Bridge) photo above, and taking into account the dates, I thought that perhaps the large buildings may have been associated with the film industry.

Referring to NEB Wolters Bungalow Town book, on page 40 there is a paragraph which starts "The carpenters shop where all the sets were made was actually bigger than the studio stage, being 70 feet by 80 feet to allow for work to continue on more than one set at a time.  Additional buildings were put up: a storehouse of 140 feet by 20 feet and, later a generator house when some artificial light was introduced about 1922".

Could this be the answer ?



 
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 08, 2018, 02:47:21 pm
Mmm.. nice idea, but I am not so sure such a big workshop would be needed for set building, especially if it is so far from the set locations or the studios themselves.  The twin spans does look more like a hangar than anything else.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Lihpsir on October 08, 2018, 03:54:05 pm
Re: Concrete hull construction.
Going back into the distant memory I remember my father telling me that these where built on the south side of the river opposite the Chemical works site where
a concrete hulled ship sat on the quay just after the war.
Clearer location where the Lower Brighton road went up and over the railway line just before the Maltings.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Lofty on October 08, 2018, 03:58:56 pm
These buildings were huge.  I am surprised that we have never come across them before.

I have today trawled through my postcard and photo collections and not found any images of them whatsoever.

Although the buildings are aircraft hangars in style we know that there were no aeroplanes manufactured on or flown from the beach (or if there were, there are no records of them apart from Piffard's hydro-aeroplane).
Perhaps the hangers suited the purpose required and were available off the peg, so to speak.

As far as I can make out, any Shoreham based seaplanes that we know of were kept in hangars on the aerodrome and were taken to the river from there - see the photo below.
ps - ignore the caption on the photo, it's an Avro 503.





Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 08, 2018, 05:54:15 pm
That's as I see it too Lofty - it's almost as if it is something that should never have been there.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 08, 2018, 05:56:41 pm
Could they have been for sea trials rather than manufacture?  My map estimates still puts them where the old Coastguard buildings were, South of the red line on that map.  So they can't be on the river.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 08, 2018, 07:07:06 pm
Yes Spinalman and Lofty that is more in line with my thoughts (included on another forum website) as follows:-
"Of all the possibilities (assuming an untouched photo and it does look untouched) one may be sea plane hangars from WW1. The site looks to be near the spot where the coastguard cottages were and alongside them was the old lifeboat house that Piffard later used to house his seaplane. Could this have influenced intended use of the site for WW1 seaplane use but was thwarted with the end of hostilities?
Canvas and wood hangars could be (had to be in wartime conditions) erected/dismantled within a short time – these in the photo don’t seem to be the slightly pointed top Bessonau hangars but more like the rounded  wooden ‘Belfast’ roof struts.
I don’t believe I’m writing this – if they did exist why have we never known of them?" 
 
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 08, 2018, 07:13:24 pm
I don’t believe I’m writing this – if they did exist why have we never known of them?"
... because we were too busy looking at the Mystery Towers!

PS. Do any of the images from the top of the 2nd Mystery Tower show the view West? That would be the same period and the hangars would be visible.

also I found this about the Crete ships:

The only other concrete ship to see service at
Shoreham was the seaplane tender RFC 109 (later
RAF 109) (Fig 7). It was based at Shoreham,
being discarded at the end of the Great War. It was
then acquired by the Brighton & Hove Gas Co .,
being used to transport tar from the gas works at
Portslade to Lennard & Co . Tarworks (latterly South
Western Tar) at Shoreham Beach .

http://sias2.pastfinder.org.uk/sih_1970_2008/35-2005.pdf


Now that implies Seaplanes flew from Shoreham and then lifted and recovered.  So where did they unload?  The tender would not get near the beach, so would have to recover and ship back up the river to... the airport? a dedicated hanger on the river?...
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 08, 2018, 07:20:41 pm
Very valid point Spinalman. The only one westwards I know of is this that frustratingly just misses the location.... but I'm putting out an appeal for any others that may show them.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 09, 2018, 08:46:25 am
There seems to be a large slipway in that area ?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Lofty on October 09, 2018, 04:45:53 pm
In WW1 there was an RNAS seaplane base at Newhaven.

