JonathanFdont undrestand bereft
‘E’s no longer pinin’ for the clouds! ‘E’s passed on! This airframe is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! ‘E’s pushing up the daisies! ‘Is ‘idraulic and helectrical processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-AIRCRAFT!!
JonathanFNot sure if it was the website linked below, but I remember reading somewhere that the XVIs had a slight bulge on the upper cowling, and the filler cap access panel relocated. No doubt this info’s come from one of the hardcopy Spit tomes anyway:
http://folk.uio.no/hungnes/avia/spitfire/mkixvar.htm
Specifically:
On later examples, and on the MkXVI, this swelling in the upper engine panel contour is significantly exaggerated. I have not seen “official” explanations for this change, but there must have been some good reason, as the view from the cockpit was limited enough as it was. The modified contour is typically seen on MkXVI’s and many MkIXe’s. It may have been introduced to make room for the modified intercooler of the MkXVI’s Packard-built Merlin 266, which had an integral header tank. The Merlin 61,63, 66, and 70 had a flat-topped intercooler and a separate, firewall-mounted header tank. The Mk.XVI was built in parallel with the late Mk.IX’s, more or less on the same Castle Bromwich assembly line. The difference in header tank configuration between the Mk.IXe and Mk.XVI is also reflected in different positioning of the filler cap access panel. As far as I’m aware, this might be the only external difference between the two marks. Most kits and drawings show this hatch in the forward position, perhaps due to the fact that many currently flying examples use Merlins with the integral tank.
As the guy says, many later IXs had it too, even if it was a mod introduced for the XVIs Packard. So no more useful in separating IX from XVI than the pointed rudder, but hopefully of interest nonetheless to those who haven’t heard of it.
JonathanFThere is a God then. Glad I’m not in your office, “sorry guys we discussed that last April” Unreal.
Thanks for the constructive replies, to my mind the information in Flypast was valid for further debate, possibly new debate for some people. As I’ve said it’s the loss of historical accuracy that concerns me.
As for the search facility, which I acknowledge the use of is part of the code of conduct, I can understand it’s use when several threads are started about the same topic within a period of time, in cases like this one I have to disagree. I hope DaveM2 and JohnathonF have suitably rebuked Flypasts Jarrod Cotter for daring to raise this topic again without consulting the forum!
My only interest here is in historical aviation, I have no desire to enter into a battle of wits, particulary with unarmed opponants.
Wow. That’s quite the over-reaction. You have a private message, my angry friend.
JonathanFAhh right so any newbie to the forum has to use the Search function first and search all possible subjects they wish to discuss? :confused: :rolleyes:
I’m not sure how many internet forums you frequent, but it’s what’s known as “netiquette”. You’d get a rap on the virtual knuckles on many forums for not bothering to check what you’re posting. It’s not asking much to expect any of us to punch a few words in the search box before we post something. Otherwise, if we all started threads indiscriminately, we’d end up with multiple threads on the same topic that need merging or deleting. Clearly many people exercise restraint, or we’d have a million and one “OMFG look @ dis spitfire nerly kiling alan dee cadernay!!!!11111” threads. Or perhaps the mods really are that on the ball, I don’t know.
And no, not “all possible subjects”, just the one they’re about to actually post.
That said, I’m no moderator, so do what you like. Just a suggestion intended for the good of posters and lurkers in general.
JonathanFDave
I don’t get the time to read EVERY thread, sometimes because of career commitments I “miss” a week or two. This information was very recently in the Times, not noted for speculation. Also it’s more a case of being annoyed at the loss of accuracy than being “over excited”!
That’s what the search function’s for. Suggested keywords include “dambusters” “jackson” and “ni…” I mean “trigger”.
JonathanFAnd Yuri didn’t see that coming?????
And was he ‘all shook up’
Oh the bitter, bitter irony of that cretin suing anybody over issues of fraud/honesty/ethics. 😡
JonathanFHates? only one really – the number of stickies at the top of every page 😡
I have a few dislikes, the most prominent are the people who belittle others – particularly over spelling or grammar. I usually take the time to self-check my posts and I have to admit it does reduce a little my enjoyment when people do make mistakes but I try and not comment on it – that’s downright rude. Incidentally where is the spellchecker on this forum?
If someone makes a factual error it can be pointed out tactfully/diplomatically or ‘bull in a chinashop’ rudely – the former is far more preferrable.
There isn’t one as far as I know, which is why I suggested (hopefully “tactfully”) that sea vixen might like to use MS Word as a quick and easy way to enhance his online credibility (if nothing else). If no-one comments, how do we each improve on our knowledge and/or skills?
JonathanFDo I remember someone asking about pilots (other than DB) who had artificial legs a while back? Damned if I’m going to trawl all through the two DB threads to try and find it :p
In reading up for another thread I came across a reference to ‘famed’ legless RAF pilot Colin “Hoppy” Hodgkinson. He lost his ‘pedal extremeties’ whilst training blind flying in a Tiger Moth but went on to fly Spitfires with 611 Sqdn.
A bit more info (from the article I was reading) if required.Roger Smith.
