dark light

VoyTech

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 953 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RAF Vehicle ID #1326209
    VoyTech
    Participant

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/Mark12/Album%203/RAFcar.jpg

    ‘135 W’ – 135 Wing? Once owners of MH434, ML407, etc.

    in reply to: Fighting when drunk #1326220
    VoyTech
    Participant

    In Second World War as well as Winter War, Red Army soldiers used to be given 100 g of vodka daily.

    IIRC this was spirit, not vodka.
    IIRC, too, there was a Lancaster in the RAF named “Spirit of Russia” by its crew.

    in reply to: In the paintshop #1326231
    VoyTech
    Participant

    PPS, Trent Aero, HFL, WoGB, TFC, Harry Stenger, Charles Church, Airframe Assemblies, Ambrion Aviation, Franco Actis, Craig Charleston, ARC, Aerofab etc etc built!:)

    I see. I thought you were talking about historically accurate, factory-applied position. Sorry about the confusion.

    in reply to: In the paintshop #1327309
    VoyTech
    Participant

    53″ on a high back

    Supermarine, CBAF, or Westland-built?

    in reply to: Spit 22 PK624 #1330151
    VoyTech
    Participant

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/Bruggen/spit22.jpg

    RAUT (Polish, rather old fashioned) – PARTY, esp. EVENING PARTY
    Very fitting for an old lady.

    in reply to: Spitfire Wing types revisited…. #1330182
    VoyTech
    Participant

    As for the cowlings, I don’t know if the terms were correct, but I meant that some have the earlier flatter type as can be seen on MK202, whilst some have the later ‘Bulged’ (I’ve seen it refered to as this) such as (can’t make out the serial) OU-Y.

    Paul, I will gladly take a bet that no Spitfire in this shot has the top cowling panel more bulged than MK202. There was a difference in cowling production technology (and consequently in cowling shape) between the Supermarine-built Mk IXs and those built at CBAF. I don’t think they were interchangeable. If any of the Spitfires in this photo were built by Supermarine (very few LF.IXs came from Supermarine, and even fewer survived until D-Day time) they could have the “flatter” cowling. MK202 is certainly not one of them.

    249 squadron I am sure, but who would suggest the colour of the all over finish?

    Royal Blue?

    in reply to: Spitfire Wing types revisited…. #1331406
    VoyTech
    Participant

    More likely in Malta, I suspect a Mk VC originally fitted with two 20mm cannons per wing and then had the inner cannons removed and perhaps two outer .303 Brownings fitted.

    Quite. The question is, why they chose to remove the inboard cannon, not the outboard? And there were many more like this.
    Or, more generally, when the armament was standardised in Mk IXs etc. as 2×20 + 4x.303 why was the inboard station chosen for the cannon, not the outboard? After all, the installation like here allows to get rid of the extension tube, saving a little weight (and probably a little drag as well). And of course the switch to (e) wing would be so much easier later on.

    in reply to: Spitfire Wing types revisited…. #1331470
    VoyTech
    Participant

    flat top & blown top cowlings

    ?

    what is clear on the aircraft where you can see them, is that they have the ‘universal’ wing with cannon extension and ‘chimney pot’

    Paul, can you really see it in the photo? Gosh, I will have to see a doctor about my eyes.

    in reply to: Spitfire Wing types revisited…. #1331616
    VoyTech
    Participant

    Only very slightly off-topic: AVM Park inspecting fighters on Malta.

    in reply to: Spitfire Wing types revisited…. #1332338
    VoyTech
    Participant

    Mark,
    In this photo you posted it is clear that the cannon barrel has just the conical shroud, no extension tube between the wing l/e and the shroud. So this cannon is fitted in the outboard bay of a ‘universal’ wing. Whether there is a 0.5 in m/g in the inboard bay is anybody’s guess.
    Also, to be pedantic. MK732 was built with a Merlin 66, so it was either LF.IX or LF.IX(e), but not an F.IX.

    in reply to: Massed Spitfire flypast in recent times. #1333788
    VoyTech
    Participant

    3rd May 1998 saw what was effectively a ‘Diamond 16’ led by Rod Dean

    Can’t locate any photos from 2000, but found this of 3/5/1998.

    in reply to: Spitfire Vb BL907 #1248726
    VoyTech
    Participant

    There should be an accident record card available on microfilm at the RAF Museum archive.

    in reply to: RAF Promotions #1252126
    VoyTech
    Participant

    Ian,
    The first question that springs to mind here is: was he told he would be promoted to W/Cdr (permanent rank) or was he told that he would be appointed to a post which entialed the acting rank of W/Cdr?

    in reply to: Spitfire Mark designator #1252127
    VoyTech
    Participant

    Ooops!
    Hopefully the photo gets there this time.

    in reply to: Spitfire Mark designator #1252251
    VoyTech
    Participant

    This is a photo believed to show two Polish Spitfire pilots on 302 Sqn’s MA843 WX-F, one of the numerous Spitfires in MA800-MH400 serial range that seem to have been built from the outset with the ‘single chimney pot’. To me the cannon here looks like perfectly standard ‘C’ wing unit, certainly without the distinctive ‘B’ wing ‘chimney pot’ on the wing leading edge. The photo was taken at Northolt during late September or early October 1943.

    Off topic, the sergeant near the fuselage is Alfred Krzysztof Wlodarski who had flown operationally with nos. 315 and 316 Sqns. He was subsequently killed in an accident while ferrying Typhoon IB JR127 on 14 July 1944.
    The F/Sgt near the cannon is Kazimierz Benzinski, who served with 302 Sqn and then joined the RAF after WWII, flying Spitfires well into 1950s. During his service he flew several survivors in Polish or RAF squadrons: MJ783 WX-F and MK959 WX-F in 302, TB863 in 691 and 17 Sqns, and possibly also VN485 in 80 Sqn in Hong Kong.

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 953 total)