Vic Balshaw
Major General
Your working wonders with this machine Andy and even with those gaps it's still looking quite good.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OK, I must apologise as my ignorance of this aircraft type is showing. I thought, wrongly, that the Jacobs engine was a 9 cylinder unit and so, seeing that the units mounted on the Nanton bird were 7 cylinder, I immediately thought that these were Cheetahs. My bad.Wow, that's a new one on me - never heard of a Cheetah in a Mk II, the Jacobs kinda being one of the things that makes a Mk II a Mk II!!? Very strange as the engine mount ring, engine controls, hydraulics, etc. are quite different - not an easy switch. I now know what one of my first investigations is gonna be next time I'm in Nanton . Next question is that air scoop a standard Mk I fitting or a later "Canadianization" that's been grafted on? Lots of questions opened with this one.
Don't see any sign of a filter in the photos so the two settings will be for cold and hot air: either cold air fed directly from the scoop or carb heat with heated air coming from some location near the exhaust ring (the Cheetah X had a hot air manifold that actually was ducted inside the exhaust ring but have never seen that on a Cheetah IX).
Marathon job on that masking, good luck.
cheers
Scott
Those are definitely "aftermarket" filters. Those may be Cheetah XV engines and not IXs . That airframe had Cheetah XVs installed when the wooden wings were replaced with the metal wings from a C19 Anson. I notice it has electric start and power hydraulics, neither of which came on a stock Cheetah IX.
Makes sense that if the aircraft wasn't used for bombing practice the clear panel up front would be replaced with a solid one. There was, however bombing practice taking place at 33 SFTS (bombing range was over Lake Winnipeg), so at least some of the Ansons at Carberry would have had clear panels. Like I said earlier, seems like every station (and even every individual aircraft) had its own distinctive character. Makes the research interesting .Good stuff Evan, thanks.
More frustrations. This time it's the sliding panel on the underside of the nose. All pics are Mk I's and all are from different aircraft.
Clear panel:
View attachment 759563View attachment 759574View attachment 759585
Solid panel:
View attachment 759559View attachment 759560View attachment 759570View attachment 759573View attachment 759558
Bogus (!?) profiles and plans:
View attachment 759586View attachment 759587View attachment 759589View attachment 759590
Honestly, I've seen more wartime pics with the panel in a solid colour than clear so I think I will go that route.
The thing is, if the panel slid back anyway for bomb aiming then it would seem to make no difference if it was clear or solid. At least that's how my pea brain sees it.Makes sense that if the aircraft wasn't used for bombing practice the clear panel up front would be replaced with a solid one. There was, however bombing practice taking place at 33 SFTS (bombing range was over Lake Winnipeg), so at least some of the Ansons at Carberry would have had clear panels. Like I said earlier, seems like every station (and even every individual aircraft) had its own distinctive character. Makes the research interesting .
Too true, never considered that.The thing is, if the panel slid back anyway for bomb aiming then it would seem to make no difference if it was clear or solid. At least that's how my pea brain sees it.
Those are definitely "aftermarket" filters. Those may be Cheetah XV engines and not IXs .