On 04/06/2014 21:18, Netko wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:35:58 +0100, Ramsman wrote
> (in article <2hFjv.117970$i%1.31500@fx23.fr7>):
>
>> On 04/06/2014 14:11, Netko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:09:21 +0100, Joseph Testagrose wrote
>>> (in article <4jvto9p2qt5g9g3v7u1h29e24iv4n87brg@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>> Something wrong here.
>>>
>>> The Mk1 Buccaneer had dinky little intakes for its dinky little engines -
>>> these look like the man-sized intakes of a Spey.
>>>
>>> And XN342 is listed as Skeeter.
>>>
>>
>> That's just what I thought: "Those aren't Mk.1 intakes".
>>
>> As for the serial, try XV342:
>> http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/S2_XV342_files/S2_XV342.html
>>
>> Based on the history on that page, the caption in the original post must
>> refer to a different drawing.
>
> Plausible but I'm still puzzled. The history of XV342 on the page you cite
> puts it at Lossiemouth for its entire RN career, with no record of it having
> served aboard Ark Royal as the illustration depicts.
>
800 NAS was based at Lossiemouth, but served aboard Ark Royal with its
Buccaneers.
> Also, were any Mk2s painted in that anti-flash colour scheme? I didn't think
> so but I could well be wrong.
>
Possibly, but I haven't found any photos or decal sheets with all-white
Mk.2s. I've only found grey FAA aircraft.
>> Considering the vast quantity of good posts from Joseph, I think the odd
>> typo can be forgiven.
>
> I agree and I'm happy to make it clear that I didn't intend any criticism of
> the estimable Mr Testagrose.
>
>
--
Peter
|
|
){kind=link}