Work In Progress Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 1 hour ago, alt-92 said: Funnily enough, those were also registered as MK715, BF274 and BS147 respectively and kept those serials. Military serials aren't legal registrations, they are just numbers. And those numbers were the ones applied to those aircraft many years previously as IX fighters, as you can tell from the dates associated with those serial ranges . They were never on the strength of the RAF with those serials as trainers. As I said, unhelpful half-truths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, Work In Progress said: As I said, unhelpful half-truths Objection, Your Honour. Those serials were plastered on the tail in RNLAF service. I did not and have never said they carried those as Tr.9s in RAF service, Perhaps slightly less accusatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Okay, if the Dutch air force is stupid enough to screw up whatever its own airframe identification system is - and they must have some system of their own that normally makes some kind of internal sense - to insert random ex-RAF serials instead, then they are at sovereign liberty to do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 They did so with (almost) all their ex-RAF purchases. Not that strange if you're rebuilding your air forces based on RAF organisational standards. [edit] Which includes MH434 by the way. I have the Dutch Spitfire tome by Harry van der Meer here, that lists all Spits in Dutch service - flying or not including aircraft used as instructional airframes ( PR.XIs and the odd FR.XIV). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 How did they integrate that system with the F-84s and Sabres? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Those weren't ex-RAF now, were they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 No, an that is my point. What identification system did they use for their US fighters? Did they just decide to run multiple incompatible systems of serials in the same air force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Ok, bit off-topic - with apols to @WV908. Generally, for purchased/MAPS aircraft the US serials based on FY remained, additionally they were assigned letter[ dash] number serials. F-84s initially carried the US serial in small on/under the tail while the K-1 to K-189 numbers were carried on the nose. Same with the F-86, T-33. F-104's weren't US built but FIAT or Fokker. Construction number derivatives in D-66xx/67xx (FIAT) or D-8xxx. F-16's follow their construction number (Fokker/SABCA built) so 89-0021 becomes J-021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Russell Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Back on topic, even Airfix agrees the Attacker was a Spitfire variant 🙃 https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/supermarines-jet-powered-spitfire 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV908 Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 Please stop arguing over serials everyone. Some Spitfires wear serials that have nothing to do with their history and I will not name them by those serials - MV293 being my favourite example as it wears the codes JE-J and serial MV268 - an aircraft which it is absolutely not. Other Spitfires, like TR.9 NH341 in particular have been rebuilt in another form but the mentioned serial was still the basis of this rebuild. Yes, it may be more appropriate to use their 'G' registration, but the RAF serials are still accurate as part of their history. Cheers, WV908 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV908 Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 25 minutes ago, Ed Russell said: Back on topic, even Airfix agrees the Attacker was a Spitfire variant 🙃 https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/supermarines-jet-powered-spitfire Attacker and Swift confirmed as Spitfires 🤪 May as well add the Scimitar too 🥳 Cheers, WV908 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinK Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 1 hour ago, WV908 said: Attacker and Swift confirmed as Spitfires 🤪 May as well add the Scimitar too ... and, by that reasoning, we might extend it to the VC-10, Concorde.... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warhawk Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 Don't forget the F Mk.Vc Trop (JK808) on permanent display at Belgrade Museum of Aviation source: http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveWilko Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 8 hours ago, Ed Russell said: Back on topic, even Airfix agrees the Attacker was a Spitfire variant 🙃 https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/supermarines-jet-powered-spitfire Wasn't the Attacker originally to be named the "Jet Spiteful"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 Since the attacker was based on the Spiteful/Seafang wing, in a sense it can be considered the last of the Spitfire "extended family". However the idea of including in a Spitfire list types like the Attacker itself and then the Swift and Scimitar makes me a bit sad... in the beginning was the Spitfire, one of the great classics and among the best fighters ever. At the end of the line was a trio of anonimous jet aircraft that never excelled and were soon forgotten after short careers. And although looks matter nothing in the effectiveness of a fighter, none of the 3 had anything of the elegance of their predecessor 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV908 Posted October 6, 2020 Author Share Posted October 6, 2020 4 hours ago, warhawk said: Don't forget the F Mk.Vc Trop (JK808) on permanent display at Belgrade Museum of Aviation source: http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/ Hi Warhawk, thanks for the addition I have a Vc Trop on my list, but it's one that lost it's volkes filter prior to returning to the UK. I didn't know there was another one around with the filter fitted so thanks Cheers, WV908 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Poultney Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 (edited) On 04/10/2020 at 20:01, WV908 said: Prototype K5054 This one is a replica not the original example, which does not survive. It looks like a pretty good replica, and with the way some airworthy ones are almost entirely rebuilt, I guess it can be sort of counted Edited October 6, 2020 by Adam Poultney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Poultney Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 12 hours ago, Ed Russell said: Back on topic, even Airfix agrees the Attacker was a Spitfire variant 🙃 https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/supermarines-jet-powered-spitfire And the Swift was based on the Attacker....... So is this a Spitfire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 The wing is the heart of an airframe design, pretty well all else is packaging. No elliptical wing, no Spitfire. Jeffrey Quill did say/write that what the Attacker needed was a Spitfire wing, so there's a nice What-If for someone. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 On 04/10/2020 at 21:07, WV908 said: Yes, the prototype at Tangmere may well be a replica, but so are all the airworthy Mk.1's and a good chunk of the T.9's. OK, more precisely/pedantically, the airworthy Mk.I's and T.9 are in trigger broom territory, but do at least contain a few original bits, including the dataplate. The original K5054 got scrapped in the war, and the replica does not have any bit AFAIK. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now