AndyGRL’s G-BJZZ did not complete that rebuild until about 1981, I remember seeing it at a show at Stapleford Tawney, and it had a mishap at Biggin shortly after.
Maybe Andy G saw some B of B filming activity, and his memory has slipped a few years (!)
I never heard of any of the HA1112’s flying the Atlantic, so it was not likely to be some ferry flight staging through. Jeff Hawke did ferry 2 108’s, but we have been told to discount them.
Noooo!!! my memory is still fine. It’s a mystery to me and has bugged me for years. Be nice to get to the bottom of it.
Recalling that era, other regular visitors to the area included Canadair Argus’s (lovely growl) the US airforce Constellation derivative with the huge radomes top and bottom (one which shot off the runway into the barrier at Lossiemouth after an engine let go), German Starfighters, Vulcans circuit bashing, Shackletons galore, Lightnings, Canberras, Jaguars and a host of other exotica. Oh what fun and a Mk 3 and Mk 1 Shackleton to play in on the Kinloss dump. (after sneaking in)
AndyGAh ha!! The fabled data plate is in there!!
Have cropped image to help.
My initial guess is S4 / VB or 8 / 6301
Anyone else?
Jon
After a spot of Bladerunner detective work, it could be:
S4 VB 836
AndyGAndy, who on this forum doesn’t applaud the team on the achievement of getting 558 back in the sky?
Highlighting the short comings of TVOC doesn’t mean that we dont applaud what has been achieved. The sad part is that if only TVOC would take on board some of the points that are being raised then the vulcan may not be in the mess it’s in now. I’m not saying that every idea posted on here is a great one, but the current system clearly isn’t working and it has to be time for change? With 1 month to go before 558 is grounded for good (TVOC not me!) I’d say it’s time for a radical change of plan…
There has been ‘muted polite’ applause I think you would agree
“I never thought the Vulcan would fly again, for various reasons I never wanted it to”
and thinly disguised praise.
I have no idea as to the merit of your further comments and have no wish to discuss in detail the contents, however my original suggestion stands.
AndyGI just thought it would be nice to have a dedicated vehicle (thread) where all the like minded souls who actually applaud XH558 and her support teams efforts could discuss and bathe in the delight of their understated achievements over the past years.
Clearly the negative doomsters would have considerable difficulty in keeping their noses out. 😀
In the interests of impartiallity, there could also be a parallel XH558 doom merchant discussion thread where all merchants of doom, scandal and hate for all things XH558 can perform group navel gazing.:diablo:
Not forgetting we can all exercise our right to not read a thread or not make a response if its the wrong place to do so, is that so difficult?
PS: when mods merge similarly sounding threads, do they generally ask the originators if that is acceptable?
AndyGMods: Is it possible that we could start a new XH558 thread where only the supporters of the project can exchange positive thoughts on the project and not have it merged, (as is very popular with the moderation team, but not with the board as a whole IMHO), with this doom, conspiracy and scandal laden thread?
AndyGYes.
Mark
This wouldn’t be the one which had the same ‘sympathetic’ restoration as the Firefly by any chance? 😮
AndyGI understand there is an updated version of this book underway with new pictures added and loads of close ups of current projects. 🙂
😀
AndyGI couldn’t care less about provenance, it’s a Spitfire in the air, looks good and it sounds dam good. As long as it’s original construction and a Merlin/Griffon engine.
I am nosey however (like many others) and I would like to know the extent of the originality of what was incorporated in the re-vitalised airworthy incarnation, whether it be a just a little bracket or a whole wing from another airframe attached 60 years ago.
I would be very interested to see a pictorial and discriptive history in print of all the ‘new’ flying Spitfires today or the ones on their way to flying, with pictures of what they started with and how they ended up. Sounds like a job for you Mark 12?? I can assure you that it would sell very well. Spitfires and Polished metal was a very tasty book for its time, I’m sure you could do better. I even caught a female reading mine. Could hardly put it down.:eek:
AndyG[QUOTE=Malcolm McKay;1336464]
Nope just citing their track record.
Harsh and ignorant too.
Did you forget that these airframes wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t been restored to fly?
