dark light

Mark V

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 2,768 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Hurricane AE977 #989631
    Mark V
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Hurricane AE977 #989654
    Mark V
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: New Hurricane for Europe #1001222
    Mark V
    Participant

    Would she have been delivered with a 2 bladed Watts prop?

    No.

    in reply to: Spitfire PL965 photo – who is the photographer? #1006686
    Mark V
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: TE311 #1011115
    Mark V
    Participant

    Some (and a good number of their employees) post and read here. Its still a wonderful resource.

    in reply to: TE311 #1011128
    Mark V
    Participant

    Out of interest if this forum is largely laughed at by operators -which one do they use ?

    For what?

    in reply to: TE311 #1011131
    Mark V
    Participant

    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….

    in reply to: TE311 #1011437
    Mark V
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Spitfire PL965 photo – who is the photographer? #1011771
    Mark V
    Participant

    Anyone?

    in reply to: TE311 #1011784
    Mark V
    Participant

    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)!

    in reply to: RR232 Article in Todays Metro #937678
    Mark V
    Participant

    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…..

    in reply to: RAF Battle of Britain song film – cringe worthy? #946329
    Mark V
    Participant

    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 😉

    in reply to: Duxford Diary 2013 #952147
    Mark V
    Participant

    Go on then – lets see em! 😀

    in reply to: Spitfire I stencils. #955572
    Mark V
    Participant

    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!

    in reply to: Robert Rundhall BoB Film Books #963145
    Mark V
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 2,768 total)