I agree that its fraudulent, and that is why I was on that bit of the list.

Hmm.. tortuous logic – you know that’s not what they meant by ‘doesn’t own the item’. Its clearly not what they WANT one to report! Or there would be an ‘item is falsely described’ option.

– but I guess it might work, if it gets read by someone who does give a ****. I was told it was corporate policy not to.

Interesting summary of the legal situation here: http://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/internet-defamation.htm What it comes down to is that when posters are not readily identifiable for legal action purposes the liability defaults to the ‘secondary publisher’ – in this case Key. So, to cover Key against any further hotheaded growlings from me, my name is Matthew Bearman – look me up, Mr. Ambulance Chaser.

Mahone – the seller can choose not to show questions

TonyT – eBay do not want to know. I have tried, and they flatly told me they do not care whether an item is fraudulently described or not.

Interesting that it’s not eBay’s responsibility what gets posted on their site, but it is Key Publishing’s what goes on theirs.

One thing you could do to make your project a bit different is make the original warren-girder fabric wing. Would you like my drawings?

That article is going for the prize for the most ‘fails’ in a Daily Fail article!

It has ‘Aircrafts’, fighter planes dropping bombs on the beaches, Jets and a misidentified Spitfire – and Operation Dynamo was a ‘Nickname’.

Anybody else think the Yakfire looks like a Blackburn Roc?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246484[/ATTACH]

David Collins has highlighted another de-H post war development which throws a further spanner in the works to reasoned argument on this complex subject.

The Hornet, Lincoln, Balliol, Tempest and Hastings (and, no-doubt others) were using smaller and more compact hubs. They were 50 and 60-spline sizes according to the application but had D-shank blades. de-H went this way, the US/Ham Stan apparently did not.
Anon.

I think smaller shanks on 4-blade applications, at least at 50-spline size, became the norm quite early on – the P-51’s usual Hamilton Standard prop was 24D50

Thanks David – that’s great info! Interesting that the RAE tests on a Hornet Blade were on a different one – 4542536

I have not seen the dash number – the ‘-42’ – on an ‘old system’ British Hydromatic before. If it’s a reduction figure as per the American system this throws the whole theory! So I am not sure.. it’s helpful to put it into the mix to try to establish a pattern, though. Watch this space, I will come back to you on this!

You have a DH Blade drawing???? You have a DH Blade Drawing????

Matt

Have to agree. What is your intention? If it’s a ‘Full Size Model’ (FSM), there are a few of them around and you don’t need to spend too much to build a new one from fibreglass or whatever from the general arrangements you can find on eBay for not very much – eg. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hawker-Hurricane-Original-Blueprint-Plans-rare-archive-period-WW2-Drawings-/282053943708?hash=item41abb9a19c:g:0-cAAOSwwpdW87l7 – It will be an engineering task of its own but it will not demonstrate any of the particular type of practical engineering (and I agree about that) shown by the real thing.

If you wish to replicate the engineering then you have a very expensive project on your hands, and the money that a full set of factory drawings will cost will still appear as a very small drop in the ocean compared to it.

I reckon the splash might hide the replica-ness as they come apart, that’s why replicas might be crashed into the sea/ water as opposed to land?