I know this is probably lazy of me not to check for myself but why was black and white chosen for the undersides of the aircraft…?

This thread is definitely worth a read, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=110667

I think it was the 4,700 (union instructed) complainee` that are the pillocks…

Absolutely 100% agree with your post Benyboy, if the Unions had pursued this incident legally then I think there would have been serious questions about wasting money etc over a very trivial matter. He was voicing in a very overblown and tongue in cheek manner a feeling that some of us private sector workers feel towards these strikers.
Funny how there wasn’t the same upset about his comments about rail suicides and boring birds, The whole episode says much more about the unions than about Clarkson and his humour which many seem to fail to grasp.

Moggy, your posts are getting as predictable as Jeremys’ views!

I’ve only just seen this, didn’t know Rob but encountered him through his convivial posts on here, very sad news – RIP and thoughts with his family.

There’s a picture in Spitfire: The History of an inverted Merlin mock-up from early design stages. Roll-Royce’s idea but the aircraft designers didn’t want it.

Indeed, quoting from the book,

“Rolls Royce had originally proposed, in agreement with the Air Ministry, an inverted installation in order to provide improved visibility to pilots, plus other sound technical reasons. However the airframe manufacturers of the time were, in general, totally opposed to the idea when the mock-up engine was revealed to them at the end of that same year (1932). It appeared that an inverted installation involved too many awkward design problems. The engine (PV12) was, therefore, revised for upright installation.”

that would suggest to me that visbility was the main advantage, and that weight placement and aerodynamic advantages were of limited value.

Be interesting to know what the Spit and Hurricane would have looked like with an inverted engine and lower prop-line (which after all would be the advantage), they just look so natural with their actual nose profiles and prop positions which was maintained by the reduction gear output shaft.

However with this talk of improved visibility over the nose of inverted engines, what about the late versions of the FW190 Dora?!

The Hindenburg commentary is aswel known as the footage, I always thought it ironic when he says ‘oh the humanity’, than asks someone to get out of his way!
The audio (for the radio) was obviously a more recent overdub to the footage (as JDKs says), as news film footage wasn’t recorded with sound and was usually played back with music, subtitles, and later a studio type after commentary.

Looking at profiles the Me doesn’t appear to have any superiority in ground view over than say a Spit, be interesing to hear the verdict from pilots or people that have sat in both types.
The Stuka quite clearly does have an advantage in this regard with its inverted Jumo.

I thought the primary reason for inverted V engines on German fighters was to mount the cannon between the banks and to fire through the spinner?
Improved visibility over the nose for ground manouvering makes some sense, the other arguments about easier maintenance and drag reduction/aerodynamic cleanliness don’t really stack, especially when you consider the cleanliness of the right way up installations in the Spit and P-51 etc.

It just seems the German way of doing things, (can’t see any other reason for multi engine fitment this way, BF110 etc), they could equally ask others why they mounted engines t’other way up.

Inverted inlines make a lot of sense, especially in regard to built in prop clearance from the ground, and basic ground servicing.