Author Topic: Guppy =) (Read 488 times)

SkyChimp · « **on:** November 20, 2005, 12:52:55 PM »

Man im tired of asking u these things but ur da man hehe.

Can u please find me a profile for a spitty 16 or some 109's

Which ever model i like the f tho.

I kinda feel like making a 109.

Thanks..

-SkyChimp

Blixen · « **Reply #1 on:** November 20, 2005, 01:22:13 PM »

Guppy35 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2005, 11:34:39 PM »

Problem with both those is that they are restored Spits with less then accurate markings.

The bottom one in the French markings was actually built as a low back Spit XVI and when it was restored the owner had it built back up to a high back

Not sure what the RAAF marked bird is as they flew Vcs and VIIIs while that looks like a V with a 4 blade prop, clipped wings and multiple exhaust stacks. Nothing that flew operationally for the RAAF like that

Kev367th · « **Reply #3 on:** November 21, 2005, 01:15:54 AM »

RAAF one looks like a late war clipped Mk LF Vc, definately not a XVI.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 21, 2005, 01:33:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
RAAF one looks like a late war clipped Mk LF Vc, definately not a XVI.

I'm half tempted to believe the clipped bird is one of those fiberglass replicas. It's too much of a hodge podge of stuff to be anything else. Something just doesn't look right.

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2005, 02:06:35 AM »

The elevators are the wrong ones for an LF.Mk V, ad least judging from the photos in Spitfire: The History.

Also the rear fuselage looks too thick to me. It could be perspective, but it just looks a bit off.

straffo · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2005, 03:06:24 AM »

Strange marquing on the "french" MkXVI ?
Why yellow around the roundel ?
Why the stripes ?
Where is the squadron code ?

no ZE184 or TE184 registred by the Armée de l'air (I can be wrong for this one)

FTJR · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2005, 03:19:55 AM »

Looking at a (historic) picture of UP-U now. It was a 79 Squadron Spit V, and doesn't remotely look like the one posted above

regards