dark light
Airliner World
Combat Aircraft
AeroPlane
Flypast
Airforces
Aviation
Pcpilot
Air

steve_p

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 596 total)
1 2 3 … 16 17 18 … 38 39 40
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 3, 2008 at 10:02 pm in reply to: Photo's of an RAF career 1930's to 1960's ! #1234382
    steve_p
    Participant

    Fascinating photos. I’ve never seen such a clean Vincent. I wonder what happened to the long range tank and the message hook? There seems to be practically no damage from that mishap. Try doing the same with a Wellington. 😮

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 25, 2008 at 2:52 am in reply to: Miles Satyr – exactly how did it meet its end? #1164698
    steve_p
    Participant

    The source of the Japanese pilot story seems to have come from a discussion that Mrs Victor Bruce had with Richard Riding at some time in the 1970s. This comment was later recalled by the journalist in the AM mentioned above. Interesting, but hardly conclusive.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 23, 2008 at 11:16 pm in reply to: Supermarine paint #1165961
    steve_p
    Participant

    The plant was built for Lord Nuffield, rather than Vickers. As the British automobile industy at that time only knew one colour, I would suggest a dark shade of black.

    Case closed m’lud.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 21, 2008 at 4:03 pm in reply to: WW2 night formation flying #1168232
    steve_p
    Participant

    I don’t think that many bomber pilots would have liked the idea of flying over Germany with their lights on. 😮

    There was no advantage to be gained by flying in formation at night. There were loads of reasons why it was not a good idea.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 19, 2008 at 10:29 pm in reply to: Hawker Typhoon Memorial Petition #1170126
    steve_p
    Participant

    Err, isn’t there one at Hendon?

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 9, 2008 at 11:36 pm in reply to: Fleet Air Arm Whitleys #1181286
    steve_p
    Participant

    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for the info. I don’t have that particular book – hopefully it will be reprinted at some point.

    I’ve read somewhere that some of the FAA Whitleys turned up at Crail. I wonder if any of them met their end at Balado Bridge?

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 7, 2008 at 6:06 pm in reply to: Fleet Air Arm Whitleys #1183819
    steve_p
    Participant

    Hi,

    Yes I am aware of google but I was wondering if anybody could expand on what is already out there.

    Best Wishes
    Steve P

    October 5, 2008 at 1:38 am in reply to: DH.86 Express #1187058
    steve_p
    Participant

    I have never seen that short-nosed version of the DH-86 before with the Rapide-style nose. Was that an earlier or later development? Quite neat looking.

    That was the first (single pilot) version. Only a handful were made.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 4, 2008 at 9:14 pm in reply to: Westland Whirlwind Shipped To The USA 1942 #1187431
    steve_p
    Participant

    Is there a crated Whirlwind in a hanger at Bethpage or elsewhere

    Doubtful as it was last recorded on a US Navy dump.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    October 4, 2008 at 3:59 am in reply to: DH.86 Express #1188348
    steve_p
    Participant

    It looks good T6flyer, but can you get it without those add-ons on the tail that spoil the look of the machine? They were not used on the NZ ones. I note they’re not on John’s photo of the last flying example either. Were they only used by QANTAS?

    I’m sure that the QANTAS examples did not have the additional rudder thingies either. They were only fitted to later versions (DH.86A and DH.86B). Quantas examples – and Viv Bellamy’s example – were all plain DH.86s. Maybe the modeller has goofed with the paint scheme, or perhaps QANTAS modified their aircraft with the rudder thingies when they became available?

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    September 27, 2008 at 9:17 pm in reply to: Fairey Battle evaluated in the USA #1194559
    steve_p
    Participant

    European aircraft were considered more advanced so the attitude
    probably was “let’s see if they had any ideas/concepts (as opposed to designs) we can use…or equally important…any bad ideas we should stay away from.”

    Considered more advanced by who? I’d have a Boston before a Blenheim any day. 🙂 The US aviation industry was pretty much at the cutting edge prior to 1941 eg. P-38, P-51 etc. The Battle was just a typical current military monoplane, similar to many types that the American aircraft industry was churning out. There was nothing radical enough in the design of the Battle to warrant shipping it over to the US. There was every reason to ship out the P.24 engine though.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    September 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm in reply to: Fairey Battle evaluated in the USA #1195039
    steve_p
    Participant

    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3462.msg42579.html#new

    Interesting thread here (the forum is not so busy as this one, but some good stuff – check out the artwork by a guy called “flitzer” – lots of “what if” schemes) anyhow, any thoughts on why the USA would want a Battle and why they went to the trouble of getting back to the UK ?

    They were probably more interested in the P-24 engine than the rest of the aircraft. Prior to Pearl Harbour, the Fairey P.24 was a possible powerplant for the P-47.

    Fairey submitted a few proposals to improve the Battle, one of them being a twin-engined Battle (two merlins). Ian Huntley did a few articles on the subject some years ago for Scale Aircraft Modelling. They are well worth digging out.

    Best wishes
    steve P

    September 26, 2008 at 11:05 pm in reply to: Fairey Battle L5343 Progress #1195370
    steve_p
    Participant

    I thought the hatch in the floor was originally for the Lewis belly gun

    According to the Pilot’s Notes for the Battle, it has “Parachute Exit” stencilled on it.

    Regarding fuel tanks in the fuselage, the Battle AP dated 1939 states that these are no longer fitted. Maybe they were items that sounded good when the spec was being drawn up, but were found to be useless in service.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    September 26, 2008 at 9:06 pm in reply to: Fairey Battle L5343 Progress #1195496
    steve_p
    Participant

    The official line was that the bomb aimer should exit through the hatch feet first and facing the tail. The old cliche about there not being enough room to swing a cat springs to mind:eek:

    Pilot’s were instructed to ensure that the undercarriage was up before abandoning the aircraft. Does anybody know why?

    I must admit that I was suprised when I heard that Hendon’s Battle was going for a second restoration. Those who did the first did a wonderful job.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    September 26, 2008 at 6:02 pm in reply to: Fairey Battle L5343 Progress #1195667
    steve_p
    Participant

    The passage from the book I quote in my post above suggests they both exited the same way – from the Gunner’s area. Not having been in a Battle is this feasible?

    Roger Smith.

    The Battle had a hatch in the floor specifically to allow the bomb aimer to bail out.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 596 total)
1 2 3 … 16 17 18 … 38 39 40