Spitfire PR.XI,PL983

This particular aircraft just made its first post-repair test flight at Duxford this past Thursday, following damage caused by a landing accident last August when the left landing gear leg failed to lock.
 
Bomber_12th said:
This particular aircraft just made its first post-repair test flight at Duxford this past Thursday, following damage caused by a landing accident last August when the left landing gear leg failed to lock.
Click to expand...

Landing for a display after transit to the Netherlands IIRC.


MustangL2W said:
What a Gorgeous example of the Spitfire!!
Click to expand...

Having seen both Pete T's '965 and John's '983 up very close,I say that '983 is just pipping '965 for
authenticity because she has the correct PR curved windscreen,965 has the standard fighter screen fitted.

Neither have the fuel pumps and associated fairings/ u/c doors fitted,but both are extremely well finished
and looked after beautiful examples of this mark of Spitfire.
 
The accident happened at Midden-Zeeland a small airstrip at the south-west of the Netherlands (it does exist in FS2004 however).

A1cfv8o.jpg


The aircraft was on its way for a memorial flight for the 75th anniversary of the landings near Arnhem (Market Garden).

Cheers,
Huub
 
Miggers said:
Having seen both Pete T's '965 and John's '983 up very close,I say that '983 is just pipping '965 for
authenticity because she has the correct PR curved windscreen,965 has the standard fighter screen fitted.

Neither have the fuel pumps and associated fairings/ u/c doors fitted,but both are extremely well finished
and looked after beautiful examples of this mark of Spitfire.
Click to expand...

Of course John Romain has PL983 finished with a standard Mk.IX lower cowl, while Peter Teichman's PL965 has the original Pr.XI type lower cowl for the larger oil tank (though John Romain has said they do also have the original style cowl for PL983 if they ever choose to install it). On PL965, back in the winter of 2018/2019, Peter Teichman had the original underwing camera blisters added back onto the aircraft which had been removed back in the 90's. After a few flights the CAA found out about it and forced Teichman to remove them until a proper minor modification application (rolling of the eyes appropriate here) would be submitted and approved, which by now I'm sure is all settled. It would really be wonderful if PL965 would finally have an original wrap-around windscreen reinstalled again, though I recall reading that Peter Teichman wants to keep the armored fighter windscreen in-case there were ever to be a bird strike hitting the windscreen.

Both aircraft were briefly flown together in a display at the Shuttleworth Heritage Day event at Old Warden in 2018.
 
Bomber_12th said:
On PL965, back in the winter of 2018/2019, Peter Teichman had the original underwing camera blisters added back onto the aircraft which had been removed back in the 90's. After a few flights the CAA found out about it and forced Teichman to remove them until a proper minor modification application (rolling of the eyes appropriate here) would be submitted and approved, which by now I'm sure is all settled.
Click to expand...

That's because it's Permit To Fly is based upon the condition it is seen in when permit application is submitted.
Any addition or removal from the aeroplane status, technically invalidates the Permit, unless it is backed up by an approved modification.

It's that same/similar as when I worked on dual purpose aeroplanes ; Pax by day, freight at night , every change of cabin configuration, from Passenger to Freight (and back again) had to be done (and certified) as a modification.

ttfn

Pete
 
Bomber_12th said:
Of course John Romain has PL983 finished with a standard Mk.IX lower cowl, while Peter Teichman's PL965 has the original Pr.XI type lower cowl for the larger oil tank (though John Romain has said they do also have the original style cowl for PL983 if they ever choose to install it). On PL965, back in the winter of 2018/2019, Peter Teichman had the original underwing camera blisters added back onto the aircraft which had been removed back in the 90's. After a few flights the CAA found out about it and forced Teichman to remove them until a proper minor modification application (rolling of the eyes appropriate here) would be submitted and approved, which by now I'm sure is all settled. It would really be wonderful if PL965 would finally have an original wrap-around windscreen reinstalled again, though I recall reading that Peter Teichman wants to keep the armored fighter windscreen in-case there were ever to be a bird strike hitting the windscreen.

Both aircraft were briefly flown together in a display at the Shuttleworth Heritage Day event at Old Warden in 2018.
Click to expand...

Didn't know the PR.XI had ever carried underwing camera blisters,I thought they were the original mods to the original
"Dicer" early PR Spitfires
If you mean the fairings on the lower wings that cross the undercart doors,then they actually cover the fuel pumps
for the "Bowser" wing's extra fuel tanks.
AFAIK,965 hasn't got the tanks fitted or doesn't use them so hasn't got the pumps fitted and therefore doesn't need the blister fairings.

Pete has said he likes the armoured fighter windscreen fitted for the reason you state,it is a good safety measure
given the aircraft's modern operating envelope,but the main reason is that curved PR windscreens,frames and their
associated fittings are like hen's teeth.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top