Thanks for that Galdri,
I had an idea the S was ‘only’ 40mm,but with the claims about structural and handling problems,I thought it way too small.The gun itself looks pretty big,so perhaps it isn’t an S afterall,but this is what it says in the caption to the photo I have.Hmmmm…
With regard to the Fort being stronger than the Wimpy,I’m not so sure.The geodetic contruction of the Wimpy was immensely strong and also very flexible,so I’d imagine it would soak up the recoil of a large calibre gun quite nicely.Just a thought…

I’m pretty certain that it’s a Mk.IIa Spit rather than a Mk.V.The Rotol prop wasn’t fitted on the Mk.V as far as I’m aware.Being as there is no record of a 54Sqn Mk.II being lost in this time period,are we sure we’ve identified the Sqn correctly??The obscured code letter might be a D (which would mean this Spit belonged to 91Sqn.),but I’d say from what I can see of it between the guys legs that it could be something like an F,as there appears to be no horizontal line coming from the bottom of the letter.”FL” would make it an 81Sqn aircraft.
Certainly a bit of a brain boggler…:confused:

RE: Vampire for sale

This is Vampire T.11 XD382,formerly with 5FTS,and 206 and 208AFS amongst others.She was formerly at Syreston and Shawbury with the intructional serial 8033M.
There is also a Vampire for sale in the classifieds section in the back pages of Flypast,and this is possibly the same machine.

RE: Spitfire history

I’d agree she’s not a Spit 5,although having looked at the pic a couple of times I’m starting to wonder whether she’s the real deal at all or a very good replica of some sort.I’d say it was a Mk.IX(9)if anything,but it appears to have an iffy retractable tailwheel and the non existant serial swings it for me-I’d place a bet on it being a replica.Where was the piccy taken??

RE: kermit weeks/lancaster

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-02-03 AT 02:50 PM (GMT)]Hi Peter,
Your skin wrinkling explaination does seem a possibility,although I can’t find any other pics of her which show it up to such a great degree.I think the light and the semi gloss paint finish might be combining to exagerrate the effect.Here’s a similar pic,with no sign of wrinkles…
Thought I’d also chuck in an RCAF example to keep our Canadian Lanc fans happy…:)
Attachments:

RE: Most and least changed

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-02-03 AT 12:41 PM (GMT)]Hi Wombat,
The Fw189 was flying by 1938 so it makes the grade.Although production terminated in 1944,it remained in service till the end of hostilities.I’ve included a few pics-one of the first prototype,another of the second,and the third of a production version-spot the difference!!
The ‘family’ of Curtiss Hawks is certainly a good candidate for Most Changed.I hadn’t really considered it before,but if you think about it,it changed almost wholesale from beginning of radial engined Hawk/Mohawk production up until the Merlin and Allison powered Warhawks.As a side note,the low back version was the Packard Merlin powered P40Q.Only one was built,and this was destroyed during a post war air race.

Attachments:

RE: Most and least changed

Here’s a piccy of a Lancastrian.The main changes were to do with internal fittings for the passanger cabin and the addition of various cargo and luggage bays,one of which was in the extended nose.Basically,the Lancastrian was a Lanc with it’s military bits and pieces stripped out and some civvy creature comforts installed.The basic airframe itself was little changed.
Attachments: