Jump to content

Surviving Spitfires - 32 variants left?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, alt-92 said:

Funnily enough, those were also registered as MK715, BF274 and BS147 respectively :P 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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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....:coat:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, warhawk said:

Don't forget the F Mk.Vc Trop (JK808) on permanent display at Belgrade Museum of Aviation

 

spacer.png

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Adam Poultney
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

751e72e3593c394f3df35c2a6155707c.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...