eye4wingsSo what they mean is 100+ visiting aircraft, (hopefully also including a Dragonfly)… I’m hoping to get there too. Going to have a busy day camera-wise.
Robin
eye4wingsThank you kind sir!
And I’m right with you on the football… one religion at a time ought to be enough for any man!
Robin
eye4wingsI try Moggy … I DO try, but some things I get distracted by. Can’t seem to help it.
Maybe I just care about the aircraft too much… and maybe I have been trained by hopelessly inadequate attempts at dressing up Tiger Moths to represent SE5As… and parents with their dicta that “If a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well”!?
But then none of us is perfect and we live in an imperfect world – something I continually rely on in my own attempts at mimicking the real world of aircraft past at model scale!
Robin
eye4wingsThanks for the link Mark. All is explained!
I always find the lack of continuity distracting in this kind of film – that Boy is seen reading pilot’s notes for a Mk1A then getting into a Spitfire that cannot be earlier than a MkV… and suddenly has a four-blade prop… then the different roundels in what was supposed to be the same flight…
Maybe things like this could be avoided today, what with advances in CGI and a far wider selection of available aircraft, but the available budget tends to be much the same so those of us who notice such things as cannons being used in a Spitfire during the BoB are just going to have to come to terms with it. Most people will notice none of these incongruities.
From what I have seen, totally CGI air war films are so wooden and improbable that anyone seriously trying to recapture the feel of the time will probably never better First Light.
Well done all involved!
Robin
eye4wingsI’ve found most pushers have a unique sound, I assume from sound bouncing off airframe.
A few years back I saw/heard an Avanti, it has a different sound as do a more common type around here, a Cessna 337.
NOW the OP mentions the sound!? That would have been the FIRST thing I would have noticed – it’s as characteristic of the type as it is of the Harvard/Texan. It was a regular feature of my earlier life in Harpenden and unlike the Harvard is not made by prop tips nearing the speed of sound but their interaction with the trailing edge airflow. On some pusher types you will see the wing chord reduced to pull the trailing edge away from the props in an attempt to make life more pleasant for the passengers and crew but for this aircraft the designers didn’t bother.
I assume the assumption that the unidentified aircraft was single engined was because it had no obvious engine projection ahead of the leading edge?
Robin
eye4wingsMuch as I too would love to see the type in our skies again I can only deprecate the use of the term ‘razorback’ to describe what was pretty much the standard fighter’s shape aft of the cockpit at the time. Even its use for the early model P-47s was pushing things a bit since there was not the slightest risk of cutting your hand on it. The term served to graphically demarcate the early from the later models however as it had that most distinctly different spine to it.
I do realise that we humans have a remarkable tendency to devalue our language and that this is pretty much par for the course, but to refer to the early P-51 mustangs as ‘razor backed’ is a total nonsense (in my not-very-humble opinion!).
If that truly is current opinion then I would have to call early Spitfires and the entire production runs of Hurricane and Bf-109 (not wishing to list virtually every other fighter of the day) ‘razorback’ since they have a similar shape. I could also cite the C-47 and ask whether it displays a significantly different shape aft of the cockpit to justify it being denied the use of the term.
‘Razorback’ P-51? Tosh!
I’ll go with Mike Currill’s ‘high back’ – that’s fair enough.
Rant over – it’s safe to come out from behind the sofa now!
Always fun is to hear the perpetual discussion over how many original rivets it takes to elevate a reproduction to the lofty heights of ‘restroration’.
I’m just grateful that I can see aircraft flying that look and sound like the originals. Certainly I have neither the finances nor the expertise to help put them there – and the money involved seems to me quite unrealistically high. £3.1m for a Spitfire?.. I couldn’t even afford £200 for a Chipmunk when the RAF sold a load off – it was way beyond my pocket money, much as I would have loved one!
So thanks to anyone who lives and works in that other, parallel world of historic aviation. love what you’re doing guys!
Robin
eye4wingsYour pics are a delight to my eyes David!
I have been planning to build a model Wildcat at something like 1:8 scale (or bigger if I dare) for a while … it’s just the retracts that are a bit daunting. But having tackled the Stirling and currently drawing to a close on a Caribou how much worse could it be?! I just need some relaxation before getting started – and your pictures will get frequent revisits as the time approaches.
