Page 26 – Key Publishing

mackerel

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 561 total)

← 1 2 3 … 25 26 27 … 36 37 38 →

Author

Posts
April 28, 2009 at 11:10 pm in reply to: Spitfire Firewall Question #1190592

mackerel
Participant

cheers all..as a thanx….this is the lower half…..

Hi Tony, it looks to good to be for a static spit !! It seems that you have left out the reinforcing channels out of the main side channels !!

Steve

April 27, 2009 at 10:05 pm in reply to: Plea for a static Spitfire top engine mount lug #1191723

mackerel
Participant

I am sure I have asked before, but my static fuselage requires a port (I actually dont mind though as I need to fill the hole!) top engine mount lug that goes into the port datum longeron at frame 5/firewall…..I dont mind conditon!! I can pay….obviously as nothing is free in the Spit world!!
Mk1 to 9 fine….please pm me or email me…they often survive crashes

Hi Tony, the top mount from a MK1 is shorter than a MK IX with only 3 attachment holes. Probably not a problem for you though. Bit like hens teeth though.

Steve

April 24, 2009 at 3:13 pm in reply to: Four Spitfires on UK Register #1195303

mackerel
Participant

Four Spitfires on UK register

HI all, well said Cees & Bruce, & thanks for you comments Peter. Isnt it about time certain people on this forum stopped whinging about certain aspects of aircraft restoration & just appreciate the fact that we are able to get these aircraft back in the air. If a customer wants origional skins with origional blemishes then no problem, you get that athentic look. Besides whats it got to do with anyone else anyway !!

Steve

April 20, 2009 at 10:51 pm in reply to: Spitfire Firewall Question #1199043

mackerel
Participant

The original asbestos ‘mill board’ as it was called, is about 1/8″ thick, bog-standard hardboard makes a very good ‘non-airworthy’ substitute.

The top-hat stiffener rivets right through the lot, though I think there are a few double flush rivets that hold the sandwich together before the top hat is fitted. These pitched in between the holes in the top-hat.

Chumpy.

HI Chris, I think you will find that every other rivet goes through the whole lot & those that dont are csk on the fwd face of the lower portion of firewall.

Steve

April 20, 2009 at 9:55 pm in reply to: Spitfire Firewall Question #1199193

mackerel
Participant

In a wartime production Spit (V ish) what was the thickness of the asbestos material please?? I need this info to complete my firewall…this week hopefully
cheers in eager anticipation!!!

Hi Tony, when I go to work tomorrow i’ll measure the thickness of the material we use. The new stuff is a substitute for asbestos. Health & safety & all that !!

Steve

April 19, 2009 at 11:53 pm in reply to: Help needed to identify spitfire wing #1200410

mackerel
Participant

You can almost smell the ‘thin but robust’ already!

Hi all, I hope you are not going to, pardon the pun, “dredge up” that old thread again. I think the question of provenance has been done to death on here !!

Steve

April 11, 2009 at 7:23 pm in reply to: Spitfire Parts #1209114

mackerel
Participant

Thanks for all of the replies to this. Pete, you are correct with the number on the core plug.

I had wondered if the wings might have been added as they appeared brand new rather than original so thank you for confirming that.

Would the part number on the panel suggest a Spitfire? Could anybody tell me what the part number prefix is for a Spitfire?

Many thanks,

Johnnie

No number on the panel to say that its from a spitfire. For fuselage it would have to be some thing like 30027 – ? for a mark 1 or 36127-? for a mark IX. For wing it would have to be 30008-? for mark 1.

Steve

April 10, 2009 at 11:05 pm in reply to: Spitfire Parts #1209939

mackerel
Participant

spitfire parts

Hi all, the panel with the semi-circular cut out is very similar to the removable panel on either side of a spitfire fin where the elevator passes through. I expect this could be said for a number of planes though.

Steve

April 9, 2009 at 10:49 pm in reply to: SM520 T9 #1211232

mackerel
Participant

It was rotted out on the LHS, out of shot in the image above.

