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

Mark V

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,566 through 2,580 (of 2,768 total)
1 2 3 … 171 172 173 … 183 184 185
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 26, 2003 at 9:47 am in reply to: What's wrong with this paint job? #2123394
    Mark V
    Participant

    Chad – I saw that Wildcat picture yesterday and just gazed in horror. Compare it to any of the shots around the web of the TFC machine such as:

    http://www.flyvintage.com/images/dx/tfc/wildcat/photos/10_duxford/wildcat_11.jpg

    Has this been done recently? I spoke to a pilot associated with the CAF at ‘Sun n Fun’ this year and he said that a Wildcat was to be painted in British markings and that they were in discussion with TFC about the colour scheme. If its the same one something must have gone wrong.

    September 26, 2003 at 9:38 am in reply to: What's wrong with this paint job? #2123405
    Mark V
    Participant

    Its nothing to do with money, fan of OFMC. The only paint job cheaper than an authentic one is no paint at all.

    Putting the correct colours in the right places does not cost any more money than getting it wrong. You could even argue that it is cheaper because you only have to do it once.

    The information is out there, just look at this forum!

    September 26, 2003 at 12:17 am in reply to: What's wrong with this paint job? #2123455
    Mark V
    Participant

    Kermit sold it 2 years ago. I do not believe this, good grief. What does it take to put the right paint on a historic aircraft. 😡 😡 😡

    September 25, 2003 at 5:39 pm in reply to: A Spitfire question #2123584
    Mark V
    Participant

    Ironic that it is the plastic one that has the proper paint job. What a pity they did not get your Dad to paint 434, Glenn. He must wince a bit when he sees it at Duxford.

    September 25, 2003 at 3:15 pm in reply to: Some Fifties British civvies #2123637
    Mark V
    Participant

    Certainly looks like a Hurricane to me too!

    September 25, 2003 at 3:13 pm in reply to: A Spitfire question #2123638
    Mark V
    Participant

    Thats quite possible. Was it with 80 Sqdn?

    September 25, 2003 at 1:50 pm in reply to: A Spitfire question #2123656
    Mark V
    Participant

    Hi Daz – and more……

    Looking in to this cannon length question, itappears that most F24’s had the short barrels but not all. If you look at the famous shots of the 80 Squadron 24s being off-loaded on to lighters in Hong Kong you will see thay have the rocket attachment points and long cannon barrels. Just proves there is always an exception 😉 .

    September 25, 2003 at 12:31 pm in reply to: Question for the Spit IX experts #2123665
    Mark V
    Participant

    Just looking again at Daz’s post – both the single T8 and the later (that is 1940’s post war factory converted) T9’s had wing tanks (2 x 14 gallon as per standard Mk VIII and also a 14.5 gall tank outboard of the wheel well in each wing) giving total internal fuel capacity of 96 gallons. The fuselage tank in front of the cockpit was reduced from 48 galls to 39 galls because of the relocation of the front cockpit.

    Modern conversions such as PT462 had additional wing tank capacity, as did the restored ML407. PT462 actually has seven individual fuel filling points!

    September 25, 2003 at 12:21 pm in reply to: G- Hunt #2123674
    Mark V
    Participant

    NH904 (former G-FIRE) is owned by Bob Pond and based with Planes of Fame in California, USA.

    September 25, 2003 at 9:10 am in reply to: A Spitfire question #2123703
    Mark V
    Participant

    You are welcome Daz.

    September 25, 2003 at 9:08 am in reply to: Question for the Spit IX experts #2123704
    Mark V
    Participant

    The Mk IX is basically a Mk V with a revised engine bearer to take the 60 series Merlin and a strengthened rear fuselage so no it did not have the leading edge fuel tank of the VIII which was a redesigned airframe that ultimately bore the two stage Griffon as the Mk XIV.

    The additional fuel capacity seen on some preserved Spitfires is usually (as far as I am aware), a modern modification – I am thinking gun and ammo bay tanks – the rear fuselage tank in ML417 may be larger than the wartime 26 gallon tank but I suspect not. The T9 trainer PT462 uses ‘wet’ leading edges derived from the PR 19 of 68 gall capacity each.

    September 25, 2003 at 8:57 am in reply to: A Spitfire question #2123710
    Mark V
    Participant

    Not startlingly obvious Daz, but the cannon barrels are slightly different in length. You can see the parallel cylindrical part on the F22, with the tapering end part attatched to it whereas the F24 has only the tapering part so is maybe about 12 to 18 inches shorter . The other differences include fuel tankage, electrical gun firing sytem, rocket projectile hard points and 24V electrical system, but the shorter cannons are really the only external difference.

    September 24, 2003 at 6:38 pm in reply to: NX611 to fly ????? #2123836
    Mark V
    Participant

    This must be the longest surviving thread at nearly two and a half years old. Keep it going for a few more years and you just may see 611 fly again. Anything can happen.

    September 24, 2003 at 10:04 am in reply to: A Spitfire question #2123938
    Mark V
    Participant

    I last heard it was at Cardington but that was 5 years ago and probably out of date info. Mark 12 may have up to date knowledge.

    September 23, 2003 at 4:44 pm in reply to: Spitfire pictures #2124032
    Mark V
    Participant

    And me too please 🙂

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 2,566 through 2,580 (of 2,768 total)
1 2 3 … 171 172 173 … 183 184 185