I’m not even slightly jealous, no no no…:D Congratulations mate, well deserved.

IMHO, one of the most underrated WW1 autobiographies is Night Raiders of the Air by A.R. Kingsford, a New Zealander who flew numerous night raids in Fe.2’s and HP 0/400’s. Thankfully, it looks as though it’s being reprinted in a hardcover format, Amazon are listing it as due for release in December. There should be some older softback copies around if you don’t fancy the newer version.

Nicest colour scheme? Blue? The original one was olive drab wasn’t it? Did’t they use well known blue photographs published in many cheap aviation books as reference?

Cees

There is some conjecture about the possible blue topside colour, it’s alleged that a light blue shade was experimented with on some aircraft of the 361stFG. If I remember rightly, the one report of blue topsides was made by a chap who was a schoolboy spotter at Bottisham, who saw them only distantly. It would appear that this experimental camouflage idea has spread through the warbird community like wildfire, even though group veterans don’t recollect ever seeing such colours used. It’s even gone to the extent that the famous LouIV colour air-air shot has been airbrushed in some publications to make the topsides look blue. It’s a debate that bounces around the modelling forums quite a bit.

Anyway, here’s wishing the current team all the best for the rebuild, and here’s to the memory of the pilot lost in the crash that damaged her.

I recall walking past Blackpool Airport one day in the 70s, with a Pembroke in. One of the aircrew was very carefully positioning the propellors so they were the “proper” way. Quite so.

Not that I have any practical experience, but isn’t it the case with radials that the prop position relates to whether the engine has been pulled through? As I understand it, the blades are left in Y position when the aircraft is inactive, and the blades are then left in the upward-Y pattern when the prop has been pulled through prior to starting.

A remarkable career, it just goes to show how little recognition the PRU chaps got- 192 ops and I’d never previously heard of him.

RIP and many thanks.

In saying that, I’ve got the big Spit 24 in the build pile still….!
So have I the Revell(ex Matchbox 1/32) kit. I understand its not the easiest kit to build. So it keeps dropping down the list!

Not a difficult build as such, but doesn’t go together well if you a) include all the internal bits and b) don’t reinforce the wing to fuselage joint, and the cowling joints. Do alot of dry fitting of the internal bits before you commit to glue- alot of it doesn’t fit well (including the engine) and most of it isn’t seen anyway if you’ve got the cowls and gun covers on.

I did neither of the above on mine and it went in the bin half finished after the wings fell off.

Needs a fair bit of filler too.

There was a thread on here asking the same question back in May, follow the link. 🙂

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=116485&highlight=Kennet+Seafire

It’s basically about having the blades at the best angle for the given engine revs and aircraft speed. Fine pitch was used for take-off and climb, with the blades at less of an angle (think of it as first gear in car terms), the pitch would then be more progressively moved to coarse, with the blade angle increased, as the speed increased. The advantage of an automatic “constant speed” unit is that it adjusts itself to the best conditions, a simpler “variable pitch” was operated by the pilot via a lever in the cockpit and this meant that the prop wasn’t always at it’s most efficient setting.