Thu May 29, 2008 10:45 am
Man, I love that RNZAF camouflage! 
Thu May 29, 2008 11:18 am
Rob Mears wrote:Man, I love that RNZAF camouflage!
Royal Navy (UK) actually.
August
Thu May 29, 2008 11:23 am
Rob Mears wrote:Man, I love that RNZAF camouflage!
I don't think the RNZAF ever operated Spitfires or Seafires!
If you mean the Seafire with the 'Roundel and Bar', those are Royal Navy 'British Pacific Fleet' markings from late WWII.
...and doesn't it look splendid.
PeterA
Thu May 29, 2008 4:34 pm
The only Spitfires operated by an RNZAF Squadron were that of No. 485 (NZ) Squadron in Britain and later the continent.
However loads of RNZAF pilots flew Spits and Seafires in other RAF and RN FAA squadrons. Apparently there was at least one RNZAF member in every wartime RAF squadron.
However loads of RNZAF pilots flew Spits and Seafires in other RAF and RN FAA squadrons. Apparently there was at least one RNZAF member in every wartime RAF squadron.
Thu May 29, 2008 10:37 pm
Hi Peter!
Thanks for the IDs on these two. There was no N# painted yet on the FAA (Royal Navy, NOT the government kind!) Seafire and the Burmese Seafire had the following painted on the tail section:
And a few more photos of this airframe:
Obviously in need of a whole lot of work but hey, it's in a hangar and with someone who can see to it the effort is made.
Now I need to see what I can do to be there for run ups and first flight!
Enjoy the Day! Mark
Thanks for the IDs on these two. There was no N# painted yet on the FAA (Royal Navy, NOT the government kind!) Seafire and the Burmese Seafire had the following painted on the tail section:
And a few more photos of this airframe:
Obviously in need of a whole lot of work but hey, it's in a hangar and with someone who can see to it the effort is made.
Now I need to see what I can do to be there for run ups and first flight!
Enjoy the Day! Mark
Fri May 30, 2008 1:34 am
Mark,
I think somebody has been trying on a spurious ID, 'N462XV', for size and not for the first time
Another shot at Hmawbi in 1987.
The aircraft is not 'UB415' but actually UB414, and the Spitfire IX to the rear not 'UB425' but UB424.
PeterA
I think somebody has been trying on a spurious ID, 'N462XV', for size and not for the first time
Another shot at Hmawbi in 1987.
The aircraft is not 'UB415' but actually UB414, and the Spitfire IX to the rear not 'UB425' but UB424.
PeterA
Fri May 30, 2008 6:47 am
Thanks Peter So am I correct in IDing both of these as Mk XV variants?
Enjoy the Day! Mark
Enjoy the Day! Mark
Fri May 30, 2008 7:02 am
Does anyone know anymore about these new Australian Spitfires?
Any photos or idea where they came from?
The Burma Spits are very interesting and will be good to see them fly again sometime.
The Royal navy Seafire sure does look nice and very much a fighter in the scheme.
Any photos or idea where they came from?
The Burma Spits are very interesting and will be good to see them fly again sometime.
The Royal navy Seafire sure does look nice and very much a fighter in the scheme.
Fri May 30, 2008 7:51 am
Yes, both are Seafire Mk XV's.
...................................................................
These Australian Spitfires are just formalising major crash recovery projects with a civil registration provenance. They were both recovered in the 1960/70's.
There can be several reasons for wanting to do this. The most likely is the potential FAA requirement for traceability and ownership trail, prior to import and US registration.
PeterA
...................................................................
These Australian Spitfires are just formalising major crash recovery projects with a civil registration provenance. They were both recovered in the 1960/70's.
There can be several reasons for wanting to do this. The most likely is the potential FAA requirement for traceability and ownership trail, prior to import and US registration.
PeterA