Lovely.

Here are a couple I “borrowed” from The Blue Max’s collection!

The second one is also ‘HRC. The question is “what where when”??

Looks like its attempting to masquerade as a “Jenny” for a film.

Sorry, I didn’t make myself very clear. You make a similar point (and rather better) to the one I was trying to – that the canopy pretty much made it impractical to fit ejector seats to them. Hence my wondering as to when the modern systems with the detcord in the canopy first appeared.

Adrian

The British were incapable originally of “Blowing ” a strong hood for aircraft such as the early two-seat Meteors.
The next general stage was a blown hood with hood separation at the beginning of the ejection sequence- common in the early 50’s.
Going through the hood came next, with MDC really coming in during the early60s in U.K. IIRC.

The clear absence of any boundary layer splitter plate continuing forward of the intake doesn’t , in itself, discount this aircraft as being one of the Tiger family.
However, the more angular (and bigger) intake than that of a “standard” Tiger, plus the absence of the prominent cannon muzzles makes this a bit of an oddity.
The perforated baffle plate forward of the intake and the broad canopy arch makes me consider that we might well be looking at one of the rare F11F-1F Super Tigers. Thus indeed ,therefore, the evident “bump” of the more sculptured and rounded fuselage side of this variant.

All this seemingly confirmed by your image “Properties” tag.

I have heard similar , but totally unsubstantiated, stories of Messerschmitt paying Handley Page royalties throughout the war for use of the HP Slat on the Me 109.

Sounds like it could be one of the “Fly with Prudence” films.
These were (in)famous for at least two incidences of accidentally swapping airworthy and none-airworthy airframes (sharing identical serials) in demonstrations of ground incidents illustrating flight safety.
Once deliberately taxiing a perfectly serviceable Anson by mistake at high speed into soft ground and also later largely cutting through the u/c of an airworthy Spitfire in another ground “incident” demo mix up.

Bager 1968. Thank you for taking it upon yourself to speak to us all on behalf of both alertken and myself, especially as it would appear from the somewhat peurile tone of your outburst to have been well past your bedtime-even in the USA.

Another novel feature of the Trident’s undercarriage design was the sideways-retracting nosewheel, which was mounted well off-centre. This was to allow space for the Smiths autoland system and other avionics.

The joke claim at the time was that it was to avoid passenger discomfort on Autolanding ,caused by the nosewheels bumping down the centreline runway lights.
Another reason often quoted was to do with pressure hull integrity, but please don’t quote me as I don’t know.