Great to see an update on this project.
Then you’d be paying more to visit Duxford.
Chalk would present a very matte finish. I can’t see that in the photo.
Are those guys supporting the Spit’s wings on their back?
The undercarrage isn’t sitting right to my eyes.
(And I have noticed the bashed prop.)
49/49 🙂
I would have passed on a few if it were not multiple choice.
Hendon would have been great if the airfield wasn’t sold off and built on. Now there is little to show that it was an airfield at all trapped between the railway and not the nicest housing estate. Wouldn’t have been big enough to land the largest aircraft either.
Cosford has the room the expand but the runway is too short -or more truthfully, lacking that safety margin to land larger aircraft in. What will happen when the Sentries, Airseekers, Voyagers and other large RAF aircraft are retired? Will one of each need to be dissassembled for transport to Cosford at great cost, or will some or all be missed, like the Tristar, only to be regretted at some future date.
Then there is the question the museum being split between two sites meaning neither can tell a comprehensive history of the RFC/RAF. There is also the expensive transporting of airframes from one location to the other (not to mention the disquiet that causes on this forum and others).
I’ve alway felt it would be a stronger museum on one site. But I am aware that is really never going to happen.
Trailer does look very good.
But is it too late on post-production to hope they might give the Buchons a CG nose-job?
I was not referring to anyone on particular.
You don’t need to sign up to Facebook to see the images. Just click this link….
… click ‘not now’ on the annoying pop-up and there you are. Navigate the site as normal.
Don’t know about a B-47. How about a B-45 loaned in ‘Operation Ju-Jitsu’ RAF markings?
I can’t see why all the fuss about MT847’s trip to Pima. Just seeing the same arguments when it was learnt that the Typhoon was off to Canada for a bit.
Both will be looked after and both will be back in a few years.
I think that would be a lot of effort for little reason. Why constrcut a mongrel plane when you could just use one of the many captured aircraft? And the type looks obsolete for 1918 so there is little to be learned so why not parade it about?
Also going back the the DFW C.V. The Aviatik licence built version was also known as the DFW C.V (Av) as well as the Aviatik C.VI.
According to Putnam’s the Aviatik C.V was gull winged.
My guess (leading on from your suggestion) is a DFW C.V (The licence built version being the Aviatik C.VI)
The struts between upper wing and fuselage are too short and are of different design.
Its not a LVG C.VI
Proof that George Lucas can’t do stories.
Fast forward to the flying bits. Ignore the rest.
I am sure someone will correct me but as Jeepman says restoration was started but I did hear it was halted when there was a some structrual problem found in teh cockpit area.
But that was in the 70’s and restoration techniques and expertise have moved on a lot since then.