“Olive Drab” is the name of the colour not the finish so it can be matt, satin or gloss. Having said that, I gave you duff gen – BS381C:220 Olive Green was the colour I actually had in mind, not Olive Drab which is too ‘brown’!

Mart Aviation used to have a section on their website showing how they refurbished their helmets. Unfortunately it’s long gone now but I’m fairly certain it was “Olive Green” they referred to on there.

I appreciate it’ll vary from monitor to monitor but I’ve got my monitor calibrated pretty accurately and BS381C:220 shown here appears to be good match for both my Mk.3C helmets and a Mk.4 shell I have kicking around.

I was repainting mine, 220 is where I’d start for a colour match I think.

Thx Dave, that’s weird, I thought the attached was the sim in question but it seems to be at odds with tour mark given as it says F.1 on the back – I’ll have to check my old issues on the V.A. newsletter as I did a little story on it,

GOKONE, the Hunter in your photo is Tony Collins’ lovely F.1 – a regular visitor to Cockpitfest which was present again earlier this month.

The sim you refer to was an F.6 (possibly an F.6A although we never were able to confirm it’s identity) which was restored by a couple of very nice chaps from 1986 Squadron ATC at Wymondham in Norfolk. I helped out with a bit of advice and a few small parts at the time and they made a stunning job of it. As David says it visited Cockpitfest in 2005 in 74 Sqn markings and won two prizes.

Sadly, since then the CO of the ATC squadron changed and, amazingly, the new one had no interest in the Hunter/sim. The last I heard it had fallen into some disrepair and the two chaps who had restored it resigned as CIs in protest. That was a few years ago now and I haven’t been in touch with them for a good while now so don’t know if the situation has changed.

I certainly hope it has as wasting the efforts made in restoring this cockpit would be a absolute disgrace in my view.

See here under Previous Fests and 2005 for a photo.

Mark

The public will always go for a more complete looking cockpit…

And yet they go to an aircraft museum, for a cockpit event and then vote for the owls! :confused::D

Ok Moggy

I give…what did we miss in the multiple proof readings?

Tom

Presumably Moggie is referring to the different meanings of dependAnt and dependEnt.

Dependant (as you currently have on your poster) means someone who is reliant on someone or something, i.e. a noun. Whereas dependent (which you should have on the poster) means relying on something (in this case the weather), i.e. an adjective.

At least that’s what they mean over this side of the Atlantic. I’ve no idea if there’s a difference in spelling/meaning of these in North America. Bit picky anyway, as I don’t suppose 99% of folk would even notice!:D

Ah, thanks Dave. I knew there was a reason I never watch this pointless, air-headed tripe. It’s all come flooding back to me now.

Idiotic answer No1:
Apparently (because I`ve not seen it in any actual manuals etc) The siamesed rear stub was used on “short Merlins” ie single-stage, in order to keep the heat away from the wing leading edge. The two stage engines were further forward due to the longer supercharger at the back.

I don’t think the ‘heat’ theory is strictly true.

As DC says, on the single-stage Merlin aircraft there physically wasn’t room for 6 stubs on the inboard side of each engine due to the proximity of the radiators, hence the use of a bifurcated stub covering the rearmost 2 exahust ports. I believe the same bifurcated stub was also used on the outboard side of the engine (even though there is room for 6 stubs on that side) for commonality reasons, i.e. the same stubs etc. can be used for either engine. Having said that I believe Australian built aircraft did have 6 stubs on the outboard side on single-stage engined aircraft, which negates the idea that the heat needed to be kept away from the wing. Not sure how many aircraft that’s true for though?

As you say Pete the two-stage engines were longer so there was room for 6 stubs on each side and I presume these were also common to port and starboard engines.

Remember. the Mosquito was quite an ‘economic’ aircraft in that several components were designed to not be handed and could be fitted to either side of the aircraft – undercarriage units and tailplanes being the obvious ones – so the use of common stubs would fit with that methodology.

Hey Mark,
Any updates on QA12? 🙂

Not much I’m afraid. I moved house recently and new ‘tinkering’ facilities (i.e. shed and garage!) have yet to be properly sorted out.

Until that’s done all my toys are stored away. 🙁

QA12 looked like the photo below the last time the cockpit was out in the sunshine, which is a bit of an improvement on the state of affairs in the other photo some years back! I sometimes have to look at these to remind myself that some progress has been made! 😀

Thanks, but I was thinking of a different shape of the aerodynamic balance tips/horns – this may relate to the high-altitude fighters?

The PR.34 had enlarged elevator tips/horn balances if that’s what you’re thinking of?