I really don’t understand how it doesn’t fit in with the Huey, B52 or Phantom…

I think the latter are owned by IWM, whereas the F-100 and T-33 are on loan from NMUSAF. I may be wrong however…

Sadly the Duxford F-100 will not be there long now…

It’s odd that it covers a range of military aircraft but you could have an old turbo prop machine and just carry on!

Two key phrases: “rubber coated diaphragm” and “not lifed by the manufacturer” – both need to be considered together, since I assume that this relates to engines where both statements are satisfied. I assume therefore that excluded engines (of all gas turbine types, including turboshaft and turboprop) either have lifed pump assemblies (not unusual in more modern engines) or do not feature this type of diaphragm.

I will never forget seeing them at Goodwood revival 2014, the only time I saw the team flying

Ditto! Slightly overshadowed by more exotic machinery on the ground, but still a great sight.

What is needed is proper administration of the U.K loan airframes. That would allow the likes of Lashenden to dispose of its machines and the groups that have machines falling apart to make sensible decisions with them . With the departure of the F-100 -we will be left with all the others outside !

…and a possibility to retain this A-10 permanently, given the right assurances.

But Ex Brat does have a point: the published “works of others” regarding XP-51G repeated the oft-plagiarised ‘Merlin 145’ statement, whereas the primary source doc revealed it to be 14SM.

Helpful suggestions should never be discouraged, but it’s a fine line between that and the “I just Googled it” response.

Saw the Midair fleet this morning: Canberra and at least one Hunter (possibly both – couldn’t quite make it out in the current ‘challenging’ weather conditions!) are parked outside, no canopy covers etc. I’m assuming that ingress of rain could be a problem.

And with a lot of local storm damage (and storm Imogen still ongoing) I’m hoping that they’ll still be there when it all blows over!

Detective,

I believe that the naming by the RAF is true. US aircraft did not have official names until early in WW2, when it was realized that the official designations might give away too much information, such as the state of development i.e. P-51A, P-51B, P-51C… The attack version, A-36 that was the first large-scale order for US use, was initially to be named Invader (later used by the A-26), but renamed to match the fighter.

Roger

In danger of thread creep here, but is this a debate on Mustangs or engines? I don’t see the relevance of the aircraft name when it would seem that the original query was solely in respect of an engine type?

(I thought A-36 was Apache btw 🙂 )