A fairly superficial answer but I’m a civil engineer not an aero engineer so I stand to be corrected. The Allison, I understand, works well at low altitude (P-40 ground attack variants) and the Merlin works well at altitude (P-51 escort variants). At a guess this is probably tied up with the supercharging arrangements. Thus if your replicas are to be used for air-shows perhaps the Allison route is the correct one. I believe it was difficult to prise Ray Hanna out of his P-40 when he had the choice of the Breitling Fighters so that has to be some sort of recommendation for the Allison.

Lots of Merlins were configured to run at lower altitudes, and produced more power than the equivalent Allison. Supercharging is not just about high altitude. Fleet Air Arm Merlin 32s in the Barracuda produced max power 1600hp at around 5,000 feet. This made for a more efficient engine and allowed for increased range.

Yes the Allison is a cleaner engine and there are a number of features that are more up to date, than on the Merlin. RR incorporated many of these features in the Griffon. Any choice should be based on availability and service support.

I can’t pick a best but here are my favourites, year 1944. Put it this way if we played war games I don’t think the opposition would have anything better.

Interceptor Spitfire XIV Fast climbing and manoeuvrable

Long range escort Mustang Fast, long legged and reasonably manoeuvrable

Battlefield air superiority Tempest V Peerless speed and manoeuvrability.

Ground attack Chose from: Typhoon, Corsair, Thunderbolt, Fockwulf 190F

Night/all-weather Mosquito Again peerless in all areas

I have just been informed that the RNHF Sea Fury VR930 was doing her first engine runs today at Yeovilton since it’s third engine rebuild.

Great news. Well done to all concerned.

Fantastic news, fingers crossed all goes well and we can have her at Duxford in July

Franck66 What has happened to your beautiful pictures, where have they gone!!!!

Paul, I’ll have a drink to Neil and I’ll give him a wave too, just as he gave us as they taxied past.

PhantomII I’m not an expert on the 110 but it seems that there was a R3 GM1 modification for the 110G. This involved removal of the nose armament to save weight. This may have been for a high altitude reconnaissance platform. There was a R6 mod as above but with 2 MG151 cannon fitted in a ventral tray as well. Photograph evidence Nil.

Certainly GM1 would not have been fitted to the Night fighter as it was overweight as it was. The DB605AS engine would have required the modification of the cowling as on the 109 and I have not seen this either. Whilst I can find no reference to MW50 being fitted it would have been of the most use to 110 in a ground attack role, and to say it was not fitted would invite correction. Almost anything and everything happened in the Luftwaffe in the last 12 months of the war, so keep asking around and someone may have the information.

???? First sentence means what exactly????

So if a (say) VC10 performs a derry turn would that be aerobatic?? A derry turn requires the aircraft to roll through the inverted. For me inverted flight = aerobatic.

My thoughts as he messed up the turn at the western end of the field was that he was flying it like a Jet. I actually mentioned this to some Dutch visitors that I was talking to. And I was not the only forum member who had these thoughts as we watched

The Firefly was initiating a roll and lost control at the inverted – how much more aerobatic do you want to get!?

No, he thought for a moment he was in a Harrier. He was not performing an Aerobatic routine, he was well away from the airfield positioning for another sedate pass down the field. This accident demonstrates as others have already said that there is an element of risk in just flying these aircraft. A Derry turn does not constitute an aerobatic routine for an aircraft such as the Firefly