Jump to content

Geoffrey Sinclair

Members
  • Content Count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

126 Excellent

About Geoffrey Sinclair

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Planet Earth (Usually)

Recent Profile Visitors

217 profile views
  1. Luftwaffe Codes, Units and Markings by Barry Rosch specifically mentions a Do17F-1 code G2+BH as an example of an Aufklärungsgruppe (F) 124 aircraft, so there is a good chance a photograph of it exists, though it could be a loss report as the source. An OOB I have for the Luftwaffe in September 1939 indicates Do17F were still present in some of the long range reconnaissance units, plus Stab/KG77 given KG77 was still flying Do17E at the time.
  2. A warning, I am no Luftwaffe camouflage expert. The trouble is the painting guide says 1937 but the codes are from 1939 and the use of brown was phased out in 1938, though clearly not all aircraft were repainted. The machine carries the G2 codes assigned to Aufklärungsgruppe (F) 124 in mid 1939, staffel colour white, before that the codes were 40+<letter>11. There are plenty of web sites offering their ideas on the font, I suggest measuring the size of the cross and letters in the painting guide to determine the letter size needed for the crosses you intend to use. Font i
  3. There is a good chance the front turret on the Lancaster II was a big part of the extra drag versus the Halifax III arrangement, which would help even performance. I assume someone has a good idea when the square fins were made the production standard for the different lines, Handley Page, London Aircraft Production, English Electric, Rootes Speke, and Fairey. Thanks Ray for finding the report, agreed it is an omission the unspecified design problem is not mentioned, only that it could not be found or corrected at the time, so it is not things like the tail and other co
  4. Spitfire price from 1938 with pre war profit margins and assumptions about limited production runs, so plenty of hand made, including the engine. Agreed, as usual, the prices need explanation or definition of what exactly they cover. The 5,000 pounds to Supermarine/Vickers seems to be the fee to build the airframe and fit the engine etc. Tare weight of a Typhoon was about 8,800 pounds, versus 5,800 for the Spitfire IX so the Typhoon has a bias to being more expensive, but twice the price is a big stretch. Given the amount of subcontracting involved there is the complication of wheth
  5. So the references do not give dates and in the Spitfire's case mark number? I hit Google's welcome to our warm and cuddly tracking system message and stopped without trying to look at the Typhoon book.
  6. Are you sure about the wing fitted to the mark III, since every reference I have seen says it had the bigger wing? Including the performance report I used. When was the wing introduced onto the production line? So when it comes to the Halifax II and V specials, the mid upper/dorsal turret was not factory fitted at the start of production but was by the end, plus field modifications, possibly both ways? Merlin 20 ceased production in May 1944, Merlin 22 in October (but after 227 were built in August, the next two monthly totals were 3 and 5) The Merlin 24 and 25 were the ones in
  7. xx The short answer is no. The longer answer follows. Where do the 13,000 pound Spitfire and 11,000 pound Typhoon prices come from? The Spitfires sold to Turkey cost 11,700 pounds sterling, which would include a profit margin higher than charged to the RAF. Pre war a Spitfire sold to France, plus a spare engine, cost 16,500 pounds Sterling, giving an indication of the cost of a Merlin engine. Welcome to the fun idea you an accurately determine the cost of a military aircraft in wartime, or anytime. Start with how to factor in depreciation of the factory, how t
  8. All of the performance figures are for specific configurations, but unless you can obtain a full report you do not have all the details and are left with the published "typical" reports. According to Harry Holmes the Lancaster I of January 1942 was tare weight 33,700 pounds, gross weight 60,000 pounds, take off power 5,120 HP, as of May 1944 tare weight 36,811 pounds, gross weight 65,000 pounds, take off power 6,440 HP, so you are left with which Lancaster I performance figures are being used in the references? Add things like H2S, the paddle blade propellers, the reports 4 bladed propellers
  9. Lancaster II users, 3 Group, 115 Sqn from March 1943 to May 1944, 514 Sqn from September 1943 to July 1944. 5 Group, 61 Sqn January to March 1943 6 Group, 408 Sqn October 1943 to September 1944, 426 Sqn July 1943 to May 1944, 432 Sqn October 1943 to February 1944. Climb speeds were about 5 mph faster for the Merlin versus the Hercules engined Lancasters, the Hercules version notes 155 mph IAS for maximum climb, 175 mph IAS for comfortable climb. The Merlin Lancasters flew about 50 miles and burnt 110 gallons of fuel to climb to 10,000 feet, 130 miles and 255 gallons to 20
  10. The main reasons I have for the difference between Lancaster I/III and II performance is engine weight, supercharging and fuel consumption. Lancaster Mark I production, began October 1941, suspended from some time in April to some time in September 1943, apart from 5 in June, then resumed. Mark II production August 1942 to March 1944, as people have noted, an insurance policy against shortages of Merlins. Mark III production from December 1942. Total Engine Weights, early Merlins 10,720 pounds, later 11,610 pounds, Hercules 12,335 pounds. Fuel consumption, Merlin 22 o
  11. One item forgotten from the markings notes. From RAAF Air Member for Engineering and Maintenance Report week ending 1 September 1943 A Director of Technical Services special instruction has been issued authorising the introduction of American type aircraft into the RAAF with American type camouflage unchanged.
  12. The RAF delivery logs, RAF Museum, ex MF-5. So it seems JN769 was originally classified as E, then B and the anomaly is it is unlikely it was shooting down V-1 post 23 June.
  13. Without an exact bomb load reference there is plenty of choice given the variation in loads between aircraft. Bomber Command was out of the 250 pound HE bomb dropping business for most of 1944, resuming in December. Night of 24/25 April 1944, two raids, to Karlsruhe and Munich, Lancaster statistics, 619 despatched, 589 credited with bombing the primary targets, another 11 with bombing secondary targets, 21 missing, 3 Category E (2 enemy action), 1 Category B, 12 Category AC (8 enemy action), 13 personnel killed, 141 missing. HE bombs, 15X8000 HC, 3X4000 GP, 142x4000 H
  14. No confirmation, just an anomaly, the Delivery Logs say Taken On Charge 23 March 1944, Category E 23 June, Brought Back On Charge 30 June. https://steemit.com/history/@len.george/hawker-siddeley-tempest-mk-v-486-nz-squadron-1944-to-1945-part-1 agrees about the loss date.
  15. Serial, mark, exported to. KX171 IId Russia KX172 IIc Russia KX173 IId Russia KX174 IId ACSEA KX175 IId Russia KX176 IId KX177 IId Russia KX178 IV MAC KX179 IV KX305 IId Russia What is the possibility later IId received the protection upgrades based on combat experience? The BP serials were being built in April 1942, the KX in December.
×
×
  • Create New...