UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg

[Joseph Testagrose]

[Mike[_39_]]

Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:

>
> begin 644 UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
> `
> end
>

Now this is weird, considering the date.
Anyone?

[Syke[_2_]]

Sacrilege !!!

Syke

[Claus Gustafsen]

Sounds very likely, The Sea Fury didn't see combat during WW II, so the
Luftwaffe couldn't have captured one. But she probaly is the plane that
closest resemble a Fw-190, and I don't think any of those vere around in
1953.

Claus

"Charles Lindbergh" skrev i meddelelsen
...

On 20 Nov 2014 06:21:54 GMT, Mike > wrote:

>Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> begin 644 UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>> `
>> end
>>
>
>Now this is weird, considering the date.
>Anyone?

Pure speculation, but I would suspect this was used as a prop for a movie.


---
Denne e-mail er fri for virus og malware idet avast! Antivirusbeskyttelse er aktiveret.
http://www.avast.com

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2014-11-20 08:05:39 +0000, Syke > said:

> Sacrilege !!!
>
> Syke

Agreed! I can only think that with that paint job it must have been
used as a movie stand-in for a rare, unobtainable bird.
That said, the paint job is so wrong on many levels.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[®i©ardo[_3_]]

On 20/11/2014 14:59, Claus Gustafsen wrote:
> Sounds very likely, The Sea Fury didn't see combat during WW II, so the
> Luftwaffe couldn't have captured one. But she probaly is the plane that
> closest resemble a Fw-190, and I don't think any of those vere around in
> 1953.
>
> Claus
>
> "Charles Lindbergh" skrev i meddelelsen
> ...
>
> On 20 Nov 2014 06:21:54 GMT, Mike > wrote:
>
>> Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> begin 644 UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>>
>>> Attachment decoded: UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>> `
>>> end
>>>
>>
>> Now this is weird, considering the date.
>> Anyone?
>
> Pure speculation, but I would suspect this was used as a prop for a movie.
>
> ---
> Denne e-mail er fri for virus og malware idet avast!
> Antivirusbeskyttelse er aktiveret.
> http://www.avast.com
>

Here's an interesting snippet. Unfortunately I can't trace the original
article on this which I read many years ago.

http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[®i©ardo[_3_]]

On 20/11/2014 15:24, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2014-11-20 08:05:39 +0000, Syke > said:
>
>> Sacrilege !!!
>>
>> Syke
>
> Agreed! I can only think that with that paint job it must have been used
> as a movie stand-in for a rare, unobtainable bird.
> That said, the paint job is so wrong on many levels.
>

Well, yes. "Royal Navy" on the rear fuselage is a bit of a give away, as
is the RN colour scheme.

;-)

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2014-11-20 12:32:18 +0000, Charles Lindbergh > said:

> On 20 Nov 2014 06:21:54 GMT, Mike > wrote:
>
>> Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> begin 644 UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>>
>>> Attachment decoded: UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>> `
>>> end
>>>
>>
>> Now this is weird, considering the date.
>> Anyone?
>
> Pure speculation, but I would suspect this was used as a prop for a movie.

Agreed! The fuselage cross looks like it was suck on over the roundel,
which can just bee seen ppeeking over the square of the sticker. Then
the words "Royal Navy" remain quite visible. I don't think this was
meant to pass close scrutiny.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:33:23 -0800, Savageduck
> wrote:

>On 2014-11-20 12:32:18 +0000, Charles Lindbergh > said:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2014 06:21:54 GMT, Mike > wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> begin 644 UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Attachment decoded: UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>>> `
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now this is weird, considering the date.
>>> Anyone?
>>
>> Pure speculation, but I would suspect this was used as a prop for a movie.
>
>Agreed! The fuselage cross looks like it was suck on over the roundel,
>which can just bee seen ppeeking over the square of the sticker. Then
>the words "Royal Navy" remain quite visible. I don't think this was
>meant to pass close scrutiny.

Sort of a poor man's "Tora Tora Tora" display for an airshow, with the
Sea Fury doing a surprisingly decent stand-in for the Bad Guy...?

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2014-11-21 09:07:40 +0000, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> said:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:33:23 -0800, Savageduck
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-11-20 12:32:18 +0000, Charles Lindbergh > said:
>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2014 06:21:54 GMT, Mike > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> begin 644 UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Attachment decoded: UK2 WJ229 Hawker SeaFury 1953-09 RAFBenson.jpg
>>>>> `
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now this is weird, considering the date.
>>>> Anyone?
>>>
>>> Pure speculation, but I would suspect this was used as a prop for a movie.
>>
>> Agreed! The fuselage cross looks like it was suck on over the roundel,
>> which can just bee seen ppeeking over the square of the sticker. Then
>> the words "Royal Navy" remain quite visible. I don't think this was
>> meant to pass close scrutiny.
>
> Sort of a poor man's "Tora Tora Tora" display for an airshow, with the
> Sea Fury doing a surprisingly decent stand-in for the Bad Guy...?

Yup! I remember those "Tora Tora Tora" AT-6's and their cosmetic makeover.
A few fast low passes and most folks watching a movie would be none the wiser.

--
Regards,

Savageduck