I bought it back to the UK but subsequently gave it back to Peter Sledge who was starting to get ‘itchy’ to collect Spitfire parts again. 🙂

Mark

Shame !!I guess Martin would have tried to use it again if he had had it. Would have been a nice touch .

Steve

April 9, 2009 at 10:16 pm in reply to: SM520 T9 #1211347

mackerel
Participant

RR232

Hi Mark12, do you know whether present owner of RR232 has the FWD skin of the lower fire wall. I think when I built it a new skin was used.

Steve

April 8, 2009 at 9:01 pm in reply to: SM520 T9 #1212955

mackerel
Participant

Here she is, just after arrival at Roundwood Farm, February 1987.

Hi all, this aircraft is now under restoration to fly, based in exeter, fuselage & port wing done. As is the empenage.

Steve

April 7, 2009 at 8:33 pm in reply to: SM520 T9 #1214110

mackerel
Participant

Well that is not actually Peter Tuplin.

The report and the words are totally factual apart from the Charles Church connection which seems to be plugged at every opportunity.

The origins of this project were recovered by the SAAF from SA Metals Yard in Cape Town to the SAAF museum store at Snake Valley. Here a positive RAF serial identity, SM520, was located by a visiting Spitfire Historian on the 21st July 1981. Some time later, circa 1989, the remains together with several other Spitfire ‘sections’ with serial provenance, MH603, TA805 & LZ842, were traded by Steve Atkins and recovered to the UK.

The ‘Charles Church connection’ is most probably a confusion with RR232, also from the same SA Metals yard, that was shipped to Australia and rebuilt as a static before being purchased by Church in 1987.

Provenance – Thin but robust.

Mark

Hi Mark 12, I know that was not Peter Tuplin, and the news artical I saw was not the one that is in carpetbagger link. It was Peter being interviewed by said reporter. It seems strange that Peter described the aircraft as NEW albeit done to origional drawings.

Steve.

March 23, 2009 at 8:59 pm in reply to: A pair of Dutch Tr.IX Spitfires… #1232396

mackerel
Participant

Is this an old photo?

If not, whose is the third 2 seater? Is it Mr P Bayliss or is it Mr P Shop?

Who is Mr P Shop ??? Guess you mean John Romain !!! H98 aka IAC 161 aka PV202 !!

Steve

March 21, 2009 at 10:22 pm in reply to: A pair of Dutch Tr.IX Spitfires… #1234363

mackerel
Participant

Which ones are they? The one that used to be painted in IAC colors? The other is a new restoration? What’s the reason for 2 being painted up?

SM520 is a new restoration from Airframe Assemblies & Classic Aero. Good job by all concerned.
Great to see IAC161 & SM520 together in matching colour schemes.

Steve

March 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm in reply to: Crashed Aeroplanes – War Graves – Time Team #1165916

mackerel
Participant

I think the 1986 Protection of Military Remains act has done one thing, and that is to make sure that lost servicemen remain just that…………LOST

Enthusiasts have taken time speaking to eye witnesses (who are becomming harder to find) and have spent much time locating these aircraft crash sites

Shouldn’t we all start a petition to have the ACT changed to allow all of us enthusiasts show where these aircraft have crashed and excavate and give the Heroes of this country the respect they deserve?

Or maybe since they gave their life for QUEEN and Country the present Queen should return the favour to aircrew’s family and allow recovery’s to take place so our war dead can be remembered properly instead of lying in unmarked graves???

The Americans recover their fallen war dead………why can’t we……:confused:

Hi ,If you really want to know the ins & outs of aviation archaeology then Tangmere1940 would be a good person to ask as he’s done a fair few ‘digs’ along with Mark Kirby & Steve vizard. A good book to read is ‘Missing in action — Resting in peace’ by Dilip Sarkar.

Steve
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 561 total)

← 1 2 3 … 25 26 27 … 36 37 38 →