Goa Firefly

Probably nothing in there at all.

I think that this “Firefly” is a fine example of a airfield decoy.
or maybe its like the TV ad for peugeot where the bloke bashes his taxi about to make it look like one!!:D
You can’t seriously think that there would be a Griffen behind those exhausts can you:D

Originally posted by Flood
Oh – I see! Now you can claim that we were both right about the propellors;)!:D 😀 😀

More pix, anybody? This is fun!

Flood.

Oh go hang your arse on a cactus, you know what I mean. The original bone of contention I was being pulled up for was the fact that I didn’t think the spinner was wrong but I definitely think that one of those prop baldes doesn’t go with the other two

Originally posted by mike currill
Is it my eyesight or is one of those prop blades opposite handed to the other two?

Oh – I see! Now you can claim that we were both right about the propellors;)!:D 😀 😀

More pix, anybody? This is fun!

Flood.

Is it my eyesight or is one of those prop blades opposite handed to the other two?

dont know about the u/c – Another picture here.

Anybody care to speculate what aircraft type donated the under carriage to this Firefly project?

It has a familiarity to it from my scale model days as a schoolboy but I can’t make it click – sort of ‘Ansonesque’.

What are the possibilties in the Indian Airforce/Navy inventories?

Mark

Originally posted by Flood
Believe the Aussies only had the FR4 AS5, and AS6 variants – but I stand to be corrected.
Anyway…
The nose profile loosely matches that of the AS/T7 – with the extended bit out to the prop – no other version had that. Should we ignore that it looks like it was constructed from papier mache?
The prop is three-bladed – which the AS/T7 wasn’t. It is also too long and not pointed enough for any version I have found pictures of. All the pix I can find show Firefly props revolving anti-clockwise from the pilots view – this one appears to be clockwise.
The engine stubs – goes without saying!
The tail only looks like the early versions – the FR.IVs onwards all had a curvy tail except the Mk7 version which was slab-like and square. And this one doesn’t even have a rudder – look at the first pic!

I can’t work out what might be original Firefly and what has been fabricated – the front canopy and parts of the observers canopy? A bit of the rear fuselage? The pilots seat?;)
Now, if Guzzineil has any more pictures…

Flood.

To be honest it is such a mess we could be here for the next decade trying to figure it out.

Believe the Aussies only had the FR4 AS5, and AS6 variants – but I stand to be corrected.
Anyway…
The nose profile loosely matches that of the AS/T7 – with the extended bit out to the prop – no other version had that. Should we ignore that it looks like it was constructed from papier mache?
The prop is three-bladed – which the AS/T7 wasn’t. It is also too long and not pointed enough for any version I have found pictures of. All the pix I can find show Firefly props revolving anti-clockwise from the pilots view – this one appears to be clockwise.
The engine stubs – goes without saying!
The tail only looks like the early versions – the FR.IVs onwards all had a curvy tail except the Mk7 version which was slab-like and square. And this one doesn’t even have a rudder – look at the first pic!

I can’t work out what might be original Firefly and what has been fabricated – the front canopy and parts of the observers canopy? A bit of the rear fuselage? The pilots seat?;)
Now, if Guzzineil has any more pictures…

Flood.

Flood I am aware of which picture you mean and I still maintain that some RAN Fireflies did have a similar spinner as my book contains a photo of 2 of them with that type of spinner.

Mike…. Not that picture – which is of a Canadian Navy Firefly – but the monstrosity at the top of the page!:rolleyes: The one with ‘Indian Navy’ in huge letters beneath the tail…
I may be a pig-ignorent nutter with an Anna fixation;) but I do know the difference between the Firefly varients!!!

Best wishes…

Flood.

Originally posted by Flood
Thanks for the pictures, Guzzineil – don’t stop posting them!

Here is one from a similar-ish angle:-

Look at the rear canopy and the exhusts! The tail is too pointy!
If Duxfordhawk wants to fly in her…:rolleyes: Good luck to him!

Flood.

