In service Sea Vixen FAW.2 weights were 27,950Ib empty to 46,750Ib (just over 21 tons) maximum loaded.
I can’t speak for XP924, the display Vixen, specifically but would guess it’s operating at around 30,000 – 34,000Ib.
As for power, the two Avon 208 engines produce 22,500Ibs of thrust combined, the final Olympus 301 variant fitted to the Vulcan made 20,000Ib thrust each.

I remember seeing XP924 displaying at Culdrose one year and it knocked the following Tornado display into a cocked hat!

I did wonder the same thing!:rolleyes:

I know that Bruce, however that’s like saying you can compare any alloy structured aircraft to a wooden one. They all do the same job ultimately but both types of structure absorb loads and stresses in a different way, and have very different fatigue and atmospheric resistance properties.
Mikes’ point that the Vampire vital structure is the same as that of the Mosquitos is wrong.

Quick example of effects, a humid and moisture laden atmosphere wouldn’t cause the same skin delamination, or even vital structure break down in an alloy type as it did with the Mosquitos shown in an earlier link.

My basic point is that it doesn’t follow that just because there are (or were)Vampires and Venoms successfully operating around the world, that a Mosquito would be necessarily the same.

I should stress, that is not to take into account the differences between military service and warbird flying, maintenance, and storage procedures.

Must be some reason why the RAF painted them silver although I can’t think why.

Because it was the standard RAF finish of some late war commands and post-war RAF aircraft.

There has been some criticism of the structure used in the Mosquito might I also point out that basically the same structure was used on DH Jets !!!!.

The DH Venom in single and two seat versions served all over the world with many different nations as did the DH Vampire then they went and started launching it off aircraft carriers. Obviously the stress and strains imposed on the structure by a blow lamp being inserted up its rear and thumping down on Aircraft carriers in all sorts of WET weather did not do any significant harm.In fact many are flying today with various operators in varying climates.

Therefore I suggest that as the method of construction was good enough to do this you don’t need to re invent the wheel unless of course you have a lust for wasting money !!!

I’m surprised that you wrote that Mike.

The Mosquito/Hornet and the Vampire/Venom line are very different indeed, the most that you could say that they have in common is a similar plywood forward fuselage/cockpit area.
Vampire & Venom, both of the single seat (derived from Hornet), and twin seat (derived from Mosquito) cockpit forms are from the mid bulkhead rearwards of metal construction, as are the wings, booms, and engine mounting structures area.
Therefore the way that vital stresses and loads are absorbed and transferred by metal spars, bearers, and other structures, not to mention how differently metal structures stand up to fatigue and varying moisture conditions around the world is very different to that of the all wood structure of the Mosquito.

So basically the same structure was not used on DH Jets!

My problem is when these older kits are reissued alongside new tool offerings, as I mentioned in another thread.
So someone can see a review of the fantastic recent Revell Gannet, walk into a model shop and end up buying the Revell boxing of the old and frankly awful Frog kit.
I must admit Airfix seem to make it a little bit clearer that you’re looking at a newer kit, but I can see people buying say the new Lynx, then seeing the Harrier and assuming it could be of the same quality.
The older kits have their place, don’t get me wrong, but buyers need to be aware of what they are buying and building.
Buying something as simple as a decent 1:72nd Spitfire is frought with difficulties unless you are prepared to spend time reading the reviews.

How can you define such a broad line-up as nothing very exciting?!:confused:

I for one am pretty grateful (indeed as excited as I can be about models) to see brand new tooling releases of the Gnat, Spitfire 22, Swordfish, A-4 Skyhawk in 1:72nd, and the Lynxs’ and Merlin in 1:48th, the latter must be quite a fair chunk of a kit.
Vehicles aren’t my thing particularly but the Land Rover and Supacat 1:48th releases very nice.
The only slight disapointment for me is seeing the 25 year old 48th Harriers reissued, they are basic and ‘old tech’ and the type really deserves to be covered by new tooling kits.

As has been posted upthread, this Swift needs £50,000 spent on it – but that would be £5,000 to buy it, and £45,000 to dismantle, transport, and restore it.

£45K for a static restoration, really?

Bruggen, I think I’m struggling with the words.
The Swift was the first aircraft designed by a British manufacturer to an RAF requirement with the features of swept-wings, reheat,and the flying tail, the last two features being added through the Mks.
This F.4 is the only complete example in existance as a reminder to the trials and tribulations of the whole Swift F.1 – 4 pure interceptor line.

I realise that as a fighter for the RAF the service career was abysmal and seems to have mostly consisted of trials and evaluation use (which I thought that the F.4 was used for-but could be wrong), but not withstanding I think as an example of a type from an era when problems with swept-wing aerodynamics and high speeds were still a struggle for the aircraft companies to solve with and the services to live with routinely. Just from that point of view the aircraft is worth struggling to preserve – I think.

I’m afraid that’s the most robust case I can make for it:)
Anyway it was Supermairnes’ last pure fighter for the RAF from a long and illustrious list, such as the Spitfire and the, um…