If you’re in remote northwest Montana, the owner of the Seafire Mk 47 VP 441 has opened his collection to the public.
http://stonehengeairmuseum.org/
According to the admission part of the website, they do ask you to contact them ahead of time.
To quote the website ” Stonehenge Air Museum is located on private property accessed through a residential neighborhood. Therefore, in order to protect the privacy of the property owner as well as the tranquility of the neighborhood, we require all visitors to make a reservation in advance. Specific driving directions will be provided once a reservation is made.”
Other types on display include a P-51, F4U-5NL Corsair, P-40E, A-37B, a Harvard (not a T-6 Texan), C-47, and GB-2 Staggerwing Beech.
They’re not too far from me (in North American terms), about 250 miles, but this time of year, you better have a Jeep or AWD vehicle.
By: ozjag - 28th May 2016 at 04:04
I called in today. It was a great museum and I highly recommend it to anybody.
Cheers Paul
By: detective - 18th December 2015 at 21:27
…I had a brief look on google, and apparently there was some catapult trialling using the late mark Seafires for when the Westland Wyverns were expected to enter service, as they both used contra rotating props. That’s still not the same as Seafires employing the catapult “in service”.
By: J Boyle - 18th December 2015 at 16:37
Hi Mr Boyle
Thanks for the heads up, I’ll be in that area next year and will make a point of calling in now.
Cheers Paul
Glad to help.
I can also recommend a couple of restaurants and a nice place to stay in nearby Whitefish. 🙂
By: James D - 18th December 2015 at 13:36
Lovely aircraft. Ticks all my Spit/Seafire boxes – Griffon, lowback and contra-prop.
By: ozjag - 18th December 2015 at 11:09
Hi Mr Boyle
Thanks for the heads up, I’ll be in that area next year and will make a point of calling in now.
Cheers Paul
By: Mark12 - 18th December 2015 at 10:14
Seafire catapult launch.
I see the words…but I don’t see the ‘in service’ images.
Mark
By: Sopwith - 18th December 2015 at 09:10
Yes I believe it did
By: detective - 18th December 2015 at 04:21
…Hi again All .. please excuse my profound ignorance, but did the Seafire 47 ever have catapult assisted take-off ( as well as arrested landings) for carrier operations ?
…I s’pose you could tell these old girls were getting on a bit….just have a look at her “chin” LOL!
By: J Boyle - 17th December 2015 at 13:55
…By Gee .. There’s not much leeway for cocking up on that airstrip……what a lovely ‘plane she is
Probably not much worse than operating from a carrier.
And note, the berms are only on the first (or last) 1/4 of the strip, so you might be too slow to get into too much trouble.
By: Arabella-Cox - 17th December 2015 at 11:40
…By Gee .. There’s not much leeway for cocking up on that airstrip……what a lovely ‘plane she is
Yes I thought exactly the same!
At least with a Seafire 47 he doesn’t have to worry as much about the torque effect on take off!
By: detective - 17th December 2015 at 09:18
…By Gee .. There’s not much leeway for cocking up on that airstrip……what a lovely ‘plane she is
By: Mark12 - 17th December 2015 at 08:00
By: Sopwith - 16th December 2015 at 22:34
Its the sole FR.47 – being a static wouldn’t be detrimental.
True but personally I think it’s nice that it is airworthy.
By: J Boyle - 16th December 2015 at 22:29
Experimental category impossible to certify on a CAA permit.
Even if it was factory “stock” would the CAA let it operate or would it be in the same situation as Shacks, Lightnings, (and Gannet ?) ?
And please don’t get the idea that Ezell is some sort of “cowboy”, it’s a very experienced warbird shop with plenty of engineering skills in many types.
IIRC my TV reports on the aircraft, I believed they replaced the pneumatic systems with hydraulic ones, those were the types of changes made.
By: David Burke - 16th December 2015 at 22:08
Its the sole FR.47 – being a static wouldn’t be detrimental.
By: Sopwith - 16th December 2015 at 22:04
Its one of those aircraft where is still seems shortsighted of the FAAM to have not acquired it in the 1970’s.
Trouble is it would probably be a static display piece if they had acquired it , like their Seafire XVII. At least it’s a flyer now.
By: David Burke - 16th December 2015 at 21:28
Its one of those aircraft where is still seems shortsighted of the FAAM to have not acquired it in the 1970’s.
By: Mike J - 16th December 2015 at 21:07
It is very much an Ezell rebuild, with innovative engineering solutions for solving shortages of ‘weird’ British parts and making the aircraft more operable in the US environment. Perfectly legal under the FAA’s Experimental category, impossible to certify on a CAA permit.
By: Wyvernfan - 16th December 2015 at 19:45
I think MikeJ or J boyle would do better to answer that one.
Rob
By: trumper - 16th December 2015 at 19:34
Totally agree, but it has been remarked on before that it would never be allowed to fly in the UK.
Rob
Rob Why would that be,is it a paperwork issue ?
Sign In
December 14, 2015 at 6:54 pm