Is there a web based news article on the event? I´ve searched but not found.

Thanks for any forthcoming hint,
Christer

Here´s a link to a free download:

http://www.g-m-m.com/Software/WindowShades/

I haven´t tested it myself and I´m sure there are other freeware.

Christer

I use Norton Internet Security, primarily for its firewall but it also has very effective Ad Blocking. It stops just about everything except some ads that are integrated in a webpage and those flashing thingies are just annoying (like some personalized stuff that can be seen on this forum), they don´t require any action from you to continue your browsing.
Other “popup stoppers” and “ad blockers” that I have used showed empty frames that accumulated in the lower bar but this far not a single one with NIS.

Christer

About the fuel issue:

As You all know there has been a lot of different fuel qualities but today the most commonly used is AVGAS 100LL which has its origins in the AVGAS 100/130.

One difference is that AVGAS 100LL has a considerably lower contents of T.E.L. which was brought on by environmental considerations.

Less T.E.L. doesn´t equal reduced performance though, a comparision below according to U.S. specs:

73 and 80 octane = no T.E.L.
80/87 grade = 0.5cc
91/96 grade = 4.6cc
100/130 grade = 4.6cc
108/135 grade = 3.0cc
115/145 grade = 4.6cc

108/135 grade is the demonstrator of my point.

If I recall correctly, the contents of T.E.L. in AVGAS 100LL is 2.0cc.

To add to the confusion there was a change in the convention of designations:

AVGAS 100/130 gives two values, one for weak mixture (100) and one for rich mixture (130). The new convention is to only designate the fuel by its weak mixture grade.
The AVGAS 100LL actually has a rich mixture grade of 130!

The problems with the lower T.E.L. contents was in other respects, valves sticking and increased valve seat wear. It seems like this was a problem when 100LL was introduced and changes to lubricants and engines have provided the cure.

I don´t know about other countries but in sweden AVGAS 91/96UL is available, UL = Un Leaded.
Most General Aviation engines can be run on this fuel, the main exceptions being those with fuel injection.

I believe that there are two considerations:

1) The octane rating.

If a boost of +18psi can be used on 100/130 a reduction to somewhere between +6psi and +12psi might be the result in this respect if using 91/96.

2) Is the T.E.L. essential in other respects?

I´ve mentioned the valve problems but if different materials and/or valve clearance in the bushings are used it might work.

(I´m speculating a bit here!)

A few interesting? links:

http://www.shell.ca/code/products/aviation/products/fuels.html

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regunlead.html

Regards,
Christer

Edited: I found this link too:

http://autofuelstc.com/pa/LeadD-4814.html

Congratulations to our Webmaster and his team for their choise of forum engine!

I´ve been a member of another vBulletin board for a while and it works very well!

If anyone of You should have a computer query, I can recommend this place with a lot of helpful and experienced people:

http://www.windowsbbs.com/

Regards,
Christer

RE: Spitfire Question

To the best of my knowledge the electric starter on Merlins was direct cranking. It was geared to the crankshaft via the reduction gearing and the coupling was engaged by an electric solenoid.

The Coffman cartridge starters were fitted at the same position driving the same gears but via a different coupling. When the cartridge was fired the action of a piston pushed the coupling to engage it and when pressure was released in the starter it disengaged.

In neither case was a fly-wheel of any kind involved.

It is possible and in the light of this discussion probable, that there was a backup system of manually cranking the engine.

I quote from Snapper’s post:

> Starting up was accomplished with Poilu’s on the starting handles and some assistance from the aircraft batteries.

This clearly indicate no inertia fly-wheel support!
The question is at which position did the crankhandle connect to the engine? It could be connected to the rear via the supercharger drive but I don´t know. This position would keep the personnel clear of the propeller though ……

The german starters were electric inertia starters which means that an electric motor spun the fly-wheel and at sufficient RPM the pilot manually engaged a clutch to connect to the crankshaft. When operating the clutch the elctric motor had been shut off.
These starters had a manually cranking backup, as a matter of fact they didn´t have the convenience of an electric motor in the early days of its development.

HTH,
Christer

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

> If it only takes a makers plate for a Spit to be a Spit, and everything can be made, then for Gods sake somebody please find or make some makers plates of more, of Typhoons and Tempests, of Stirlings and Wimpys, of all the others.

The irony of all this is that the makers plate would probably be the cheapest and easiest item to manufacture on the aircraft but it´s the last item that is deemed unfit for flight.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

> Spitfire XVI TD248 flies from Duxford in a silver and red colour scheme after it’s rebuild by Historic Flying and very nice it is too.
You would consider it original, as it has simply been taken off a gate and repaired so it can fly (that’s probably a great injustice to the craftsmanship of the people at Historic Flying).

Well, I discussed two different issues in my post, originality and the difference between rebuild/reconstruction/new build, and I was afraid that there might be a misunderstanding.
As I understand it, most rebuilds/reconstructions involve a lot of work. Disassembly of the airframe, checks and checks of the ckecks, rectifying what needs to be, anti corrosion treatment, reassembly and so on. All the different components not to be forgotten.
I didn´t imply that a rebuild of an airframe, reusing a large proportion of the original details would be simpler or less of an achievement. On the contrary, I would think that it´s more time consuming and expensive to do.

> The Norfolk and Suffolk museum at Flixton has, in its collection, a Spitfire fuselage. It is labelled as TD248 and it is all the original fuselage skins taken from the aeroplane during its restoration. It forms a complete fuselage.
So, who has the original, Flixton or Duxford?

Flixton has the 100% (?) original skins but Duxford has TD248 totally rebuilt to modern airwortines requirements and to a high degree of originality.