The two hangars that were built there looked very much like shortened versions of our two mystery buildings here at Shoreham.

Hence is it possible that our buildings are hangars associated with a new seaplane base that was still under construction at the end of hostilities and was then consequently abandoned ?


Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 09, 2018, 06:57:49 pm
That's just what I'm thinking Lofty.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 09, 2018, 07:28:09 pm
Nelson, I don't know if you have bumped into' Paddy' ( Many a joke made about 'Her field' when we got flooded out !).... but she is a wealth of information about Shoreham and lived over on the beach as a youngster,she might have an idea?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Brian Drury on October 13, 2018, 09:56:28 am
I have just seen this thread and wondered where Mr Ripley was standing to take the photo. Obviously the waters edge at low tide and usefully the centre of the suspension bridge aligns with the southern end of the footbridge. I have used that location as a viewpoint in GE with an old (1940's) map overlaid as a reference. The red line is the centre view and the blue line is roughly where the large buildings are.

Sorry about the poor image quality, that is all this website will allow.

An interesting exercise but I am not sure it helps :)

Hmmm, the image does not appear in preview so here is a linkhttps://1drv.ms/u/s!AtcxErupGaCfgdUrYTil9QqOqTSmNg (https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtcxErupGaCfgdUrYTil9QqOqTSmNg)
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 13, 2018, 10:04:31 am
Brian, I agree-  that is where my map predictions pointed to.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Brian Drury on October 13, 2018, 11:00:19 am
Yes Paul, I should have acknowledge that I confirm your prediction.

I have now added a triangulation using the northern end of the footbridge and this also confirms Ripley's location. So we can be confident the big buildings were within the rectangle inside the blue circle on this 1933 map.

Will just have to wait for Roger to explain what they were for.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Brian Drury on October 13, 2018, 04:47:01 pm
Could this be the buildings? Image came from here:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~277113~90050253:View--Shoreham-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort&qvq=q:%3Dshoreham%20by%20sea%20;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=1&trs=5
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Lofty on October 13, 2018, 07:28:36 pm
In WW1 seaplane bases were constructed along the south coast. 
The idea was that the seaplanes would provide escort and protection for ships using the channel as they were prone to attack from u-boats.

The nearest seaplane bases to us were located at Newhaven and Lee on Solent.

Hence it is possible that the two hangers under discussion here were erected as part of a new seaplane base which would be provided to increase coverage for the shipping.  Shoreham would have been a good location for such a base, being located between the two existing sites and also in close proximity to the airport with all the support and expertise that could be called upon when required.

Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 16, 2018, 08:12:47 am
The maps do not show the large slipway seen in the original photograph which would indicate that it had been silted over due to lack of use
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 16, 2018, 04:48:44 pm
Sorry johnjohn I've only just seen your earlier post suggesting asking Paddy - will do.
Re. the slipway - do you mean that white bit at the end of the footbridge as I think that's just the concreted end of it.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 16, 2018, 07:48:13 pm
The hard lines between the centre of the buildings to nearly the end of the one to the right also one at the river waterline joining them,but its not very clear !
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 17, 2018, 07:17:10 am
Ah - I see what you mean. Magnified part of the photo attached.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 17, 2018, 08:07:29 am
Can you see horizontal lines on the slipway......ridges to provide a grip ?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 17, 2018, 09:02:54 am
Yes but it’s frustratingly unclear to be sure. Another consideration is that the 1879 map shows an old oyster bed ‘wall’ ridge around point that the left ridge appears in the photo?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 18, 2018, 08:26:25 am
Hi guys,

I see this thread continues to intrigue. I can't see the slip way you guys are speaking about.

