Our first baby is due on March 20th. I think I’ll have to give the ultimatum – squeeze it out now or wait until after the 26th..

!!!!!!

Nah, boring – no Hurricanes. :diablo:

Seriously, where did you buy them FROM?

It’s a thought. We know where they are, there are sufficient numbers of experienced aviation archaeologists (and preservationists / conservationists) on here, there’s a clear purpose to the dig (the static) and I’m sure its not beyond us to get a licence. Not to mention a chance for an outing to the West Country, with lashings of ginger beer…

For the uninitiated, we just need to know enough to fill in one (or more likely two) of these… http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2318DD7B-2DDC-41E0-8D35-7AD12333A1C4/0/POMRACTBOOKLET_Jun09.pdf

Standard Spade grip,oxygen regulator cover,kigass primers..Looks pretty generic so far..We need plans with datum lines to begin with,then tables to flesh out the fuselage shape or could you go off a good model kit..What NACA is the aerofoil?

Um – how would we know what a ‘good’ model kit would be without the original plans or parts to compare the kit with? :diablo:

I am very up for a bit of reverse engineering!

An interesting resource, though secondary, is the 4+ series ‘World War II Wings Line’ Westland Whirlwind book by Mark1 ltd of Prague. There is a section that appears (from its style) lifted straight from an Air Ministry document (though uncredited) that gives the aerofoil section as NACA 23017-08 with thickness to chord varying from 17% at root to 8% at tip. Wing Chord at centre section is 6’10”, incidence 0 deg.

There is much about the structure and materials in here – I wish I knew the source. They credit Hendon, FAA museum Yeovilton and The Czech National Archives, so there’s stuff out there! There are versions available for download on the web, but I’ll not point at them here as I am dubious about the legality of doing so.

Sopwith – Yes, with these parts already you can stick a data plate on it and Bob’s your (original) uncle!

Ah, that’s true for a flyer, Biggles (if only for certification reasons) – but for a static project a box of twisted bits, some photographs, AP’s and the odd drawing can produce remarkable results! No matter how twisted bits are, that’s your gauges and specs, right there. It seems rare these days that ‘archaeological’ evidence is critical, but I am working on a project right now that wouldn’t work without it – but which is quite feasible with it. I’m sure that’s true of other static projects that forumites are involved with. There really is nothing ruling out a complete Whirlwind. It just takes, time, space, money and commitment to rule it IN.

A ‘look a like’ and an ‘original’ are only a data-plate apart. I’m sure someone has one of those!

I’ll be heading home for this one too!

I was raised on the local produce, and it didn’t do me any harm. My eight-foot lizard friend agrees.

Cheers Eddie. To clarify – the XX intoduced two-speed, single stage.

Red’s question was about two-stage supercharging.

That was introduced on the 60 series – Spit Mk VII, VIII and IX (but not in that order ;))

hehe – is this a trick question?

I feel like Alan Davis.. but..

No. The two-stage supercharger was the key improvement over the Vb enjoyed by the Spitfire Mks IX and VIII

(Cue claxon) 😮