It will fly, but in a galaxy far, far away….. :p
I like the fact that the’ve got professionals on the job!
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/whats-going-on/news/vc10-rebuild-is-now-complete/
A great job by GJD Services and all the companies that assisted them!
Interesting – I was about to post that some do have 2800s but any info I find online says F-AZXJ has a 3350.
The engine that was removed certainly looks like an R-3350.
Actually ‘wing’. not plural.
You are correct of course, that was a typo on my part. It was also partly the reason that the Fokker types fell out of grace in the US after some crashes where the wing structure was found to be weakened.
I have visited the place a few years back using the public transport. This is certainly possible although I don’t know if you’ll be able to do it within half a day. I cannot recall the exact route but it involved a metro to a station outside the centre and then a bus which dropped us off near the entrance. It is certainly worth visiting, you will not regret it!
The Fokker airliners used a mixed construction. Wooden wings and a fuselage of steel tubing covered with fabric.
G-EACN BAT FK23 Bantam which was donated to Shuttleworth Collection after Ogilvie’s death, then sold to Koolhoven Aeroplanes Foundation who restored in it Holland. It should still be there. (P)
It is, but it moved from the Aviodrome museum to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam a few years back (2011?). It is on permanent display there. See here: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/NG-2011-1
There’s an interesting statement in that article:
One of two remaining Wellingtons, the aircraft at Cosford is the only complete example of its type…
So the fact that R for Robert at Brooklands is without the covering makes it ‘incomplete’? In my view an incomplete aircraft is one where wings or tail units are missing but I guess you can stretch the argument a bit. I will certainly do my best to comfort the old thing at Brooklands when I visit next, I certainly don’t see it that way!
As eye4wings already mentioned, the problem was in harnassing power. A contraprop will:
But then again:
And so on.
The only aircraft that I can think of that flew with both a single and a contra prop on the same (or almost the same) engine is the Spitfire XIX which is currently stationed in France. Apart from that one each prop installation is a specific application to a particular airframe/engine combination. There is no way to compare between those. That’s why I don’t think we can answer the original question fully.
Do you have a specific aircraft in mind? I don’t think it is possible to provide an answer to your question without some additional caveats.
There are three aspects to this.
…
Thirdly, from the point of pilot’s view, the Mercury may be taller but it is shorter. Just which aspect of the pilot’s view is the more important?
Also, the role of the aircraft meant that all-round visibility wasn’t as important as it would have been on a fighter. Even on more modern twins with significantly smaller engines the view to the side can be severely restricted. It’s something you learn to live with as a pilot.
He is practicing his jodeling skills but started the engine to prevent noise complaints.
I later had the same thought about it being the Dutch East Indies, but I’ve asked for a larger scan and we’ll go from there. Thanks!
Edit: and here’s a gratuitous shot of MJ271 posing as ‘MH424’ in the then-Aviodome at Schiphol sometime in 1990.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]240792[/ATTACH]
That completely answers my question. Many thanks Mark12!
To keep things interesting, Herman also has this photo showing a slightly tatty looking example. Any ideas when and which one this may have been (location is most likely a Dutch airfield).