My fourpence worth: I am still convinced the two hangars are rigid construction and on the sea side not riverside. I disagree with Brian's blue circle location and I believe it is on the same line of sight but further distance - ie where I earlier stated, on the corner of Ferry Road / Old Fort Road junction where the Coastguards properties used to be  http://www.shorehambysea.com/blockade-coastguard-station/ , and adjacent to the Lifeboat House that as Nelson says, was used for aviation use (and presumably had easy access). The bungalows between us and Ripley are evident and nothing is to be seen beyond the hangars.  I think the other reason to doubt a riverside location is that West of the footbridge offers little value as a launch area - indeed the undeveloped Watercraft site would be a better choice, but that is still not as good as a seaside hangar - especially as if constructed for trials they would need to be for launch/landing at sea, and if for operational reasons they would be for shipping protection as Lofty suggests - again sea access the priority.  Also note that the Shoreham-based concrete RAF tender that was mentioned earlier would be recovering from the sea... as there would be no need for a tender if they were recovering from a river due to the proximity to a slipway IF there was a hangar on the river front.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 18, 2018, 09:50:48 am
Yes, I would have thought on the beach Spinalman but my first reaction to your thoughts was that there were too many existing bungalows in the area as well as the old coastguard/blockade cottages as shown on the 1912 map. But – could it be that the hangars were what hastened the demolition of the cottages? Once the cottages were removed the ground area left (without tremoving any bungalows) would have been big enough to take even those large hangars – the bungalows shown in the same area on the 1931 map (coloured red) were obviously built later.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 18, 2018, 10:11:29 am
Hi Nelson,

I think all map references are especially suspect in this location and especially during this period. The maps we have seen are often revisions or 20 years out of date either way, and bungalows here were often temporary, and of course the beach properties were built, demolished, built again during the war and again afterwards.   So some plots in and around Ferry Road have seen 5 or 6 properties in the space of 50 years.  The maps don't seem to bear much correlation to equivalent date aerial photos. Whilst the hangars could have been demolished without a trace, the concrete pad would have been less easy to remove... I wonder if anything remained?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 18, 2018, 06:57:22 pm
Britain from Above aerial photos seem to show - not just the footprint but the concrete ramp as well.Seems to settle it I guess.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 09:26:29 am
By Jove! I think you have the conclusive proof there Nelson!

I have had a revisit the OS maps and have tried to provide an accurate marker on current plots. This is my best estimate based on the ramp and the homes that were demolished prior to WWII.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 09:30:53 am
Curiously the 1949 detail shows posts in the front of the ramp.  And secondly there is another walled ramp to the East that sits closer to the sea... I wonder if this was a later extension or a separate structure?

Nelson. How big is your spade? Fancy nipping over the bridge and shifting the shingle to find the concrete ramp?

There is a certain irony in that the Council are about to embark on laying another £100,000 of plastic boardwalk over this bit yet are oblivious to the potential archaeological discovery beneath. Oh well - add that to the newly buried Pill Boxes that are lost forever at the airport!
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 19, 2018, 12:50:03 pm
My James Bond-like days of butch antics like that are well and truly over I’m afraid Spinalman. I am a bit concerned about the loss of the airport pill boxes though – I hadn’t heard about that. I see the official progress report states that they will ‘remain as islands’ – hasn’t that happened?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 12:52:54 pm
I am a bit concerned about the loss of the airport pill boxes though – I hadn’t heard about that. I see the official progress report states that they will ‘remain as islands’ – hasn’t that happened?
There is a lively spat on FB about some of the pillboxes being carefully archaeologically explored, recorded, photographed and then covered in a few tons of earth to "preserve" them and prevent damage from vandals.  There was PR statement about intending to make islands of them but word has it (and I am not in Shoreham so can't confirm) that they buried them and the PR was all talk.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 12:54:59 pm
I bet whoever built that swimming pool will have had to dig through a few feet of concrete!

What is interesting is that the Western ramp is there in 1924. The additional eastern ramp is there in 1949... built after the hangars had been removed. So why would anyone invest in building a second ramp (between 1927 and 1946) to be adjacent a redundant but servicable ramp to the West?  It is evident in 1946. Was there a temporary, bigger seaplane base there during WWII possibly?  we know that there was a Walrus Squadron of Search and Rescue at Shoreham - Would it make some sense to have amphibious aircraft on the beach?

Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 01:12:36 pm
RNAS Newhaven has a website. Maybe Shoreham was an annexe?

http://www.cherrymortgages.com/historic_britain/RAF_Newhaven_Seaford_Bay_Air_Station_WWI.htm

The photo of the hangars looks, to me, to be very similar to Shoreham.(120ft x 50ft – approx. 36.6m x 15.25m)... and the layout would fit at Shoreham. Newhaven opened in 1917 and disbanded in 1919.
Interestingly, Newhaven was surveyed by SAS in 2009.
One of Newhaven's bigger hangars is still in use- in Wimbledon.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 19, 2018, 02:29:14 pm
Do you find that after a while doubt starts to creep in about things you were sure of to begin with? I’m having one of those moments now – the 1949 image shows wooden piles in front of the ‘ramp’ that surely would have impeded aircraft there. Additionally there appears to be a wall on the seaward side, not a ramp. Look at the 1924 photo, that seems to have a wall too that would have prevented aircraft from being wheeled up there? Were they after all merely sea defences for the properties behind?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 02:47:02 pm
Do you find that after a while doubt starts to creep in about things you were sure of to begin with? I’m having one of those moments now – the 1949 image shows wooden piles in front of the ‘ramp’ that surely would have impeded aircraft there. Additionally there appears to be a wall on the seaward side, not a ramp. Look at the 1924 photo, that seems to have a wall too that would have prevented aircraft from being wheeled up there? Were they after all merely sea defences for the properties behind?

Hi Roger,

Yes I did look and check. Those sea defence piles/groynes are not in the 1920's photos. The western ramp has posts that could be demountable, and are most probably retrospective installation ( for windbreaks, remnant of garden fence?).    Earlier the Western ramp appears to have been entirely walled at some time - presumably new owners wished to enclose their plot of two houses. (to avoid a council assuming it was theirs and build a plastic boardwalk on it.)
The 1924 image also shows a pedestrian access through the centre of the seaward wall, a rail carriage on the plot and a marquee on the grass. I am guessing both the houses were maybe using that as access to the sea. Maybe they were a holiday camp /guest houses. Timaru and Lalerne

As for the wall to the eastern ramp - look at the people clustered on that right hand bit - are they on a ramp or sitting on the lowest part of a wall. What is more interesting is there seems to be a full width step in the ramp at the back...  So what would be the reason to build such a structure after 1927 and before 1946?   Leisure?   Edit: Looking to the East then the now demolished Lido (extant in 1938 but gone in 46)  may explain why they built the Eastern Ramp/structure.  I can only think they tried to Butlinfy the beach to be thwarted by the war.

I think the fundamentals are correct:

We have a clear image of two hangars in 1921-1923. We have a concrete pad and ramp that was there in 1924.  Both structures look identical to a similar one at Newhaven.  We have a seaplane tender being stationed at Shoreham Harbour during the war.  and we know that Piffard had a plane in the old Lifeboat station adjacent to our site.   What other post-war austerity reason could anyone have to build such structures?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Nelson on October 19, 2018, 04:04:13 pm
Thank you Paul, the dream is still alive! (well, the discovery of a possible seaplane site anyway)
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 04:06:38 pm
Thank you Paul, the dream is still alive! (well, the discovery of a possible seaplane site anyway)
maybe mention it to SAS or Newhaven Museum... they might send Tony Robinson to dig up the beach.
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 19, 2018, 05:36:25 pm
Surely in the annals of the war department they must have some records of it ?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: Spinalman on October 19, 2018, 05:54:17 pm
Surely in the annals of the war department they must have some records of it ?
Are you volunteering to look up the annals?
Title: Re: No - it can't be!
Post by: johnjohn on October 20, 2018, 08:11:49 am
We can have a try....I wonder if the Royal Flying Corps have any local records....I knew one of the Shoreham Pilots boatmen,John Ayling,who used to fly with them but unfortunatly he is not around these days
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Spinalman on October 23, 2018, 04:56:24 pm
This Newspaper extract refers to the plans for a seaplane station in 1913:

Brighton Seaplane Station. An important scherne is on foot to construct hydroplane station at Southwick, near Brighton. A company connected with Bungalow Town have formulated plans for certain improvements and the construction liangars. Tliev are negotiation ...