Thanks for posting them for us all.
Robin
eye4wingsAt times like this I realise that I do not know how many Luftwaffe aircraft were destroyed during the conquest of France – excluding those lost to our own fighter squadrons sent over to assist. I suppose I have assumed that the Germans did what they had done to the Poles in destroying most of the opposing aircraft on the ground.
I also assume TT that the bit of history you allude to is that the French collapsed so quickly that they were unable to take delivery of their Hawks so we had them instead?
Robin
eye4wingsWork was still progressing in 2007 when these shots were taken.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239161[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]239162[/ATTACH]
If the correct engines cannot be obtained then surely some museum somewhere would welcome a static Beau?
It IS a static Beau – and it IS at a museum! And I for one am happy that it is where it is – within range from home.
As I understand it the restoration to flying condition was halted because the correct mark of Hercules engine (with the carburettor(?) in the correct place for the surrounding airframe) could not be sourced. I would think there would be a possibility that somewhere in the expanses of Austalia there may still be a few forgotten airframes rusting gently among the Beauforts, but if not (and I am sure someone will have had that thought long ago) then judging by earlier comments on this thread regarding the selling on of not-quite-authentic airframes may make Duxford the wrong place for the Beau to make progress. I say this because the next question that would come to my mind would be ‘Well, since we have spent all this time restoring the airframe to this stage doesn’t that mean we have to adapt the airframe to accept a mark of Hercules that we can obtain?’
I am of course ignorant of the various detail differences between the engines used during the Beaufighter’s development (Hercules VI, XVI and XVII) and whether this would actually be a worthwhile investigation to make.
Personally I would rather see the aircraft in the air knowing that compromises were made than never to fly again.
Robin
eye4wingsIf they’re paid at all you’d think they would at least have some sense of responsibility to convey information that is correct. M. Chabbert tried to spoil my day at my last visit. It would be interesting to take a snapshot of the crowd demographic and find out if it is only the aviationally uneducated grouped nearest the speakers.
On a different subject is there any news of the obtaining of the right engines for the Beaufighter? I assume there must still be hope as the airframe restoration has been making progress. Every time it appears in the background of a photo I am completely distracted from the main subject!
Robin
eye4wingsThanks for the information Duxman, peering at the blur of my photo the fin does look squarer, but I had it down as a Taifun at the time.
Robin
eye4wingsI absolutely agree Nick!
This thread is the first place I look when something interesting flies over Ware.
This afternoon about 5.00 it was a DH Vampite whistling southwards (a T11 I think) but no sign of photos here so where could it have come from?
Perhaps it came in with the Meteor while our resident photographers were in having a cuppa then flew on somewhere else?
Any news perchance?
The Nord flew northwards at about midday accompanied by a DH Chipmunk. What happened to the Chippie? Beautiful shot of the Nord Duxman. That colour scheme doesn’t lend itself to photography – not me and my camera anyway!
Robin
eye4wingsAh! So it was the Delphin I saw flying northwards and low over Ware late yesterday afternoon.
I wondered if it was bound for DX.
Thankyou Duxman for all the excellent photos you post on the forum.
My humble Sony a65 and 500 zoom failed to capture any detail at all of the aircraft half a mile away. Not surprising given the aircraft’s colour I suppose.
Robin
eye4wingsI reckon Meddle is right on the money!
Yes, the main gear legs go into the fuselage sides but the wheels set into the wing undersides at a back-swept angle – that was what had me going! I couldn’t think of an aircraft with that characteristic. Reminiscent of the Barracuda – which it obviously wasn’t!
Well done that man!
eye4wingsThankyou AA. That is about as definitive as information gets!
My systems at model scale will be hugely simplified, but there is a wealth of information in there that will be most valuable – even the actual section of the tailplane which I can now lift off and incorporate. It may not be drawn exactly but it will be a lot closer than my guesses based on a tiny 3-view drawing!
Baz, I bow to your age and experience! When Belfasts and Britannias were operating I was in no state to know what I was looking at (beyond recognising the type).
I would have expected the ailerons to be mass balanced anyway as to my mind ailerons hanging down would offer air resistance and slow the rate of acceleration in the early stages of the take-off run. It can’t have been thought a serious consideration.
Thanks to all responders – I consider myself sated!
Robin
Sign In
