HORNET CANOPY…. looks like one as well. Alert Mr Collins.
Thank you to the people who highlighted this to me. I already have two of these canopies….. 3 would just be greedy! 😉
I’ve got some good images showing the Hornet installation, and will post them here.
Hi Bruce,
I’m sorry to hear about Ray.
The Mosquito is looking good. Well done to all.
That’s what I’m saying, it’s from a Neptune.
Yes, I agree.
Hi Pagen01
The only Hornet remains shown in the earlier photo’s are the wing from PR.22 VZ66? circa 1980!
The wheel and undercarriage bay is not from a Hornet.
Are these both recoveries from PNG???
Its a pleasure to see these more “exotic” aircraft restored statically for museums, because more often than not they get bought up as flying re-builds, where they often languish in the back of a hangar awaiting attention out of sight, or are kept in private flying collections.
A lot of these “exotic” types are therefore notably absent from museums.
Nice job Tony.
Ive got to do two reservoir tanks for the Hornet – one de-icer, and one hydraulic. Both are a bit complex to make including a lot of tin bashing and aluminium welding, but I have managed to find the correct filler spouts for both which is half the battle!
Will you be displaying your Spit again at Newark in 2010?
None to my knowledge, unfortunately. Such a shame that none of the Mossie NF36s was preserved.
The Brussels Air Museum NF30 is the same.
Hi Peter,
I think from memory, the organisation in Kent which previously restored the Mk1 spit, Battle, and are now doing the Defiant at Rochester doesn’t have large enough premisis to restore the wellington in.
Cosford have their new large conservation centre, and I’m sure that they can handle everything there, and if the fabric needs replacing then there are people in the UK outside of the RAF who can replace it all.
Hi Chox,
I think they have to make the copies, as the copier is within their office, and not in the reading room itself.
Hi Chox,
I have been to DoRIS on many occasion and have found them very helpful.
The best approach is to book yourself into their reading room for half a day or more, and give them an idea in advance of what you are looking for. This way they will have run a search in advance of your visit, and will have all of the relevant material ready for your visit. If your research throws up different things on the day, I have always found them very helpful for making extra searches while I am there too.
Small amounts of photocopying can be managed on the day, however if you require entire AP’s copying they have to send these away, and you will get a parcel in the post!
I’m interested! E-mail sent.
David,
How was the error in the Hornets published dimensions determined?
regards
Mark Pilkington
Hi Mark,
I have the component drawings for the Hornet. It was just a matter of adding all of the lengths together:
Spinner + Engine cowling to main spar + fuselage from main spar + short tail cone = correct length for non-NF.21 versions.
Radar + fuselage + long tail cone = correct length for NF.21 version.
We did the same with the 3 different tail plane widths too (prototype, early production, late production)
I personally wouldn’t scale anythin up from a model. It is also bad practice to scale up from small scale drawings too in a drawing office. Just the thickness of a 1mm pencil line at 1/24, becomes 24mm thick full size. So even if at 1/24 scale drawing was 100% accurate, you will still get an approximation at full size.
The only true way to do these things are to get the original co-ordinate plots (lofting lines) for an aircraft from the original manufacturer. John “Aeroclub” is spot-on here: The Hornet for example has had its length incorrectly stated in the 1946 and re-produced as fact ever since! This was not helped by the fact that AP’s gave packaging dimensions for major sub-assembly parts of the Hornet with an allowance for clearance too!
Even when you have some original drawings and some small pieces of distorted wreckage, creating full size drawings of something the size of a Stirling can mean errors of several inches could appear just by drawing a line to the information you have, which may or may not be ok?
Attn: elaref
I have down, among the more interesting Sea Vampires:-
F1 TG286
F21 Prototype VG701
F21 VT803
F21 VT805ALL of these had been involved in ‘flexible deck’ trials at some point!!
Others were:-
F20 VV136
F20 VV143VV548 A solitary Vampire FB5 ex Lossie Station Flt
With Sea Venoms….
FAW20 WM504
FAW20 WM572+ a few from the later WW, XA & XG batches
I must confess I remember, when I was reading off the TG & VG serials, saying to myself something like ‘These can’t be correct – there are no Vampires/Venoms this early in the serial system!!
But it was l-o-n-g before today’s internet/computerised society, where the info is available once you can spell YAHOO or Google ( I had internet access long before Google arrived, so still tend to use Yahoo)
Many thanks for these serials. Also, were you able to get an up-to-date e-mail address from Douglas Rough for me? Thanks in advance,