Passing this aircraft today and its being dismantled as has been sold to the US.
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=102Y
I don’t feel pulling radials through by hand vs starter turning is a one-method-is-better-than-the-other discussion. Rather, there are correct/safe(r) and incorrect/unsafe ways to perform either.
For the sake of both personal enlightenment and contemplation on hydraulic lock, I’d encourage reading the following by long-time, big-radial operator Randy Sohn:
http://www.douglasdc3.com/sohn/1.htm
And even further enlightenment…
http://www.douglasdc3.com/sohn/9.htm
And even more good stuff from Mr. Sohn:
http://www.douglasdc3.com/sohn/warbird.htm
Keep ’em flying
Just the recording of the Macchi MC72 at speed snaps the little hairs on my neck to attention. Hearing that live would fulfill my bucket list and then some.
Because they forgot to scrap it when the storage space was needed during the fifties?
So you’re praising the UK for not forgetting to scrap every Typhoon? Three cheers for Yankee Doodle and his forgetfulness! :very_drunk:
Like I said, I have nothing against the Pima museum (apart from the fine weather and the crazy amount of land they have available, envy envy!) but I suppose I am trying to establish what the criteria was for ‘borrowing’ an airframe from a national museum. And I have been to Pima (in 2008 or 2009) and I was impressed with the amount of American aviation history to be seen there – I am guessing that the vast majority is donated, otherwise would it be putting the cat amongst the pigeons to ask, if they needed a Spitfire so badly, why they couldn’t buy one? It is just a question, no offence intended.
The RAFM does seem to do a bit of loaning out: the Typhoon (that I have to admit I forgot about) loaned to Canada is utterly unique, being the last complete example of the type in existence, so wherever it goes it would not be ‘duplicating’ an existing display – unlike, for example, a Spitfire in America. I guess the Typhoon has been loaned so that friends and relatives of Canadian pilots, as well as those gentlemen who flew one and are still with us, have the opportunity to see an actual Tiffy in the flesh, so to speak. There are no examples (that I am aware of, anyway) of Spitfires in Kuwait or Dubai before or after that recent loaner; of course, the US did use Spitfires, unlike Kuwait, Dubai or their predecessors.Trying to think what items of US aviation history we might borrow, hypothetically, and I come up with little. Some of the sole surviving examples of German aircraft might be interesting to see (most were unaccessible when I was there) but it strikes me that the one historical aviation item that the US should proudly revere was so unregarded that it spent twenty years in Britain! Other than during World War Two, when it was at Corsham, the original Wright Flyer was on display at the Science Museum, London from 1928 to 1948, after Orville Wright fell out with the Smithsonian Museum over whether the brothers made the first powered, controlled flight, and sent it where it would be respected.
We have a replica now.
Likewise, it strikes me that a historical aviation item the Brits should proudly revere, the one surviving Hawker Typhoon (“…utterly unique, being the last complete example of the type in existence…”), was so unregarded that it required the Smithsonian to respect, preserve, and display it until offered to Blimey.
I’m trying to source a P-47 Instrument panel but without much success. Has anyone got or knows where you can get a 1:1 drawing or plans
Have you tried pursuing one of the reproductions offered by Jay Wisler?
Were the early P61Bs built with the turret ring in situ but no turret fitted because of production delays (with the resulting turret aperture skinned over) – or was the structure completely different? It seems clear that the necessary support structure for the turret has been incorporated into the rebuilt crew pod
Yes on the former. Here’s a bit from Northrup’s Night Hunter by author Jeff Kolln:
All P-61s were equipped to receive a turret and gunner’s seat, and electric mount ring, all amplifiers, inverters, and wiring were installed …there was still great demand for the turrets on the B-29 bomber. The idea was to ship the turrets to field depots for installation when available in sufficient quantity.
I am no P61 expert, and as such happy to be corrected, but reading their website it would suggest a dorsal turret is accurate for this airframe –
“The next variant, the P-61B, made further improvements to the A model, including a provision for drop tanks, as seen below. The first two hundred of the 450 built did not have a top turret.”
So as the 232nd built it falls in the “with” turret batch.
All that aside though, a very impressive restoration.
Jon
I know you’re only trying to help, Jon. But–simply put–someone at MAAM doesn’t have the facts straight.
Here’s a clearer pic of said P-61 as found on Mt Cyclops, looking forward from the radar observer’s station in the back to just being able to make out the top of the gunner’s canopy (or what’s left of it) in the front. No turret. No cavity. Just intact, alumin(i)um skin.
http://themanshed.cc/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/p61_60.jpg
Yes, I can guess why Mr. Strine wishes to install a top turret. I’m hopeful the restoration doesn’t stagnate for lack of one.
…They are still on the lookout for an upper turret. Regards Taff Evans.
As a P-61B-1-NO, 42-39445 never had a dorsal turret insalled.
http://www.maam.org/p61/images/MAAM-001_low.jpg
I wonder why Mr. Strine wishes to convert her into something less authentic? Has he ever stated why?
Hi, I was thinking of building a scaled down but flyable version of the Hawker Hurricane, but I live very far away from the UK and can’t get to see one at a museum. I am wondering if its possible to get build plans for one. Would appreciate it if someone had any!
Italian firm Flying Legend sells plans for a Hurricane replica:
This truly is a monumental undertaking as far as restorations go. Tom and team are amazing, true craftsmen & women.
Someone smarter than I am will have to explain the prop rotation thing.
I just confirmed my suspicion that the XP-38 was indeed the only P-38 to have the props turn inward at the top.
All others turned outward.
This is just the opposite to the ’82’s.Any thoughts?
Andy Scott
Note the real advantages of the F-82 vs P-38 for single-engine flight as quoted from retired Colonel John Sharp in the following link. The thread also covers why P-38 production stayed with ‘outward’ propeller rotation, even though it made the pilot’s life more challenging.
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36361&start=0
For our friends who may not be familiar with Johnson, he was an early day Bob Hoover, flying a Ford the way hoover did his Aero Commander…
For the benefit of the uneducated, I’ll post youtube: