Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BrentCE

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Spokane, USA
  1. Jerry, Purely conjecture, but could 'Basta' be a term related to +18 lbs boost in the Merlin 45M? Or even back to the 1942 increase from +12 to +16 lbs boost on the non-cropped Merlin 40-series? Brent
  2. +25 lbs boost on 100/150 grade was cleared for the Merlin 66 in March 1944 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lbs_approval.jpg) and entered service with the Preddenack Wing's No.'s 1 and 165 Squadrons in May (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg). They continued to use it through at least September. The Griffon 65 was tested at +25 lbs boost but was cleared for +21 lbs boost. By the end of February 1945, 2nd TAF's Spitfire IX and XVI wings were all using +25 lbs boost and the mk XIV squadrons at +21 lbs. ADGB's Mustang III/IV squadrons converted in late February/early March 1945, although No.'s 129, 306, 315 and 316 utilized +25 lbs boost from early July until at least mid-September. As for the enigmatic 'Basta' modification, I have seen it mentioned with reference to MTO Spitfires but there is absolutely is no evidence that 100/150 grade fuel made it the MTO for either the RAF or USAAF. If the ASR Spitfires were LF IX/XVIs, then it is possible, though unlikely, that they received +25 lbs boost. All the details (including Mosquito use of +25 lbs boost) are covered here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html Also, note that USAAF VIIIth Fighter Command converted entirely to 100/150 grade in late June 1944, although the V-1650s in USAAF service were limited to +21 to +22 lbs (72" to 75" Hg) boost. HTH, Brent
  3. The F4U-1 report you quoted is for Normal power while the Seafire IIC speeds are at Combat/WEP power. Normal power for the Corsair is approximately 700 HP less than water-injection Combat power, 1550 HP vs. 2250 HP, hence the 311 mph@SL vice 360+ @SL. U.K. and U.S. performance tests were reduced to standard atmospheric conditions so that the test results are directly comparable. Brent
  4. Definitely the Corsair, especially the F4U-4. The F4U-1A/D with the R-2800-8W was good for 360+ mph at sea level and the F4U-4 hit 377 mph at sea level. The Seafire LF IIc/III with the Merlin 55m was way back at around 315-320 mph at sea level on +18 lbs boost/3000 rpm. It's sea level climb rate was excellent at almost 4,700 fpm, but it dropped off fairly quickly. At interceptor weight, the F4U-4 broke 4,800 fpm at sea level to around 10,000 ft and didn't drop below 4.000 fpm until almost 20,000 ft. Of course, the F4U-4 didn't see combat until May-June of 1945 so the F4U-1A/D mk II/IV is more representative starting around September 1943 for the water-injected -8w performance numbers. Brent Erickson
  5. Russ It's almost certainly HB846, which was on service with 316 Sqn. Brent
  6. 40 inch Type C for ADGB/Fighter Command Mustang III/IV, post-1 January 1945 and Type C1 for 2nd TAF on the Continent. HTH, Brent Erickson
  7. Hi Stein, Thanks so much, it's greatly appreciated! Brent
  8. Hi all, I'm desperately trying to piece together a list of individual code letters to serial numbers for 19/65 Sqn Mustang IV's. I've managed to pull together about half the codes for 65's Peterhead Mustang IV's but only a few for no. 19. In particular, I'm looking for KH664, KH674 and KH698, all of which I believe to be in "loop" camouflage. I've listed what I have for the two squadrons below, pulled from ORBs, combat reports and photos. Any help would be *greatly* appreciated! Thanks so much! Brent Erickson 19 KH655 D-5-NT QV-P KH664 D-5-NT QV-K KH674 K-1-NT ? KH698 K-1-NT QV-Q KH739 K-1-NT ? KH742 K-1-NT ? KH756 K-5-NT ? KH761 K-5-NT ? KH778 K-5-NT ? KH818 K-5-NT QV-F KH847 K-5-NT ? KH867 K-5-NT ? KM118 K-10-NT QV-X KM137 K-10-NT ? KM155 K-10-NT ? KM193 K-10-NT QV-J KM272 K-10-NT QV-V 65 KH642 D-5-NT YT-M KH643 D-5-NT YT-S KH644 D-5-NT YT-D KH646 D-5-NT ? KH657 D-5-NT YT-H KH658 D-5-NT ? KH678 K-1-NT ? KH684 K-1-NT YT-C KH685 K-1-NT YT-F KH686 K-1-NT ? KH695 K-1-NT YT-E KH708 K-1-NT ? KH715 K-1-NT ? KH724 K-1-NT ? KH734 K-1-NT ? KH744 K-1-NT YT-B KH758 K-5-NT YT-X KH777 K-5-NT ? KH788 K-5-NT YT-Q KH829 K-5-NT ? KM225 K-10-NT YT-A KM314 K-10-NT YT-L