LF363 and cannons

RE: LF363 and cannons

As Yak11Fan has already stated, it’s the owners prerogative – I would imagine that OFMC have managed to fit extra tanks into various nooks and crannies to enable their fleet to transit throughout Europe each summer. If that involves removing an aircrafts armament (which quite frankly will never be used), does that make them lunatics or dorks?

RE: LF363 and cannons

He might be entitled but I still think they must be a luntic to pull guns off somthing they have spent so much money on.

RE: LF363 and cannons

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-12-02 AT 12:30 PM (GMT)]No, the guns were fitted before AE977 went, and are still fitted to the best of my knowledge. However if they had been taken out I’m not convinced the owner deserves to be called a dork, after all he was the one with the money therefore he should be entitled to do with it as he wishes.

RE: LF363 and cannons

You mean sombody bought that gorgeous Hurricane and took the guns out? What a dork!

RE: LF363 and cannons

I’m afraid it is true, however recovery is well underway. I’m sure he’ll be back in the air and the workshop before we know it.

RE: LF363 and cannons

I heard recently that Maurice had a nasty accident whilst doing some work on his hangar,someone said he fell through the hangar roof.Does anyone know if this is true?If so,how’s he doing?
If there’s anyone reading this who is in touch with him,please pass on my regards and wish him a speedy recovery for me.

RE: LF363 and cannons

AE977 had guns fitted before she went away. A number of Warbirds these days have extra fuel capacity built into the wings in the gunbays. One exception to this although not a Hurricane or Spit is the magnificent total restoration Maurice Hammond carried out on his P51 Mustang including the manufacture of the associated weaponary.
Seen below (hopefully) at Tibenham this year.

Attachments:

RE: LF363 and cannons

Pretty much down to the individual, I think. There are various considerations which also dictate whether or not armaments are fitted; availability of correct and deactivated weapons, weight and balance implications of not having them fitted, etc.

RE: LF363 and cannons

I thought it might. Do they tend to put guns in if the owner asks?

RE: LF363 and cannons

HAC’s Spitfire V BM597 has guns in the wings.

Glenn

RE: LF363 and cannons

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-12-02 AT 12:33 PM (GMT)]She must have had Cannons, can anyone confirm this?

Besides it would look awesome with Machine guns patched over, but blown out after use.

How about actually using guns as part of its display – a few old trucks getting shot to bits would be a bit more entertaining, and the kids would love it!

Or at least recreate the Hendon days of using bags of flour!

Another thing, how many Airworthy Hurricanes (or Spits) have weapons fitted?

Attachments:

RE: LF363 and cannons

Did LF363 ever have cannons???? If not leave her as she is, why have two with the same armament. If she was origionaly fitted with guns all you would see are the red patches anyway

RE: LF363 and cannons

Yeah but LF363 hasnt got any guns, just red patches!

Besides, how can anyone prefer to see a MK2C mocked up as a 1940 example?

Also with LF363 being the only UK based Hurricane to see RAF service surely it would be better to see her as original?

RE: LF363 and cannons

i agree with Ant and Steve 363 does look good without cannons, but the “coolest” looking one is the real airplane company’s black one.

Dezz 🙂
Attachments:

RE: LF363 and cannons

I’m inclined to agree Steve,she looks best as she is.I think by having one canon-armed Hurri and one eight/twelve gun example allows the Flight to represent a wider scope of Hurricanes.

RE: LF363 and cannons

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that LF363 is right as she is. Let’s not forget the name of the unit which operates her – the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. In her current 56 Sqn 1940 scheme, she’s a perfect example of the classic Hurricane shape. The only change I’d want to see on her would be a shorter and more rounded spinner, which would be correct for 1940, but other than that, she’s a beauty – let’s just leave her as she is. 🙂