Much of the metal we do see flying is worthless trash on the ground with no value and with no popular interest in preserving were it not that they could once fly again with significant human and financial endeavour. Plenty of UK museums that would rather have their exibits in the air than on the ground. There is no shortage of real museum exhibits for appropriate preservation.
The fact that you are able to have your rant on a historic aviation forum is alone down to the fact that we have historic airframes flying at airshows to enjoy. Their wouldnt be a flypast forum otherwise and we wouldn’t be typing this thread.
AndyGDefiant?
AndyGI use a product called bio-deruster, sounds a very similar product to the above sugestion. Uses a chelation process.
Doesn’t burn and removes all the oxidisation right into the pits. Great for seized assemblies and doesn’t harm plastics, rubber or even touch paint or chrome. Cast iron emerges from an overnight soaking a nice uniform grey.
Blasting is pretty agresssive.
AndyGDear Andy,
I’ve hesitated to try and find the right words to respond, without meaning to cause offence.
Hi James,
No offence taken. I think you may have taken my lighter anecdote out of context, or perhaps I failed to explain.
They just happened to be Australian friends, good and trusted friends and global citizens.
They could have been anyone. The point was that occasionally through forgetfulness or what ever, we all could have a temporary lapse. A gentle nudge focused the minds.
My Grandfather (75 NZ Squadron) still lies entombed within the boundary of Ostende airport to this day within his Wellington along with his British and NZ crew.
Regards
Andy
AndyGAbout this time ten years ago two Australian friends of mine took a trip from Aberdeen down to the lake district for a good old weekend Australian adventure.
In the afternoon they were walking along the high street of a small town whose name escapes me now with their other friends. They walked past a silent old poppy seller on the street hardly glancing at him. Once they had past him a voice rang out from behind. “Excuse me sir, do you speak German?” My friend carried on a few steps then turned back to the voice and replied, “No, why?”
“Well you nearly did….”, then proceeded to rattle his tin at them.
Point made, lesson learned.
They all returned to him and did their duty, somewhat embarrassed though wiser.
AndyGI dont have experience of the Flugwerk aircraft, but I do have a good deal of experience of the original.
The original undercarriage system is a masterpiece of German design. I seriously doubt that it would be lifed at 60 hours.
I would suggest that the reason for redesigning it for the replica aircraft is due to the poor availability of original parts, and to make it easier to manufacture – the original is VERY complicated.
Bruce
Hi Bruce, you may be correct. IIRC the comments were related to the seals and pistons in the legs, perhaps late war when materials were in short supply the quality was dropped. I think that the original retraction system is a geared electric motor which had a declutching mechanism (please correct as you know a lot more than I) to allow it to freefall in a failure? At that time they had to design a new emergency extension system for I guess modern requirements. I still believe that the the system is as close a replica as is feasible. The tail wheel retracts with a similar bowden cable system tied into the mains and has a very clever and simple latch mechanism. All told I think they did their best to replicate the undercarriage. I was amazed how electric the entire design is and was.
Speaking to an old FW pilot there, he told me that they even had an automatic salt water activated primative ELT in their parachute packs. He escaped from the red army with three ground crew aboard his FW190. After stripping out all non essential items and radios. Two in the fuselage and one with ‘in’ the cockpit, flying several cold hours back to Germany from the former Soviet block. Quite a character.
AndyGAndy – I managed to examine an undercarriage up lock assembly from a genuine FW190 and a newly built Flug Werke assembly and they are not interchangeable. There are many other differences between the two which cannot simply be put down to not having full drawings .
As described to me at FW, the original undercarriage of Mr Tank’s design was lifed at something like 60hrs IIRC, the original cylinders and seals were quite crude.
I understand that the FlugWerk main gear has been redesigned with a focus on safety and reliability in its modern new role. The related electrical systems, motors and emergency extension system may also have had the once over with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight.
It’s a faithful replica not a fatal replica. Pretty sensible don’t you concur?
Pity that the UK CAA wouldn’t allow any nasties of other contemporary but more common ‘thin but robust provenance’ designs to be fixed too.
Sign In
