Quite amazing to think that there could soon be 10 Hurricanes flying in Europe,
In UK actually! HRL are completing two Mk.I’s at the moment plus there is the Thruxton restoration you mentioned.
This list will grow this year without a doubt – but this is the current situation with respect to airworthy Hurricanes:
1. LF363 – BBMF, RAF Coningsby, UK.
2. PZ865 – BBMF, RAF Coningsby, UK.
3. G-BKTH – Sea Hurricane – Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden, UK.
4. G-HURI – HAC, Duxford UK.
5. G-HUPW/R4118 – Mk 1 – Peter Vacher, Didcot ,UK.
6. ZK-TPK/P3351 – Reported sold to French buyer (former Alpine Fighter Collection, Wanaka, NZ).
7. C-FDNL – (former G-ORGI), Ed Russell, Niagra, Canada.
8. C-FTPM – KZ321 (Mk IV) – Vintage Wings of Canada (Michael Potter), Canada.
9. N943HH/RCAF 5667 – Fighter Factory, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
10. N33TF/AE977 – Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar, UK.
11. N54FH – Flying Heritage Collection, Seattle, USA.
12. G-HHII/’BE505′ – Hangar 11 Collection, N Weald, Essex, UK.
I decided to keep the Shuttleworth machine on the lst – she will be back in the air this year.
Would she have been delivered with a 2 bladed Watts prop?
No.
It appears to be from here?
http://www.hangar11.co.uk/spitgallery.html
Indeed it is – I need to find out who took the photograph as I have had a request to publish it.
Some (and a good number of their employees) post and read here. Its still a wonderful resource.
Out of interest if this forum is largely laughed at by operators -which one do they use ?
For what?
Edgar – I think I am just mis-reading your point – your actually saying what is applied to TE311 is incorrect? This detail is one which I suspect can be demonstrated either way by numerous period examples. The IWM shot above demonstrates it the other way round to the Mk.21 drawing and generally we apply that particular instruction that way round too as its just seems more logical for it to read correctly to an individual mounting the aircraft.
The Mk 21 drawing only proves one thing – that is how it ‘should’ have been applied to a Mk. 21. I say that with a little cynicism as I use that drawing quite regularly 🙂
Antoni – the correct wording is WALKWAY INBOARD….
Edgar you said the drawing was wrong (180 degrees out) – agreed, but you also said ‘they should be capable of being read from the wingtips’ – but thats whats shown on the ‘incorrect’ drawing whereas the logos should be capable of being read from the inboard access position.
Anyone?
Edgar – not sure I agree, it seems to me to be logical that WALKWAY INBOARD should be readable from the point you access the arcraft next to the cockpit in order to contain access inboard of the black line….
Update – Actually Edgar – is there a typo in your message as that drawing shows them as reading from the wingtips (ie the wrong way round)!
i thought i was picking up on the latest mod incorporated into the IX(T), with the second cockpit door, i take it this’ll be the second so done ? 😮
I don’t understand your point either – all T.9’s (and the prototype T.8) have a second door and have done so since the 40’s…..
If this is supposed to be Battle of Britain, why do I see 41 Pattern Mae Wests?
Ooops! At least they got away with the Spitfire IX 😉
Go on then – lets see em! 😀
There are no records I am aware of for individual component serial numbers unfortunately.
65 is Supermarine if I remember correct .
Its 6S – an often made error!
First editions of any book are normally identified by the lack of the phrase ‘Re-printed ****’ or ‘Second edition ****’ etc. on the publishing info page at the front.