What he said :eagerness:
Your assumption is correct.
I am a part owner of CF-MAD. Type that in to google images and check it out. It’s heaps of fun!!
Regards
Andy
The top R/H cutout is for the rev counter.
The vertical slot is for an inclinometer.
The bottom right cutout is for an oil pressure gauge.
HTH.
Andy
You folks look like you are having loads of fun.
Your passion is apparent and is no doubt a big reason this interests so many.
Keep up the great work, both on the Meteor and on keeping us posted.
Andy
Andy from Canada chiming in with kudos from here as well.
Good work Andy and Andy and Andy and…….. 😀
Cheers
Andy
Archer,
I would agree with your statement and say yes.
Andy
What better fate than to have a rare part find an appropriate home.
Well done to the donor of that part.
Makes me smile.
Andy
de Havilland Canada test pilot, George Neil was working on a Fury.
This project has been taken over by Vintage wings of Canada.
Andy
Yup. That’s all there is to radar.
A bunch of tupperware firing through 136 lbs of steel plate.
Don’t tell the Germans! :highly_amused:
Great to see her indoors. Thanks for the update.
(yet another) Andy
I realize that it is a half a world away, but Vintage wings of Canada have completed their Mk IX, and may be persuaded to part with their wing jigs.
Just a thought. (worth what you paid for it!)
Andy
P&P
I always really enjoy your threads.Your wit and writing style always make me smile.
I’d also be happy to stand you a pint, should we ever cross paths.
A technique for removing rust from steel that I have heard of, but not yet tried, is a mix of water and molasses.
Whatever chemical interactions that take place in the foul fermenting vat, eats the oxide without touching the steel.
Mix water with molasses in a 9:1 ratio and put your part in for as long as two weeks. Iron oxide is gone without touching the steel.
I realize this will not leave a polished finish, but you will have removed zero non corroded material. Cheap too!
Happy baking!
Andy
I would also venture to argue that the Aeroplane is a DH84 Dragon and not a Rapide.
Different nose and wheel spats / pants / trousers.
Andy
Hmm. Maybe there is something to my theory.
Thrust line of the Hornet is below the wing like the ’82.
Prop rotation works best inward at the top. Am I a genius? (please don’t answer that)
Andy
Here’s a little snippet from the Wickepedia page
“Like several versions of the P-51 Mustang, the first two prototype XP-82s as well as the next 20 P-82B models were powered by British-designed Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, built under license by Packard. These provided the fighter with excellent range and performance; however, the Army had always wanted to give the Twin Mustang a purely American and stronger engine than the foreign-designed P-51’s V-1650 (built at Packard plants, dismantled after the war). In addition, the licensing costs paid to Rolls-Royce for each V-1650 were being increased by Britain after the war. It therefore negotiated in August 1945 with the Allison Division of the General Motors Corporation for a new version of the Allison V-1710-100 engine.[1] This forced North American to switch subsequent production P-82C and later models to the lower-powered engines. It was found that Allison-powered P-82 models demonstrated a lower top speed and poorer high-altitude performance than the earlier Merlin-powered versions.”
The engines on the prototype were originally set up like the P-38 with the tips rotating outward at the top.
As you say Oxcart, it wouldn’t fly.
They quite literally switched the engines to the opposite sides and ended up with a world beater.
The P-38 suffered from the opposite problem. With the prop tips turning in at the top, it didn’t fly worth a darn.
I wonder if the reason is because the thrust lines of each A/C were different. That is P-38 below the wing mean chord whilst the ’82 has the thrust line above.
Just my observation.
Andy
Not the XP.
Some of the production models were Merlin powered as well.
I can’t list them off the top of my head.