Good grief, it’s like watching two groups of OAPs evil-eyeing each other prior to the doors opening in the January sales. Put the bloody hand bags away!
I suspect the owner would consider the conversion to high-back Mk XV spec a ‘major change’ Jayce. The Canadians never operated the XVII.
Bah! Don’t spoil it with facts, Mike! ๐
We are indeed limited to a change of demarcation line so maybe just a change of ident.
If you want to keep her fresh without major changes what about painting her in Royal Canadian Navy markings?
I don’t suppose there’s much chance of her looking like this again?
I can’t put my finger on it but the 109 cockpit windscreen and canopy has never looked quite right to me.
It’s a D series canopy and windshield. It does look odd on an E series but it’s accurate for that aircraft. It was not unheard of for early E1s to have it.
Ouch, Tony. Somehow I don’t think the designer stool is going to be worth as much as the Balkenkreuz it got made from.
Ah. So it is.
Given the 1947 info is it possible it’s a Bristol Freighter?
I must admit to mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, the recovery of the missing airmen and a proper burial can only be a good thing. But personally I feel strongly that there is something morally repugnant about recovering an air frame simply for commercial purposes. A museum recovery I could support, as it ensures the long term preservation of the air frame and provides both a valuable educational tool and a way to remember the crews who flew them. But disturbing a person’s final resting place because there’s a profit to be made? Sorry but no. Not without the consent of NOK.
I really like the desert scheme on G-AWHE, although poor old PV202 was a bit out-numbered!!
Even fight though! 2 v 2! ๐
The two blader was an Aeroproducts prop – Watts two bladers were fitted to Hurricanes, but not Spits ๐
Really? I thought they were both Airscrew Co. props. Heh!
If it had a Watts prop and managed to hang on to it up until ’47 then a bent airframe sent to the Technical Training Schools is the only real possibility. Unfortunately the newness of retractable undercarriages seems to have caught quite a few 19 and 65 Squadron pilots out and a least a dozen ended up in the hands of the SoTTs before 1940!
Quite a few early Mk.Is made it into storage at Colerne and St.Athan between 44 and 49, so it’d be difficult to identify which particular aircraft you saw, riashley. Maybe Mark12 can shed some more light.
Don’t recognize the specific drawing number, but with a 55 inch diameter and 4.78 pitch, it’s late 20s early 30s era. Certainly from something contemporary to the Bulldog.
Well ,I can provide another 10 links and you will call all of them as biased as long as they don’t recognize F.Whittle as the inventor.
The fact is and this is shared by the worlds scientific community that Frank Whittle didn’t invent the jet engine, he simply built the first British jet engine.
The jet engine or the Gas Turbine as a principle has existed long before him .In France, Maxime Guillaume was issued a patent for the use of an axial-flow turbojet engine to power an aircraft in 1921, he didn’t have the money or the materials available to build it.
Hungarian mechanical engineer Albert Fonรณ filed a patent in Germany in 1928 for several jet engine designs, including a turbojet. Germany was obviously the wrong country to do that .. The American Rocket Society reviewed Fonรณ’s patents in 1960 and acknowledged him as the inventor of the jet engine.
Um, so? The original series of Star Trek featured automatic doors about 20 years before they were actually invented. An idea, even a fully fledged theory backed up with a patent, is a long way away from a working demonstrable prototype. Just because you can imagine a thing doesn’t mean you can do it, and if you can’t do it, you haven’t invented it yet.