dark light

Bradburger

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 736 through 750 (of 1,381 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: SM520 – High Power Engine Run #1177530
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Four year restoration?

    A little economic with the actualitรฉ. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Mark

    Yes, I must admit, I thought it was a little longer!

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Spitfire ID reqd #1177891
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Looking on Google maps, there is a Spit parked on the grass at Cambridge Airport….

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=52.210633,0.180387&spn=0.000348,0.001031&t=h&z=20

    Anyone know which one it is……?

    Interesting!

    Looks like BM597/G-MKVB owned by the Historic Aircraft Collection.

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Warhawks of the Mighty Eighth #1179752
    Bradburger
    Participant

    *bump*

    Due to a referring post on another forum I discovered that the image I’d posted above had disappeared… so I’ve replaced it and have also taken the opportunity to bump the thread…

    Fade to Black…

    Many thanks for bumping this up as I missed it first time around!

    And I don’t even recall seeing that picture in Aeroplane! ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: You tube footage – Taste? #1183816
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Whilst the rights and wrongs of posting accident clips is debatable, my main concern with these clips is the crass, ill informed and insensitive comments posted by most on YouTube.

    And as for watching an accident on video that you actually witnessed, I don’t see anything wrong with that if it helps you come to terms with what you saw happen in front of you with your own eyes.

    On that note, I recall reading a newspaper report about the crash of RM689 at Woodfood in 1992, and was a bit suprised to see that it mentioned that Dave Moore’s wife actually watched the footage of her husbands last moments, as she felt it was a form of closure and the right thing to do.

    Each to their own as they say.

    I dare say there are some people who watch these clips for a kick, but there are also others who have in an interest in display flying and display safety, and watch them as a matter of interest.

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: P7350 at DX #1193137
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Thanks for the HU!

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Spotted #1195004
    Bradburger
    Participant

    A red Beaver looking thingy with the reg G-EVLE twice this afternoon, firstly to the south just over an hour ago heading towards Dunsfold, and about ten minutes ago heading in the same direction, this time to land there. ๐Ÿ˜€

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Me-163 Komet (VF241) + Spitfire Mk.IX (S/N EN498) #1196313
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Wait a minute!

    do you have for it any explication?I think it was IXc in 1943, but is possible that in 44 or 45 it had wing type C

    Mikone,

    It might come as a suprise, but there was actually no ‘c’ type wing fitted to the MKIX!

    If you take a look in the archives, you’ll find a very long and interesting thread on the subject (I’m pretty sure you were in on it too Daz,but it was along time ago!), and it was concluded that the ‘c’ wing on the MKIX didn’t exist, and indeed, it was clear that there was no official ‘b’ or ‘c’ wing designation for MKIX’s in any of the official Air Publications!

    However, when the new wing with 2x20mm cannon & 2×0.5 inch machine guns (the 4x.303’s being deleted) was fitted to later production MKIX’s, the ‘e’ prefix was added to indicate those aircraft fitted with that wing, as can be seen in the Air Ministry Pilots notes for example.

    It seems that over the years, historians and the like have incorrectly carried over the ‘c’ suffix (and also the ‘b’) to the earlier MKIX’s that where fitted with the 2x20mm cannons & 4x.303 machine gund from the ‘c’ wing MKV, even though no such designation officially existed!

    Being an aircraft in the EN range, it would have originally had the earlier wing, as the ‘e’ wing wasn’t introduced until 1944, although I suppose if for any reason the original wings were replaced later on, it could have ended up with ‘e’ wings from a later aircraft!

    Maybe are resident Spitfire experts can chime in and confirm.

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: No, not THAT Spitfire low pass. #1206524
    Bradburger
    Participant

    I say digitally manipulated for sure.

    But what the heck, it’s a bit of fun so thanks for posting Mark!

    Here’s a couple of genuine take off shots, albeit from a different angle to the photo in question : –

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rolls-Royce/Supermarine-389-Spitfire/1069190/M/

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rolls-Royce/Supermarine-389-Spitfire/1031712/L/

    It seems that the tailwheel usually retracts before the main gear, if not fully. And from memory and looking at videos of Spits with retractable tailwheels during the retract sequence, this seems to be the case. Of course there is the chance that it could fail to retract, but I think the eagle eyed have picked up on other things that prove it’s been doctored.