In all seriousness, he never stayed at the Stork Hotel, did he?
JonathanFNo offence but…
Why should I have to use MS Word Spellcheck just to post on a forum,
Fair point. But I might just as well ask why I should have to squint at my screen to work out what you’re saying.
Nobody is perfict we all have some form of disability or aera of our life which no matter how hard we try you just can not improve on, for some its a mental problem for others health some have both,
I suffer from a nerurological illness that will never be cured, I have fought against it all my life had had to undergo major operations on my neck and spine to remove tumours that thankfully have all been benign, I never know when or where anothr of these tumours will grow, currently there are over 200 throughout my body some are underthe skin whilst most form on the surface of the skin showing as unslightly purple nodules smothering my body, the condition also effects parts of the brain resulting in various forms of dislexia fortuantly this part is only mild in me resulting in silly spelling and grammer mistakes such as getting leters round the wrong way in some words.
You have my sympathy, but I don’t see the relevance of your own specific health problems. A few seconds to run your post through a spellchecker would render the problem, and this discussion completely moot.
I do attempt to check what I have put but using a spell checker would defet the object of me trying my best to me it would be a form of cheating myself out of what I have tryed to do.
So is it that you don’t see why you need to use a spellchecker, or because you feel to do so would be holding back your own attempts at improving your language skills? You’re contradicting yourself somewhat here. I also don’t agree that it would be cheating yourself; it’s perfectly acceptable for anyone to use a spellchecker together with their own judgement in creating readable English of a decent standard.
If people cant accept me for who I am than it your tough cookie and if you dont like it make an complaint to the moderators to have me removed, however we do live in a country that should be morfe tollerant towards those that have disabilitys I may have all my arms and legs working I may be able to see and hear just because somebodys disabilty is not visable dose not mean thay are not disabled.
Strange that this is all about you all of a sudden. My post was a friendly piece of advice to sea vixen about one of his “problems with the forum”. Now we’re getting your life story and defensiveness about what you see as a disability. Dyslexia is not a disability, but rather a learning difficulty, one that can be overcome. Many people do so. Spellcheckers help many of them. It was just a suggestion; there’s really no need for the offence you seem to have taken to it. Use one, don’t use one. Just bear in mind that some posters and lurkers will inevitably set less store by what you say when it appears in poor English, or possibly even ignore it entirely.
JonathanFi agree, sometimes i type and submit replys straight away, Charles Darwin one of the greatest minds that has ever lived couldent spell or use grammer very well, but we owe a lot to him.
i have too admit this forum is fantastic, i enjoy being part of it. most of the time people are very polite and helpful, also it is great to be able to talk to people who have had first hand experience in the world of aviation.
at the end of the day its the members that make a forum good or bad, is it not..
To be fair to Darwin:
Journey of HMS Beagle: 1836
Microsoft Word for Windows available to purchase: 1989
JonathanFon the good side, it is great to talk to people who share a love for avaition, people who shares there knowlage about subjects, hearing other peoples opinion on matters.
on the bad side, the piontless arguing between members that draws other people into the fray, everyone is entiteled to his or her opinion, its the whole piont of a forum….. oh yea and people who picks me up on my spelling. 😀 😀 😀
Grammar and word choice notwithstanding, the below is the result of 20 seconds work in MS Word:
On the good side, it is great to talk to people who share a love for aviation, people who shares there knowledge about subjects, hearing other peoples opinion on matters.
On the bad side, the pointless arguing between members that draws other people into the fray, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, its the whole point of a forum… oh yea and people who picks me up on my spelling.
That would remove one of your forum annoyances, wouldn’t it?
JonathanFSpitfire’s on the beach…they think it’s all over….
It is now.
JonathanF‘Split threads’ ‘Carry on films’??? Clear as mud to me old bean I’m afraid. You must remember that I’m as green as grass, first time caller, naive virgin and all that.
I’m not sure that I really understand the relationship with archive anecdotal information from those who were actually at these events and interpretations from experts who weren’t who seem confident to debunk those eye witness accounts. That statement might need some explanation and I will again use the analogy of Bader’s trapped leg. Bader was quite clear in his description of its retrieval and he was wordy about the circumstances surrounding its collection and a graphic description of the German technicians who got the thing back to full health. Did that happen? .if not, why would he say that? Or why would you doubt that the leg could have survived?
Then we have an expert who simply says that Bader’s first hand assessment of his own experience was probably not correct because of the nature of the collision and the way that the aircraft would have crashed…once again debunking the pilots own testimony and so on and so forth………..I am reading veterans testimonials that are being summarily dismissed by 21st centaury scientific thinking.
Were these men all liars or are we getting ahead of ourselves with the implementation of our technology….after all………….none of us were there…were we?
Ken,
It’s not a question of lying, it’s simply human fallibility. As a species we are simply not very good at interpreting what we see, at remembering it accurately, or at relating it to others as it actually occurred. You would not convict a criminal on the eyewitness evidence of one man alone; you would attempt to retrospectively gather the facts and deliver a balanced judgement. “Being there” is not a prerequisite for such work.
JonathanFOookay then.
JonathanFOookay then.
Sign In
