Jump to content

gingerbob

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,668

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About gingerbob

  • Birthday 20/03/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bucksport Maine USA

Recent Profile Visitors

8,138 profile views

gingerbob's Achievements

Completely Obsessed Member

Completely Obsessed Member (6/9)

4.6k

Reputation

  1. gingerbob
    It appears to be an error in the Pima example. It has no engine and does not have original structure (not all, at least) under the cowl. According to Will, the downthrust angle measured by the scan is approximately 4 degrees, while their scan of Duxford's Mk.24 was approximately 2 degrees. Someone also provided him with a GA drawing of the XIX which confirmed 2 degrees. As far as I know, all Griffon Spitfires/Seafires had the 2 degree angle. The important point here, I think, is that they did their homework, came up with "something that makes you go 'Hmm'", and asked for more information. Thanks all who contributed to the discussion, bob
  2. gingerbob
    How long did it take your eyes to recover? Very impressive!
  3. gingerbob
    Welcome to Britmodeller, Michael! I note that the conversion is showing as out of stock- will it be available? bob
  4. gingerbob
    Not strictly "the full set", but MANY. It has been quite a while since I was there, but it was reasonably user friendly.
  5. gingerbob
    According to Wiki he became Tactics Officer for 81 Group (Fighter Command) and then was with 56 OTU. Became CO of 41 Squadron in Sept '42.
  6. gingerbob
    Despite what I said about eyeballing, looking at this photo: (found via link (and image) on this page: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/269951 It looks like more downward angle than I'd expect to see. THAT, of course, must be taken with more than one grain of salt...
  7. gingerbob
    I found the RAF Museum summary of MT847's history (the XIV at Pima), and found this: "Engine and engine bearers to Cosford dump before it was mounted at Cosford" [in 1964, having already been serving as a gate-guard for a decade]. Between 1970 and 72 it was "restored" (or refurbished) and had an electric motor installed to rotate the prop. I would want to look carefully at that engine installation as it now is before I put too much faith in it. Can you, Scimitar, or another reader who is up on this stuff give us an approximation of the difference between the thrust line and the fuselage datum on the two aircraft scanned? Eyeballing it clearly isn't good enough, for myself at least!
  8. gingerbob
    Pun intended? 😉 I really don't want to further the tangent, but for the sake of clarification and interest, the airfoil and planform did NOT change between the "classic" Spitfire and the 20-series wings (aside from those tips). It is a misconception (from all I have been able to figure out) that other aspects changed- I've run across such comments in some books, but have found nothing to support them, and I think at least in some cases it is born of a confusion of nomenclature. That said, Jeffrey Quill DID comment that, surprisingly, there was a difference in stability (or something of that sort) between the 21 prototype and the XIV, and he speculated that the different cannon fairings (the teardrop blisters) were responsible. bob
  9. gingerbob
    Well, slightly. Same outline as the extended (pointy) tip, but clipped back. I'm working on it...
  10. gingerbob
    What advice? There are at least a couple of threads talking about it quite a bit, though much of that talk is complaints about it being dimensionally flawed. For example, the thread YOU started in January:
  11. gingerbob
    I'm a researcher- it's what I do!
  12. gingerbob
    The Ducimus book also says 30"
  13. gingerbob
    Dave, I've seen the graphic, and it is compelling. I'll now have to have a search through my information to see if I can find some clue I'd overlooked. That's an excellent pair of comparison shots, thank you! bob
  14. gingerbob
    Here are Chris' photos. For the eagle-eyed, yes, that's a Typhoon testing the late style, but Chris says it is identical to Tempest TT.5 etc installation. And the "cuckoo door" type: And closer... with a non-standard prop mod
  15. gingerbob
    I can do it, Chris (you'll already have my e-mail, though whether you can find it is another question!) That's a comment on computer technology, not your organizational skills. bob
×
×
  • Create New...