Thanks Edgar, just thought that the Packard may have had the advantage due to the fuel injection type carb.

The Rolls Royce engines were using pressurised Bendix-Stromberg carbs by then anyway, a form of fuel injection.

Its heart-breaking to see this machine damaged and submerged in sea-water 🙁 But there can only be praise for the way Leon handled the incident – it takes great presence of mind and coolness to pull off a ditching and be able to calmly swim back to shore as he did. Thank goodness he was un-hurt and sincere commiserations to all the people involved with building and operating the aircraft.

If the aircraft were wearing military marks, they usually require approval from the MoD. If they are not to wear their civil reg, they will require exemption from the CAA.

Whether this would be granted for an aircraft not carrying its original military serial, I do not know.

Bruce

There are quite a few warbirds carrying non original serials on dispensations. The issue is whether or not its possible to determine the individual aircraft from any applied markings (which would tend to suggest a complete copy of another aircrafts markings with no G-reg carried would be unlikely) – one reason why the Hangar 11 P-40 carries its tail number (applied after filming Red Tails on return to the UK).

Did they even have the yellow tips? Or is this ‘elf and safety?

The yellow tips are correct for wartime spec, both RAF and USAAF fighters had similar 4″ deep yellow coloured tips applied to both faces of each blade. Interestingly some modern day overhaul shops dealing with US props omit the yellow tips on the face of the blades facing the pilot!

So what did you get on wartime props Bruce?

Tony

It was normally the coloured disc near the root and a white stencilled blade serial – no laquer or Rotol emblem – the latter was a post-war thing. Hopefully will try to do something to possibly rectify this situation eventually.

from an engineer’s perspective, on the previous flight, the aircraft suffered a catastrophic engine failure whilst at high speed (narrow band of oil with defined edges). Lots of oil all over the place. The engine was changed and the severe staining remains.

Just a thought……

The most likely scenario I would think. Its definatley not a shadow – as pointed out earlier the shadow from the camera ship is over the fuselage and much lighter in tone.

I was under teh impression they were built using original plans and the only difference was the use of modern metals and different engines but then I’m usually wrong.

No Mike – very few (if any) of the parts are inter-changeable – structurally they are quite different.
Some owners such as Fighter Factory/Meier Motors have introduced original instruments and cockpit parts to add to the appearance but fundamentally they are different aircraft.

Thanks Bruce, so what role to BAE play in keeping Spitfires flying? Strucutral Repair Schemes? Modifications?

Are Spitfires/Hurricanes on Permit to Fly?

Pretty much nothing on a day to day basis – all the repair schemes etc were concieved when the aircraft were in service and still largely relevent today (apart from the battle damage ones!). Modifications are not as popular as they used to be!

Yes – in the UK all civil operated (and UK registered) Spitfires, Mustangs Hurricanes etc are on a Permit to Fly.

To fly requires materials and systems to be to modern standards and thus the aircraft requires certain modification in order to meet these standards. How often have we discussed ‘fire wall’ rebuilds or the loss of original material in the pursuit of airworthyness.
As has already been mentioned the museum world has its own set of rules and items have to be fitted into the right category in order for the academics to understand what is original, repaired or fake.

I think this statement is too general and to some degree rather mis-leading. It implies that if you wish to restore and fly say a Spitfire that a significant propertion of the material has to be changed to a different ‘modern’ spec in order to comply with current airworthiness requirements. The implication in this statement being that original specifications are in some way inadequate or sub-standard and that modern materials are consequently ‘better’. In most respects the opposite is true (in the UK) today – sound original material is always preferable to be re-used, if it is damaged or missing then you need to demonstrate that the item/material you are proposing to to use to replace it is original, or if not is the equivelant specification. Moreover if you do for some reason need to replace original material with something different(perhaps due to the unavailibility of historic material) the procedures for getting this approved are onerous.