    The original image background could be RAF Fairford

    PS853 imaged at Fairford during 2007

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Supermarine-389-Spitfire/1290019/L/

    TJ

    I think you’re right! ๐Ÿ™‚

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Spitfire Odds-n-Ends #1222944
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Engines!

    The only problem with this aircraft being MK629 (and I’m not saying that it isn’t) is that its production record shows it to have been built as an LFIX – shouldn’t it have clipped wings?

    The only MH*29 and MK*29 aircraft which were standard Mk IXs and not LFIXs were MH329 and MH829 – but there is no record of either serving with 154 Squadron.

    No, not necessarily. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    The F, LF, & HF prefixes were for the type of engine fitted and not for the type of wingtips.

    F (M61), (63 & 63A) LF (M66) & HF (M70).

    In theory you could have clipped wings on all of the above if operational needs were so. And with today’s airworthy MKIX’s it’s quite a possibility, as in the case of MK912 when it was first flew!

    Nice pics btw Jack, and good to see you posting here.

    Cheers

    Paul

    Bradburger
    Participant

    Very interesting read.

    I don’t know if you’ve come across the WWII Aircraft Performance Testing site before, but the Spitfire I page makes for interesting reading.

    I agree that it’s been difficult to find the performance figures for a MKI at the time of the BoB, but I think
    the RAE figures at +12lbs Boost should give a good indication of what they would have been.

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Eastbourne 2008. All four days from Beachy Head #501060
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Crap My ****!

    Well in view of having received only two comments, I can only conclude that my pics are c–p.

    Martin:)

    Er, I don’t think so! ๐Ÿ˜€

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Spotted #1231848
    Bradburger
    Participant

    Was there a passenger in the back? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I hope so, as he’s now enroute via South West trains back home! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Spotted #1232394
    Bradburger
    Participant

    B25 just south of Horsted Keynes this afternoon heading from East to West, presumably from Holland to Dunsfold.

    Regards,

    Dan

    Yep, that sounds about right! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I’ll hopefully be seeing her tomorrow! ๐Ÿ™‚

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Spitfire IX with short carb intake #1232398
    Bradburger
    Participant

    How about the early tailplane/elevator?

    Yes.

    Oh, that will be nice to see for a change! ๐Ÿ™‚

    Just out of interest, could the restorers use the earlier type (as fitted to the MKI, II, V VI & early IX’s), elevator?

    As I mentioned above, it seems the CAA Airworthiness Approval Notes for the VIII,IX XI & XVI’s use this AP to include the necessary modifications in a restoration that they consider relevant to the airworthiness of the aircraft in question, and I note that the fitting of the later increased horn balanced elevator is usually on the list.

    I know it was designed to improve the handling in pitch, but if you wanted to restore an early MKIX to the condition it was when it left the factory, and it happened to have the earlier type elevator (which I’m sure BR601 did), would the CAA (or which ever country’s aviation authority is responsible for airworthiness requirements) not approve it?

    Perhaps I’ve already answered my question when I referenced the type of tailplane/elevator fitted to the airworthy MKV’s, or is this just the owner/restorers choice so the pitch handling is better?

    Cheers

    Paul

    in reply to: Dunsfold Wings & Wheels – 24th August 2008 #1233328
    Bradburger
    Participant

    I’m lookig forward to attending this airshow, my first ever visit to Dunsfold. Dissapointed that the Vulcan and Swordfish cannot make it, if this is true??

    I see the W&W display list has been updated to include news of the Vulcan’s U/C problem.

    http://www.wingsandwheels.net/air_display.asp

    Fly.Buy,

    This is where Lee Howard (who posts here and is involved with RNHF) said that the Swordfish would not be appearing.

    http://forum.planetalk.net/viewtopic.php?t=6713

    A shame, but I still hope you enjoy you first visit to Dunsfold!

    Cheers

    Paul

Viewing 15 posts - 736 through 750 (of 1,381 total)