Published: Friday 12 September 1913
Newspaper: Luton Times and Advertiser
How this ties in with Volks' temporary canvas hangars at Paston Place Seaplane Station is unknown:
http://regencysociety-jamesgray.com/volume6/source/jg_06_089.html

This Newspaper extract refers to the existence of sheds in 1922:

The rapidity with which bungalows are springing up at Shoreham and Bungalow Town is ..... of the ever-increasing popularity and wealth the district. Where the seaplane shads stood before they were dismantled a short time ago is now ...


Published: Saturday 13 May 1922
Newspaper: Worthing Herald
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Umbra on October 23, 2018, 08:28:32 pm
Nicely done Spinalman. I've been searching the BNA archives for most of the day and didn't come across that article.
It's still difficult to understand how their existence has been "hidden" to us for so long.
I suppose the search goes on for photos and descriptions. We'll, it does for me!
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Nelson on October 24, 2018, 12:32:30 pm
Superb Spinalman - Umbra, yes certainly we're all still very much interested in finding more on this.
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Nelson on October 30, 2018, 09:10:43 am
Quite a few developments have occurred since the last post. Newspaper reports of the time do mention the seaplane shed but a big surprise (for me) is that the hangars were not on the beach where we expected but further up above Beach Road.
It seems we are now left with the unlikely thought that aircraft were wheeled from the hangars on trolleys across Beach Road and on to the beach – surely an impractical arrangement?
In the event the intended development may not have been completed due to the war’s end but for what it is worth we’ve put together a short article together with the photographic evidence for anyone that may be interestedhttp://www.shorehambysea.com/shorehams-mystery-seaplane-base//
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Spinalman on November 01, 2018, 10:54:45 pm
I knew we'd find another reference to the hangars, in plain sight. Here is the Bungalow Town Property Map of 1917:
http://www.shorehambysea.com/bungalow-town-property-map-index/
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Nelson on November 02, 2018, 06:08:39 pm
Of course - well spotted spinalman!
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: johnjohn on November 02, 2018, 07:25:40 pm
Ditto!....I guess the Old Coastguard site was cleared to give a clear run to the sea.
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Spinalman on November 02, 2018, 08:08:27 pm
This is my best estimate footprint based on the photos, the concrete footings / remains and the bungalows/Bank in vicinity.  Plan superimposed over 1946 OS sheet, and 2015 Google Earth
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Spinalman on November 02, 2018, 08:11:39 pm
Ditto!....I guess the Old Coastguard site was cleared to give a clear run to the sea.
I bet they got through a fair number of pram wheels pushing the planes over Beach Road, and shingle....

Seriously though. Newhaven used wooden railway sleepers to build a jetty to the water.
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: johnjohn on November 03, 2018, 08:19:41 am
I would have thought that operating from the river would have been better with calmer water and an airspeed boost being obtained from a following tide,perhaps the proximity of the Norfolk Bridge prevented this when heading into the prevailing SWly wind and the footbridge in the other direction.  Launching from the beach must only have been possible at near low tide unless on a very calm day due to the swell and breakers.
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Spinalman on November 04, 2018, 12:58:52 pm
Launching from the beach must only have been possible at near low tide unless on a very calm day due to the swell and breakers.

Looking at the Newhaven base photos there were a lot of seaplane photos with the aircraft tipped up into the sea.  Certainly these were dangerous aircraft in anything other than ideal sea conditions.
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Spinalman on November 04, 2018, 01:01:54 pm
This is my best guess for the hangars and the footprint of the concrete pad - overlayed a c.1940's aerial where some subsequent bungalows appear to have been built directly on the pad and then later demolished for WWII. Below is the same aerial with the post 1924 bungalow footprints highlighted (locations taken from 1931 OS Map). The yellow denotes the whole plot on one that explains the ingress of vegetation in the specific part of the hangar. 1927 aerial of bungaalows before gardens had been planted.
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Nelson on November 19, 2018, 07:34:28 am
At last – hard work by Howard Porter has finally found definitive photo evidence of what we were all looking for………….
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: johnjohn on November 19, 2018, 07:41:39 pm
Congratulations !.....a large piece of the jigsaw....it does look as if its in the last stages of demolition, the photographer wished to keep a historical record before it went completely ?
Title: Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
Post by: Spinalman on November 19, 2018, 11:11:26 pm
This is my estimate of footprint and camera angle.