Yeah, I know I know, it's really pitiful when compared to people who have like 5,271,009 examples of the MkII...or even the TR M35. I blame money and time.by Composite
Yeah, I know I know, it's really pitiful when compared to people who have like 5,271,009 examples of the MkII...or even the TR M35. I blame money and time.
I have a meager five examples.....hardly worth having really to use for a meaningful comparison.
Does anyone have any info in the smooth shells being of balistic as well as non balistic types?
Regards,
Jerry
Whateverits just an opinion.
“I blame money and time”.........ok, I admit, I have too much time......’trouble is, ‘no money!
The only in-print material worth looking at is in Locke's BRITISH AIRBORNE HEADDRESS, which includes actual images of an original test document. The document is ARMY PERSONNEL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT TRIAL REPORT No 38/75, which refers to TROOP TRIAL PARACHUTISTS HELMET Trial No 131/73. I am reasonably assuming that '75' and '73' are the years involved.
Anyway, in DESCRIPTION OF HELMET we have -
(a) SHELL. The ballistic shell is compression-moulded from resin impregnated nylon textile, giving ballistic protection similar to that provided by the steel helmet. It is shaped to the head, with sufficient breadth to allow the wearing of the infantry headset under the helmet. The shell is provided in three sizes.
I'll skip LINER and HEADBAND ASSEMBLY for the moment and go direct to
(d) CHINSTRAP A chinstrap with chincup and neckstrap, similar in design to the Airborne helmet, made in nylon webbing, is provided for jumping. As this chinstrap cannot be worn with a repirator an alternative elasticated chinstrap has been designed for use on the ground.
Section (d) is important because it and the accompanying photo from the file show we're looking at the earliest version, *before* what we know as the Thetford with the green vinyl straps. I hadn't properly grasped this ebfore, but its clear from this that the shell was seen as 'ballistic' in the sense of having real protective qualities. This goes against some recieved wisdom (which includes thoughts on decaying orbit within my own little head) which seems to have it that the HPLW is essentially a 'bump helmet' only. Or did things change later and the shell was no longer classed as genuinly ballistically protective. I dunno. It may be that everything we knew was wrong. Why was it such a big deal that wearing the Para helmet was officially discouraged on active service in recent years?
Whatever, there are no further clues in the Locke book. There is reference to later production helmets having a rougher finish with better paint-retention on the bolts, and the later more commonly seen cloth straps, but nothing as regards ballistic qualities. Interestingly there is a reference to later-production Thetford helmets having improved paint-retaining bolts - which perhaps shuts up people who claim that not all early Thetford helmets have shiny bolts , based on seeing later examples.
The trouble wih all this is we are dealing with little knowledge and lots of opinion and sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty damned low.
Re the Ballistic-ness....could this just be a developmental / progress thing?....the 6A is said to be better than the 6...but the 6 was OK in its time.
... but a version BEFORE the thick greenies?????.....this just gets better and better
Looks like this puts to bed the shiny bolt issue as you say.
Oh and I really like “HPLW”......
Yeah yeah, HPLW was that sort of ring to it. I'm willing to adopt it. Along with HP of course. (good grief).
As far as 'improved ballisticness' (which I am *not* willing to adopt...) goes, well we know that the Mk6A was produced specifically with that in mind and probably because it was a bit of a rush job it turned out a great heavy lump. I suppose if we knew anything worth knowing about the actual composition of the later HPs then we'd be getting somewhere, but I've never seen anything that demonstrates conclusively that there was any change other than a bit of roughening-up. Bloody hell, someone must know this stuff!
The 'earliest'version we're referring to here is one I've gone on about before, mainly because of foolishly missing out buying one a couple of years ago. It's really just what we know as the Thetford but with thin nylon straps similar to those found on very eary Mk6. Very rare now, makes TR M35s seem bountifully common.
Thanks Greg for pointing out what is in the Lock book which I do own and have "read" on many occasions....though obviously without taking in what is actually written.
There is an early version currently on ebay with the odd wide straps similar to those seen on the Ni helmet. Starting price is £249 with a BIN of £499. I still don't have one and unless I find one local for a more sensible price I doubt I ever will.
Regards,
Jerry
Whatever
I'm attaching three pics of the earliest (so far as we know) Para LW as discussed in the Test Report quoted earlier. These pics are from Ebay USA from several years back and are of the helmet I failed to get because I procrastinated and fretted about import tax (what an idiot).
As you can see it has the normal smooth shell, and there is a tag from Malcolm Campbell (Plastics) Ltd who did some of the early (probably test) production. The straps aren't wonderfully well shown unfortunately, but having seen other pics on FB there is no doubt they are thin nylon strips which probably deserved all the bad reports they got; the straps were the main defect found in testing which essentially led to the big vinyl ones, which in turn were replaced. (Which came first - the NI or the Para straps///that's a good question!) Incredible how getting a simple chinstrap right took so much faffing about.
Those early shells with the vinyl straps are becoming more expensive by the day, though notice how they rarely sell at those inflated start prices...the same helmets recur again and again on EBay. I genuinely feel it has more to do with the greater visibility of collectors on things like FB with concurrently more info on what's desirable or presumed rare. No doubt the actual buying constituency is bigger now and demand drives price, obviously (I got my first back in 2000 for twenty quid...) but I do believe some of these dealers are asking ridiculous sums. Proved by the fact the damned things don't sell! But then again you have the para factor, the Falklands factor, the genuine scarcity factor...but hell will freeze over before I pay £200 or more for one. And I really want them.
here is another from Mac's collection shared on FB
"I would say this is one of the first models of the lightweight helmet Parachutist.
Initially the outer was thought to have been sprayed. It hasn’t and is authentic Matt green from manufacture, very unusual.
The inner liner is fabric covered in fluffy black material and feels very firm, possibly a harder foam or made entirely from cork.
The inner padding has never had a front leather sweat pad, which is unusual.
Nylon chinstrap and special brackets- not HSAT ones.
Finally it is marked as large but I would say possibly bigger. The helmet shape is also unusual slightly wider and has a bit of a HSAT shape to it, like a pudding bowl excluding the bottom curvature. Came as a shock as I expected it to be similar to my other trial helmet."
Regards,
Jerry
Whatever
2 Northern Ireland examples have dropped onto EBay in the last 2 weeks.......’just like London buses......
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks