Tim Mills (your #6160),
Thanks for the birthday greeting ! (I'll "do the ton" yet). As for the Spits IX(T), it seems that they could have been flown by a lone chap in the back after all. I previously thought that all he could do was proffer advice and sympathy to the lad in front, but couldn't take-off or land it. You live and learn ! So the Irish A.A.F. weren't as daft as I thought.
As to its practicability as a trainer, I note that the BBMF did not choose one as a lead-in to their Spits and the Hurricane for the new boys, but a Harvard instead (right choice IMHO).
The Mk.II was much the same as the Mk.I (the best of all to fly), which we had on my OTU in '42. The reason was simple: All-up-weights (lbs roughly): Mk.I 6400, Mk.II a bit heavier, Mk.V 6600, Mk.IX 7500 (Mk.XVI - same thing), Mk. XIV (Griffon) 8000. All flown on the same wing (but that could be "clipped' on most Mks). So the least weight, the nicest aeroplane.
The OTU had one or two Mk.IIs with two cannon; they were used to give us cannon-firing experience, they loaded a few rounds for each gun and sent us to blast-off the sands of Prestatyn. It was terrifying ! I thought the wings were going to be shaken off the poor old thing !
Why bother putting a cameraman and a camera up front to get "gunsight" pictures ? They come with a gun camera (8 or 16mm ?) already in the port wing stub. I suppose someone had nicked that already, but in any case they could have fitted a small video camera instead (and got much better pictures). Or even in one of the empty gun ports.
That would have the advantage of showing 'finals' and landing as well, for a camera in the sight position would see nothing except the big nose in front. As for baulks of timber, the mind boggles !
As you say, 'Happy Days !' Cheers, Danny.
EDIT: We have too wide screen again. Can somebody fix ?
Last edited by Danny42C; 15th Nov 2014 at 23:55.
Reason: Afterthought.