….the prop blades seem to be mostly intact with virtually no other damage ??….
I daresay if many other airmen had done the same [kept it straight] many more lives may have been saved.
…Charles Church with his new build Mk V Spitfire comes to mind……. ( had the circumstances allowed ?)
….could you please elaborate ZRX61 ? .. to whom are we ascribing the “religion” to…TIGHAR ?, or the seemingly more methodical RPM, FF, TGT…
…The old Corsair was only doing what she was meant to do .. abiding faithfully by her pedigree…. if you can’t shoot it down just buzz the tail off ! LOL
….two bob’s worth .. what are the chances he got lucky with TWO pairs of EA that happened to bang into each other in the ensuing seconds after the initial contact….??
…his own tally of two very suddenly become five…maybe six !!……
Yes Bellarine .. lovely work. I think i shall post a thread titled “Stepping on Landmines”…..because this forum is full of ’em ! LOL
…Reevers .. your initial post refers to a “rather large cache of Beaufort and Beaufighter aircraft parts”….fascinating stuff.
…Could you possibly tell us of how and where their recovery was achieved ?…. we all like a good mystery here, and this one alludes to being a ripper….but may also help with the questions being reasonably answered….Cheers
…are there periodic inspections / regulatory audits of what is exactly still in store, or available for trade ?…
…It’s not a silly question when items other than airframes may have been “lost” one way or another….
….Mark12 logged in yesterday for a short while……
This is a nice topic. When the RAF people decided to trade some remaining gate guards and store survivors, they virtually assured these airframes will live in perpetuity. Restored either to flight, or refurbished as another countries’ museum piece, their individual provenance and “sacredness” means they will never die. Those data plates and histories, and our awareness of preserving these surviving, precious relics at all costs assures us they can never be “written off”.
…The old saying is .. “you’ve got to have a crack”…..We could all worry about the “would be” and the “may be” until it becomes time for someone to have actually done something !!
…I’m sure the Napier people and the various aeroplane manufacturers experimenting with completely new engine designs, factored in the degree of these “tolerance risks” to still enable them to forge ahead to combat any potential foe (with possibly an even more effective fighting machine) all the while being confronted with these multifarious situations…. and the ongoing battle that was seen as being far from over.
Thank you for the clarifications regarding the XP-51G airplane176. It’s easy to see how that mistake could be transcribed down through the years…
…did anyone read the first few words of the initial post of airplane 176 ?….
…pontificating on the why’s and wherefore’s of how a “research” should be conducted should not be a deterrent to any help that may be offered….
….Apologies….
Hi Roger .. I thought the “Mustang” appellation was given by the British at the outset and was taken up by the U.S. at a later date….
…another quote by the same previous author…”The first production Mustang, as the fighter had already been dubbed by the R.A.F., flew within a year of the prototype”….