From memory an uplock assembly.

I recall being told that the struts were re-designed internally, modern seals, bushings etc for longevity and the retraction motors, gearbox, clutch, emergency extension system etc were quite modern derivatives and different for obvious reasons of availablity and the old freefall emergency system was not easily replicated or desirable in operation in modern times, although faithful in principle, as was the bowden cable links to the tail wheel retract mechanism. Perhaps the uplock falls into the same category of a modern improvement? I take my hat off to them for taking a sensible route of improvement.

From other comments, I don’t recall anything to suggest that the primary structures of the wings, spars, fuselage etc. were anything other than a faithful replication as far as was practicable with the obvious compromises required for powerplant, sub systems and armaments and with the dimensional information to hand.

As and aside, I wonder how many modern ‘nice to haves’ that given a different CAA legislative and certification environment, many other common warbird operators would like to incorporate into their airframes or systems?

Imagine a Spitfire with hinged cowlings, over center catches etc!!! (just kidding!)

I was under teh impression they were built using original plans and the only difference was the use of modern metals and different engines but then I’m usually wrong. If what I was lead to believe is true then I feel that the CAA are being over cautious (as usual) as the new ones are not being subjected to stresses anything like the original ones were.

Original drawings ~65% and reverse-engineered drawings, where old ones were not longer available ~35%.

Some time ago, Arthur Bentley recounted to me one evening over some fiendishly strong weissbier, how he had been searching through boxes of old paper drawings at the Smithsonian, looking for a key drawing detailing the layout and coordinates and spacings of the fuselage frames. One of the batches of drawings he searched through was wrapped up in a large piece of dirty old paper.
He couldn’t find what he was looking for, but when he started to wrap them up again, he noticed that the large crumpled piece of paper which had wrapped up the bundle was a drawing! Incredibly, this was the key drawing with all the geometry information he needed to allow the project to progress.

Referring to these aeroplanes as ‘kitplanes’ is disingenuous at best.

Blimey, is this lot all from a single collection?

Now, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I am sure I read somewhere (and saw a picture) of Neil Armstrong’s P-51. Actually it could have been in the Astronaut’s Hall of Fame in Florida where there is a small model showing his P-51 with nose-art and markings.

I am sure he never used one in combat, just for training, but I think he flew one privately for recreation.

If this is correct, are there any pictures that show it’s markings?

Cheers, MP.

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~2~2~1838~103251:

Neil Armstrong was among the pilots using it to chase some of the X-planes

We’ve recently had a box of Dunlop brake pads come in, Dunlop part number AHO28290. Anyone have any ideas? I’m thinking Shackleton.

George

Are they like this one?

Accidently, you have just identified a mystery bracket I have had for a number of years from a Wellington. It’s the bracket off the back of the brake pads and very similar to this one indeed, however mine has a hole in the back and is not the same as yours. Must be a common design for a range of sizes I would hazard a guess?

It’s under the centre section leading edge bonnet or hinged panel just outboard of the jacking pad studs. If you look at the picture in post 48 you will see the bonnet securing screws there are 6 in the picture and in the middle of these are the 3 jacking pad adaptor studs.

Cheers Fluffy

Any idea as to the nature of the failure of the component?

That Trident one just looks sooo Thunderbirds are go!!