Registered in Sweden, but it’s the Norwegian branch of Biltema that bought her. She’s meant for Norway. Both are correct, but I’d say she’s to be
put in under “Norway”.

Thanks for that – does this apply to both Biltema Spitfires?

cover-to-cover news and articles about Spitfires/Mustangs or other WW2 onwards warbirds –

Only reason to buy them 😀

There will be a new musueum building going up next year (in appropriate period style), next to the current one, to house the WWI types, designed by Steven Atkin Architects 🙂

Thanks for the info MarkV, much appreciated. In that case it’ll be even lovelier! As I said, no disrespect intended, I was just thinking it would look rather dashing in the red & white scheme.

Non taken 🙂

Gladiators were, in fact, camouflaged in three upper colours. From memory, two shades of green and dark earth. I think this may have been to compensate for the shadow cast by the upper wing.

As far as I am aware that is basically correct Andy – the scheme you are referring to was the ‘Temperate Land Scheme’ in its bi-plane (shadow compensating) application which comprised four colours: Dark Earth & Dark Green (Upper wing and upper parts of fuelage) and Light Larth & Light Green (Lower wing & lower part of fuselage). Looks like Jasper’s photo is a local variation on this concept.

Best reference for it is Camouflage & Markings No.2 The Battle for Britain by Paul Lucas.

[QUOTE=Roobarb;1496679]

there are quite a few nice shots of her when based there plus some of 2-seater G-AVA and Mk.14 G-FIRE.
QUOTE]
That’s G-AVAV to us spotters Mark V… :p

Theres me dropping me ‘V’s again! 😀 – now corrected. How are things at your end by the way?

..either way that linked thread in Mark V’s post is not about MW404.

Tim

I have removed it – I was guessing!

I don’t know what it’s like in the UK but we are building an accurate airworthy replica of an He 51 here in Germany and the fact that the type has already flown before is making things rather easy for us.

That would not cut much ice with the CAA – it would still be viewed as a ‘new’ type and cause the same problems mentioned earlier in your post. The authority here in the UK sees a very distinct difference between a replica of ‘warbird x’ and an example of ‘warbird x’ itself, no matter whether or not there were any differences in the parts.

As a consequence, if you have ambitions to fly ‘warbird x’ in the UK under a Permit to Fly (the airworthiness catergory for the operation of ex military aircraft) then you would need to find an example of one or the remains of one in order to register the aircraft and subsequently restore it. The presence or absence of a data plate is not a direct obstical but you would need to know the identity of the airframe or remains thereof in order to register it. The re-build of said warbird then needs to be carried our by (or under the direct supervision of) an organisation holding CAA A8/20 E4 certification which allows the to make the AAN application for the issue of the first Permit. Subsequent renewals can be carried out by CAA M5 maintenance organisations.

So back to the original question, to what extent does the existance of the original manuals and drawings really matter. That depends to a large degree on how much of the original aircraft remains. If it was something truly exotic such as the Do 335 mentioned earlier that was partially complete I think you would have a near impossible task on your hands in the UK. Some degree or reverse engineering is permissable, with logic, stress calculation and material analysis but you could easily get to the stage where there is a mountain to climb. Of course in the US its a different picture so long as you are happy with registration in the Experimental catergory.