Jump to content

Aviation experts - is this worth it?


geogphotos
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I can't see that cowling as having a Gipsy Queen in it. Ian's original image showed the intake and it looked very unlike a DH one.

 

Ok, can I take this flipping anorak off now. Too hot today!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Who's the anorak? I'm quibbling about the air intake on a Gipsy Queen. Sad.

 

Can I join the nerd's club, I'll just get my anorak? I want to see that intake!

 

After further rummaging I am coming to the conclusion it is a DH Heron taken from the co-pilots seat. They were much more common than the Lancastrian. The one through the screen appears to have a windscreen wiper in the right configuration. 🙄

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Heron C.Mk 3: VIP transport version for the Queen's Flight, Royal Air Force (RAF). Two built.
  • Heron C.Mk 4: VIP transport aircraft for Queen's Flight, RAF. One built.
  • Sea Heron C.Mk 20: Transport and communications aircraft for the Royal Navy. Three ex-civil Heron 2s and two Heron 2Bs were acquired by the Royal Navy in 1961.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, geogphotos said:
  • Heron C.Mk 3: VIP transport version for the Queen's Flight, Royal Air Force (RAF). Two built.
  • Heron C.Mk 4: VIP transport aircraft for Queen's Flight, RAF. One built.
  • Sea Heron C.Mk 20: Transport and communications aircraft for the Royal Navy. Three ex-civil Heron 2s and two Heron 2Bs were acquired by the Royal Navy in 1961.

It's not a Heron. Even if the engines and windows didn't disqualify it, the Heron had a short range and a service ceiling of 18500ft above sea level. It couldn't have flown over Kilimanjaro (19342ft ASL).

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

It's not a Heron. Even if the engines and windows didn't disqualify it, the Heron had a short range and a service ceiling of 18500ft above sea level. It couldn't have flown over Kilimanjaro (19342ft ASL).

I agree , I have changed my mind now I have seen the original picture the wings aren't sufficiently tapered either.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.