If my memory serves me correctly the bigger rudder will allow operation of the aircraft in higher crosswind situations, which nowadays when these aircraft are operated from airstrips that are not always ‘nose into wind’ you need all the help you can get! a lot of wartime airfields had no set airstrip, you just put the nose into wind & took off!
Hope that helps………….

Yep, the Mk8 Spitfire is also flying, It may pass your window going the other way!:cool:

The only mod BBMF has carried out is to replace all the double glazed perspex units ie windscreen, canopy and rear glazing with single skin units this was done many years ago probably because at that time nobody was prepared to manufacture the original units given that the a/c are no longer pressurised. The canopy however, originally was never fitted with leading edge metalwork. So the canopy is not highly modified it is just single skin rather than double skin all the dimensions are the same, they still use the original rails and locking mechanism.

The canopy on this type is very different from the normal fighter aircraftas originaly the cockpit was pressurised for high altitude PR flights, this canopy has NO framework & has a very different method of retaining the canopy to the airframe, there is, however, a metal runner mounted to the lower edge of the glazing which runs on a series of rollers & the canopy is held onto the airframe with a type of ‘clam shell’ clamping system which has a locking device just behind the pilot seat mounting frame.
Hope this helps:)

That looked a bit botched to me – unless that grass run was very short I have no idea why the aircraft was allowed to descend so close to the tarmac surface. I would have thought a slightly higher approach with time to cut the engine would have been better alround.

Yes, a really ‘botched landing’ where both pilot & pax got out OK, & the aircraft ended up with minimal damage! Pilot or no pilot, I’d like to see your effort in his position! Heaven help us if you start flying something bigger than your puddle jumpers, you just don’t have a clue!
& yes, I DO know what I’m talking about, we operate a Mustang.
The guy done good! why dis him? You said it all ‘I have no idea’!!

Just thinking further on that, here’s another possible scenario.

Because of the high price of fuel, the workshop sets the engines for absolute leanest burn allowable by the manufacturer, but after a longish period on descent at a low power setting, the engines fail to respond, an unanticipated consequence of the lean setting in these conditions on this particular day.

I seem to recall reading about this happening to a 747 in less pressing circumstances, but they had time to eventually get two engines going again and land safely.
If I was an investigator I’d be interested to know if this was the first attempt to spool these engines up subsequent to the aircraft’s descent into LHR.

GeoffR

WHAT? Good heavens! someone’s been messing with the carb again!:rolleyes:

It’s good to see that this forum still has it’s share of speculation ‘experts’ :rolleyes:

One thing that has been annoying me intensely in the reports on News 24 is the way they describe the marks where the aircraft initially contacted the ground as being “in a nearby field”.

Idiots!

Paul

P.S. Had to get that one off my chest. I feel much better now…

WHY?? Does it really matter? I should go for some ‘anger management’ if you get ‘intensely annoyed’ when folks get things wrong, However,you must be truly incandescent by some of the previous posts in this thread! 😀 😉