dark light

dhfan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 3,092 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: SARO SRA1 jet seaplane #1293712
    dhfan
    Participant

    The statement on that data sheet that it’s “the world’s first and only jet flying boat” seems plain wrong (or at least half wrong) – I’ve just spent a week on Russia’s black sea coastline photographing Beriev’s A-42 and A-200 jet powered flying boats in action.

    Richard.

    The description on the data sheet’s fine, as long as you add the missing word – “fighter”. 🙂

    in reply to: Get the Low Down……vid #1294343
    dhfan
    Participant

    I really don’t understand the problem. The link is fine, you have to download the file.

    in reply to: Get the Low Down……vid #1294484
    dhfan
    Participant

    You can’t play it from there, you have to download it.

    The link appears to be fine.

    in reply to: SARO SRA1 jet seaplane #1295360
    dhfan
    Participant

    Flying boat, not seaplane IMHO. 🙂

    “Wings on my Sleeve” must have been re-published as I’ve had my copy for years. Highly recommended for anybody that’s never read it before.

    in reply to: WWII in colour #1297323
    dhfan
    Participant

    I’ve certainly read of that speed before – but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

    in reply to: The Spitfire also ran – discuss #1298065
    dhfan
    Participant

    It was the first Griffon Spitfire, DP845 which was also Quill’s fvaourite aircraft.

    It wasn’t during test flights. Supermarine were asked to send a Spitfire to Boscombe Down for a test. Jeffrey Quill noticed they didn’t say which sort of Spitfire so they decided to give everybody a shock, which worked.

    It was the FW190 engine that blew up or otherwise failed.

    in reply to: Shackleton tyre? #1299152
    dhfan
    Participant

    “Dunlop Power Grip” sounds more likely to be agricultural than aviation.

    in reply to: The Spitfire also ran – discuss #1300397
    dhfan
    Participant

    I would stick with Mark12’s RR report.

    I wasn’t aware the difference was so major.
    Ford was set up for mass-production of one type with dedicated machinery. The many variations of engines were all done by Rolls-Royce, mainly at Derby and Crewe, less so at Glasgow. Removable heads, in production terms, means a major re-jig of the factory.

    in reply to: Spitfire XIX structure #1300422
    dhfan
    Participant

    The only reference I have immediately to hand is the Putnam Supermarine tome.

    That says: MkXIV fuselage, tail and engine, modified PR.XI wings and the PR.X pressure cabin.

    in reply to: The Spitfire also ran – discuss #1300423
    dhfan
    Participant

    I stand, or more accurately, sit corrected. 🙂

    30-odd thousand of one type from Ford seemed a lot, but I suppose if you bolt them to airframes in fours you would get through a few.

    in reply to: The Spitfire also ran – discuss #1302253
    dhfan
    Participant

    Ford made just a few too many to be fitted solely to the Hurricane II.

    I guess XX refers to 20-series for Lancaster, some Mossies etc.

    in reply to: Incident at duxford – crew safe #1302257
    dhfan
    Participant

    A memorial has been mooted several times in the past.

    IIRC, display pilots are not generally in favour.

    in reply to: The Spitfire also ran – discuss #1302339
    dhfan
    Participant

    That 1938 plan would be difficult as investigations into a “thin-wing” Typhoon didn’t start until 1940.

    Whirlwind was Peregrine, not Vulture. Both Peregrine and Vulture could almost certainly have been made to work but Hives took the decision to concentrate all resources on the Merlin, and later divert some attention to the Griffon. With the benefit of hindsight rightly so IMHO although whether it appeared a good idea at the time is a different matter.

    Ford built Merlin XX with Hooker’s single stage 2 speed supercharger. Only used up to the Spitfire Mk.V IIRC.

    in reply to: The Spitfire also ran – discuss #1302816
    dhfan
    Participant

    As James said, interesting thread.

    In defence of the Spitfire, as the 109 was improved with more power, better armament etc and later with the arrival of the FW190, the Spitfire was also developed to fight on equal or better terms.
    Cannon apart, this was largely due to Rolls-Royce continually improving the Merlin, but I’m fairly confident there wasn’t another airframe available that could have used all the benefits this brought.

    In modern terms, the Spitfire was an air superiority fighter and it remained the best we had, for that particular task, through the war until the arrival of the Tempest I guess.

    I’ll add to that, the balance swung on the Merlin. Admittedly development on other engines was halted or slowed down when it was realised how good the Merlin was but there was no other engine, even as a designer’s idea, that could have replaced it.

    in reply to: Incident at duxford – crew safe #1303319
    dhfan
    Participant

    According to a thread on Avi8, yes.
    Sorry, I followed a link so I can’t point anybody at it.

    I also object to the apparent necessity to revive the memories of all major incidents in the last 10 years – and get the name of a casualty wrong. Unfortunately, it’s what the “British Standard” journalist (or editor) does.

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 3,092 total)