what i mean is more agile fighter dont really have tactic to reply when faster air plane use boom and zoom attack , even if they do , it still seem that the faster fighter have advantage
The large number of times that slower aircraft have routinely bettered faster ones throughout air combat history would tend to imply that tactics are more important than outright performance.
so what tactic that agile aircraft like zero or Supermarine can use to defense again faster opponent like hell cat or Ta-152
isn’t the fact that we changing from tri plane to bi plane and to mono plane , and also from piston to jet engine show that speed more important than maneuver ?
If you can coerce the enemy into combat on your terms, speed only gives him the choice of whether to accept or not. There are many occasions where the faster aircraft has not triumphed.
what i mean is some characteristics seem to be more important than other Ex : hell cat vs zero prove that speed is more important than turn rate ?
Not necessarily, it is more an indication of matching tactics to available performance and the combat situation. There have been several occasions where manoeverability has been of more importance than sheer speed.
And is that a lucky horseshoe hanging up in the cockpit?
Wrong way up if it is 🙂
… and what happens when someone makes a change to a photo, such as tinting, or colourisation; does it then become a new image and the copyright/property of the person making the change?
One of them became ‘Liberty Bell’, but sadly lost in an accident recently.
Were they used to attack the ‘Torrey Canyon’ or was that left to Buccs?
Note that one of those WAAF’s has an impressive row of medals, that has to be reasonably rare. I wonder if perhaps some of them are Army nurses rather than WAAF’s and she might be a WWI retread? Or if they are WAAF’s perhaps she’s Queen Bee?
Looks like army uniform to me, check the shirt and tie. Some impressive scrambled egg on the hat of the officer leaning in from the far side?
Presumably this just applied to these two squadrons?
That would be the one. as per the history of the aircraft :
A9-13 was originally built to an RAF order of 180 aircraft and was delivered as RAF serial number T9552 in January 1942 and was one of 20 Australian Beauforts delivered to 100 Squadron RAF which operated at Richmond NSW.
Thanks, and good luck with the restoration.
All the best with the project. Is this the airframe that includes substantial Filton-built sections?
So how do we explain the ‘brass nut’ (presumably) blanking-off the auxiliary oil tank pipe?
Could it have been fitted by an RAF ‘erk’ or even a museum curator to stop an annoying drip of oil from an open pipe?
the silver circle thing you photographed I found that last week, I couldnt carry anymore so I left it .-) also that yellow cylinder I found ages ago too and didn’t bother with it, I dont think its aircraft related. I found an aviation pipe connector thing at that same spot but I accidently dropped it, if you find it I hope you take a photo of it .-)
good pics thanks for sharing
I am not so sure about the cylinder; it is very light, even allowing for corrosion. If it were marine or industrial I think it would have been much heavier? That said it could be off a lorry.
I was back there myself again today, pickings were a bit thinner on the ground. I did spot this fastening; looks possibly aviation related:
Moray-20140309-00658 by martinperry77, on Flickr
There was also a small aluminium data plate next to it:
IMG-20140309-00676 by martinperry77, on Flickr
Number on it appears to read ‘G0025482’
The rest of the bits spotted can be viewed here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/88888327@N03/sets/72157642110222693/
Am not particularly convinced that they are all aviation related.
XW530 today;
Moray-20140309-00653 by martinperry77, on Flickr