Anacortes Airport Fly-In 6/28/08

"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..

If this truly was an RCAF Mentor, then it was one of 25 built under licence by
Canadian Car and Foundry. The RCAF found they offered no advantage over the
Harvard and sold them to Turkey. I suspect the Canadian flag on the tail is
anachronistic, since it was not adopted until 1965.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..

If this truly was an RCAF Mentor, then it was one of 25 built under
licence by Canadian Car and Foundry. The RCAF found they offered no
advantage over the Harvard and sold them to Turkey. I suspect the Canadian
flag on the tail is anachronistic, since it was not adopted until 1965.

Yes, you are probably correct. Here's the plaque attached by persons
unknown:

"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..


"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..

If this truly was an RCAF Mentor, then it was one of 25 built under
licence by Canadian Car and Foundry. The RCAF found they offered no
advantage over the Harvard and sold them to Turkey. I suspect the
Canadian
flag on the tail is anachronistic, since it was not adopted until 1965.

Yes, you are probably correct. Here's the plaque attached by persons
unknown:

This data deepens the muddy waters:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...mndfin d.y=11

Lynn

"Lynn" wrote in message
...


"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..


"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..

If this truly was an RCAF Mentor, then it was one of 25 built under
licence by Canadian Car and Foundry. The RCAF found they offered no
advantage over the Harvard and sold them to Turkey. I suspect the Canadian
flag on the tail is anachronistic, since it was not adopted until 1965.

Yes, you are probably correct. Here's the plaque attached by persons
unknown:

This data deepens the muddy waters:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...mndfin d.y=11

I suspect it is half-dressed as a Can Car Mentor for the owner's ****s and
giggles. Well, it's his aircraft and he can paint it anyway he wants, but I
would prefer to see it in a scheme more reflective of the aircraft's history.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote

I suspect it is half-dressed as a Can Car Mentor for the owner's ****s and
giggles. Well, it's his aircraft and he can paint it anyway he wants, but
I would prefer to see it in a scheme more reflective of the aircraft's
history.

If that were to be enforced, there would be a lot of butt ugly airplane out
there.

New, different design paint? No big deal, to me.

Especially if that model (or something close) did exist with the new paint
job, it is no big shakes if a different airplane than the one that wore the
paint originally decides to borrow the design. IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

"Lynn" wrote in
:



"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..


"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..

If this truly was an RCAF Mentor, then it was one of 25 built under
licence by Canadian Car and Foundry. The RCAF found they offered no
advantage over the Harvard and sold them to Turkey. I suspect the
Canadian
flag on the tail is anachronistic, since it was not adopted until
1965.

Yes, you are probably correct. Here's the plaque attached by persons
unknown:

This data deepens the muddy waters:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...ertxt=144PM&cm
ndfind.x=13&cmndfind.y=11

Lynn

US Navy Bureau No. 144097 is a T-34B built for - er, the US Navy...

I'm guessing the owner has a soft spot for mooses. Meese? Mii?

Bob ^,,^

"Bob Harrington" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in
:



"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..


"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..

If this truly was an RCAF Mentor, then it was one of 25 built under
licence by Canadian Car and Foundry. The RCAF found they offered no
advantage over the Harvard and sold them to Turkey. I suspect the
Canadian
flag on the tail is anachronistic, since it was not adopted until
1965.

Yes, you are probably correct. Here's the plaque attached by persons
unknown:

This data deepens the muddy waters:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...ertxt=144PM&cm
ndfind.x=13&cmndfind.y=11


US Navy Bureau No. 144097 is a T-34B built for - er, the US Navy...

I'm guessing the owner has a soft spot for mooses. Meese? Mii?

Bob ^,,^

Beaver, Bob, the national animal here is the beaver.

We just keep moose for the Queen to ride.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in news:4s-
:

"Bob Harrington" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in
:



"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..


"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Lynn" wrote in message
. ..

If this truly was an RCAF Mentor, then it was one of 25 built under
licence by Canadian Car and Foundry. The RCAF found they offered no
advantage over the Harvard and sold them to Turkey. I suspect the
Canadian
flag on the tail is anachronistic, since it was not adopted until
1965.

Yes, you are probably correct. Here's the plaque attached by persons
unknown:

This data deepens the muddy waters:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...ertxt=144PM&cm
ndfind.x=13&cmndfind.y=11


US Navy Bureau No. 144097 is a T-34B built for - er, the US Navy...

I'm guessing the owner has a soft spot for mooses. Meese? Mii?

Bob ^,,^

Beaver, Bob, the national animal here is the beaver.

We just keep moose for the Queen to ride.

Then - you ~don't~ have that rumored arsenal of intercontinental ballistic
moosels?

But Beavers are good.

Bob ^,,^

That Pratt & Whitney PT6A-6 engine can throw this old deHavilland DHC-2 Mk 3
Turbo Beaver across the water effortlessly. What a great looking plane!

J.F.