Beauforts? I might have said Blenheims but as they are low over water, and a Beaufighter would look less angular, I'll make Beauforts my "final answer"
Hi Adrian, At that distance it could be any of them, take your pick. Cheers Keith.DVIL The family likeness is unmistakeable. I would plump fo Beaufighter!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She be a westland Welkin High altitude Intercepter/heavy fighter Contractor Westland UK Country of origin UK Production total 75 operators UK (When i first saw the picture I thought of Glouster Meteors with props.) lol
No not for me, as i mentioned when i first saw it i thought it may have been a early prop version of a Glouster built plane but my searches soon showed me that was incorrect. I ended up on going through a list of World War 2 planes used by UK, and as often happens in theses searches the right one was at bottom or 2 or 3 places above it. I will post a question ASAP and try to get you air force dudes having to work as hard as possible for it.
What am I? I first flew in the late 1930's My role was as a fighter. I was used as a fighter and fighter bomber. My speed was 360mph or 580kph My combat radius range was approx 300 miles. I was introduced to the RAF in 1940 Due to no real fault of my own i was retired mid war. I was fitted with four (4) 20mm Hispano cannons. Later i was fitted with bomb racks to carry either two (2) 250lb or 500lb bombs I was amongst the earliest air craft to have a full bubble canopy. I had limited numbers built partially due to problems with the Rolls Royce Engines that powered me. My high landing speed limited the number of airfields i could use.
Arg me hearties, That be her, a beautiful beast imo, and if it wasn't for the lack of RR Peregrine ( they were seen as a secondary engine so orders were very slow, along with other mechanical problems and shows as only 116 planes were built.) Only two squadrons were equipped with them 137 RAF and 263 RAF. If she did not have the RR Peregrine Engine problems I feel she could of been a real stand out of WW2 heavy fighters as she had a lot going for her. I loved the cockpits position, fully retractable gear, full bubble canopy, nose cannons, and her build was over seen by the hard working Teddy Pedder . I think next time i should choose a plane that's not made by same lot as last question especially when it's a coy who did not make many models. So back to you Adrian
I reckon your first answer could have been right earlier in this aircraft's life, Geoff, assuming she's not a new build.
Cobber was the first to get it right; its a Vickers Valentia. The Victoria had Napier Lion W-type engines, the Valentia had Bristol Jupiter radials which you can see in the picture. Most Valentias were re-built and re-engined Victorias; the R in the serial number JR9360 if I read it correctly, means it is a rebuild. Your go Cobber
