dark light

Supermarine305

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 337 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Aircraft on display on Horse Guards. #768345
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    No Lanc at Horseguards.

    List of displayed aircraft.

    in reply to: Surviving ex-RAF Dakotas #768351
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Demobbed is always a good first port of call.

    http://www.demobbed.org.uk/aircraft.php?type=362

    in reply to: The 'new' RAFM Hendon , where have the aircraft gone #769983
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Moggy.

    Weren’t VC-10 ‘Bob’ and the Nimrod trucked in because it was deemed in an overabundence of cuation that the runway wasn’t at Cosford long enough?

    in reply to: The 'new' RAFM Hendon , where have the aircraft gone #770681
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Motley13

    I like to think that others here are better informed than I am.

    Ah well.

    in reply to: The 'new' RAFM Hendon , where have the aircraft gone #771229
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Brian.

    I had overlooked the news that the RAF might be leaving Cosford.

    in reply to: The 'new' RAFM Hendon , where have the aircraft gone #771384
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Its easier and cheaper to fly in examples of teh larger types when they retire than dismantle and truck them in

    in reply to: The 'new' RAFM Hendon , where have the aircraft gone #774340
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    I see it now.

    I missed to more recent picture and only saw the ones before the wong floats had been fitted.

    Mystery over.

    in reply to: The 'new' RAFM Hendon , where have the aircraft gone #774371
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Before.
    And after:
    RAFM facebook picture library
    (No logging on needed)

    What are those on the Sunderland’s wings?
    They aren’t floats. Thtere are no struts but also they are the wrong shape and flared into thee underside of wings.
    They look like wartime radar pods.
    Looks like a lot of work went into them.

    Why the change?

    in reply to: Turbo Beaver Recovery (rescue?) in Canada #776279
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    So called because its a floater. 🙂

    in reply to: Brigand TF1 #778222
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Wonderful!

    Thank you very much Smirky.

    That rig is a credit to its creator

    in reply to: Spitfire Flat Hatting at Royal Ascot #779128
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    A bird strike?

    in reply to: Burma Spitfires – Any News? #781335
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Isn’t there a Heinkel 114 in a Romanian/Hungarian(?) lake

    On this forum there was a video linked that showed a Bv138 in a Noregian fjord (?) in far better nick than the one in Denmark?

    in reply to: Best French and Italian fighters? #784264
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    The Italian 5 series fighters: Fiat G.55. Macchi Mc.205 and Reggiane Re.2005 were pretty much able to compete with later allied fighters.
    But its was a case of too few and too late.

    They were good enough to raise interest, and even be operated, by Germany after the Italian armistice.

    in reply to: Jet Assist Lincoln #785023
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    Here is a picture of Dornier Do 217M Wk Nr. 56527 (AM107)
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]261018[/ATTACH]
    (c) Bill Pippin Collection.

    The ‘M’ mark had that distinctive bulbous cockpit (like the K mark). Even if am105 and 106 had pale undersides, the cockpit in Richards father’s photo seems to taper towards the nose.
    Compare a 217M with a 217E. The stepped cockpit was also seen with the nightfighter J and N marks. These had inline engines unlike the E’s.

    Its a bit of a puzzle to me: Its has dive brakes which suggests a bomber. Has inline engines (cowlings look too narrow to be radials) and that rules out Es. It appears (to me) to have the earlier stepped cockpit and that rules out Ms. Why would a nightfigher J or N have dive brakes?
    Whatever it has under its wings have wide (twin-finned??) tail units attached. And it was flying over Wiltshire in 1955 still in German markings?

    Two explantions occur to me (And they might raise some ire but need to be considered):
    The photo is genuine but date and location are mistaken.
    The photo is a fake (wartime Do 217 spliced over picture of houses) but has over time been associated with a genuine memory.

    in reply to: Jet Assist Lincoln #785182
    Supermarine305
    Participant

    If the Do 217 is captured material is should be easy to figure which one:
    Light undersides.
    Clamshell airbrake.
    Daimler Benz inline engines (Pretty sure DO 217s didn’t just Junkers Jumos)
    Stepped canopy. Do 217Ks and Ms have redisnged bubble canopies and this doesn’t look like them. Though I can’t be certain.
    Fitted out for anti-shipping duties. What are those things under the wings?: Torps with stabilising fins? Glide bombs or missiles? Though I can’t figure which ones. For cert not Fritz-X or Hs 293. Long range fuel tanks? (And why would it be carrying them inland? Surely anything of that nature that can fit in the back of a truck would be?)

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 337 total)