The Exhaust stubs don’t look too far out and I think you will find that the fin and rudder are Mk 1 standard rather than the Mk4/5 one we have become accustomed too with the sadly departed WB271. Also the Firefly was griffon engined so the anti-clockwise prop is correct. Having said that much in its defence I have to agree that the spinner looks too long and the undercarriage is most definitely wrong. Having looked at my book on the Firefly I have discovered that the spinner is not as wrong as it looks as some of the RAN ones were fitted with a similar one.

Yuck! Sorry, i know these guys mean well and they have done a great job in preserving this airframe for future generations, but, its a bit of a bodge-it-and-scarper by the looks of things!

Oh well, as i say, at least it is being preserved, unlike some of the now ‘relics’ we have over here.

Back to the Firefly… i always preffered the shape of the later marks to the Mk.1.
WB271 was a beautiful machine. That is the Firefly shape most familar and visually pleasing to me. AS.5 was the designation IIRC?

Originally posted by Mark12
Photos of the Mk VIII in India will shortly be posted on Jagan’s Warbirds of India site. Serious attention to the windscreen and canopy area are required. 🙁

Err… Mark …

>Photos of the Mk VIII in India will shortly be posted on Jagan’s

How do you know? :d (Not that i mind…)

Just a few tidbits about the spitfire – its not an GRP construction but a ‘rods’ and ‘metalsheets’ type of restoration.

yes it does require some serious attention in the canopy, windshield area – and also on the wing control surfaces and wing trailing edges area.

They could not get any one in India to mould the canopy, the only facility that could do so said they were too busy making canopys for MiGs! – so they moulded one in the back of the hangar. They could have got it right if the template they made in the first place was good enough. Ditto with the windshield.

‘+’ves
1. Good representation of the Spitfire – when there was none
2. Preservation of the relics for a future rebuild
3. Done on a volunteer basis and ‘zero cost’.
4. some 60-70% of the original ac saved – Wings (Sans wingtips and trailing surfaces). Central fuselage, Engine, and tail section.

‘-Ves’
1. No way compares with the quality and restoration as done in places like UK.

Photos online (hopefully by 1st Jan)

The firefly IIRC is not actually a crash relic..I think it survived as a complete fuselage (sans engine) somewhere in the navy’s workshops. Can anyone take a look at the wings and let me know?

Originally posted by Tom-W
I think we need to start caring for the airframes on external display in this country a bit better first duxfordhawk, Steve Young has grabbed our attention with the Duxford Shack, at least the Goan airframes aren’t deteriorating as fast as they would over here.

Tom.

I do agree i had also noticed that Firefly doesnot look quiet right but from that airframe maybe something could be restored after all they seem to be able to amazing restorations these days,I hope the Duxford shack will survive maybe its down to the public to do something.

Originally posted by RobAnt
It is meant to be the same link, Flood – I think you missed the point of my post, which is that it is sometimes better the use the link button, then simply drop in a plain language link, as this will allow you to use a short title.

No problem.

Sorry – I did missunderstand. In fact I have had occasions where I have put in a link but others have just thought it was just a bit of text underlined… And you can’t even change the colour!

Still think the replica-maker had a Firefly verbally described to him though…!;)

Flood.

It is meant to be the same link, Flood – I think you missed the point of my post, which is that it is sometimes better the use the link button, then simply drop in a plain language link, as this will allow you to use a short title.

No problem.

I could make a nicer looking small scale model replica.
Hay, perhaps I should scan a few pictures of my own and present them, though my models are abit small.

I’m starting to build bigger ones.

Thanks for posting the photos Guzzineil, its nice to see a variety.

RobAnt – have a look two posts above yours…:rolleyes:

Anybody still think it is the real deal?
Right! Lets see… The props spinner is too long, the underside of the fuselage is too rounded and deep, the wings look featureless – with none of the bits hanging off to do with the flaps (I can’t remember the name or type, but there should be a prominent bit visible on the trailing edge), the wheels are wrong, the undercarriage is from something else, and I think the prop would revolve the wrong way.
Could this have been reconstructed from bits from a firedump or scrapyard? Or even a crashsite? A combination of all three, maybe? And these bits rebuilt into something that bears a passing resemblance to a Firefly…! God I am being bitchy!

Got any of the Sealand in the background? Yes you have – just not as near the top as I thought! Sorry!

Flood.

Cor blimey folks – This is tidier Click Here