March 10, 2004 at 5:28 pm
I know it’s cheeky, but you guy’s all seem far more knowledgeable than I so…..
By: Mark V - 15th March 2004 at 12:37
I do not have the answer – yes there are always variations Bruce, but the difference in proportion here seems huge. The triangular gussets in the lower corners of the framing would have been enormous on this canopy (if it is original and unchanged) and would have looked very strange.
I am prepared to be corrected though!
By: Bruce - 15th March 2004 at 11:29
Mark V
Yes, I agree about the ‘V’ section, but I have seen some oddities, particularly when we were researching the canopy for BM597 – that area was very different.
You must admit that most other areas do point towards it being Spitfire, particularly the 6S numbering.
Bruce
By: Mark V - 15th March 2004 at 09:54
I beg to differ – there is something very strange about this canopy. Look at the size of the diagonal cut-offs adjacent to the lower edge. They appear to be original as they have the machined recess for the framing but they are nothing like the size of any Spitfire canopy I have seen. The larger one is almost twice the length of the lower section compared to around ten times on an original Mk 1 Spitfire.
If it has been modified someone has gone to very great lengths.
There is no knock-out panel either (although not in itself damning evidence).
By: dhfan - 15th March 2004 at 09:29
Thanks, Mark.
Shows how difficult it must be to work things out from photographs as it looks bulged in my pic but it’s dead flat on the sides.
By: Mark12 - 15th March 2004 at 08:38
dhfan,
Th canopy you have illustrated on K9942 at Cosford is of recent manufacture. It was the best interpretation of photographs that the Medway group could achieve in their restoration of this aircraft for thr RAFMus.
Mark
By: dhfan - 14th March 2004 at 23:34
Composite pic of the canopy on the Mk1 Spitfire at Cosford. Slightly bulged top and flat sides.
Sides look bulged in the pic but they are flat, honest!
By: Puukka - 12th March 2004 at 15:00
Oh ****, hope it´s not by Airfix 😀 😀
By: DazDaMan - 12th March 2004 at 14:57
From memory, the Airfix Spitfire Mk1 (1/72) has the flat sided domed canopy. An early-model aircraft is depicted, so it must be from a similar aircraft.
By: VoyTech - 12th March 2004 at 14:44
Originally posted by dhfan
Knowing very little about early Spitfire canopies and never having seen one other than in photos, didn’t the flat top ones also have flat sides? It would seem a bit odd to blow the sides and keep the top flat.
I’ve always understood that what we know as the “standard” Spitfire canopy is the Malcolm hood.
I believe there were several Spitfire canopy shapes, each of them standard at one time or another. The initial ones were flat on top and on sides (a curved sheet of perspex). Then there were those bulged on top with flat sides (like the one in this thread). And then there was the Malcolm hood.
By: dhfan - 12th March 2004 at 01:26
Knowing very little about early Spitfire canopies and never having seen one other than in photos, didn’t the flat top ones also have flat sides? It would seem a bit odd to blow the sides and keep the top flat.
I’ve always understood that what we know as the “standard” Spitfire canopy is the Malcolm hood.
By: Puukka - 11th March 2004 at 15:34
The artificial horizon will fit to your Spitfire Mk V panel, since the earlier, luminous ones with the golden letters were later replaced by the fluorescent Mk IB. I have a wartime pic of possibly a Mk V including a Mk IB. At the back there might be the ref. number and serial number including the year of production after the slash.
Will send the picture to your email-address.
Cheers,
Herbert
By: VoyTech - 11th March 2004 at 11:45
Originally posted by DazDaMan
I’ll go with Bruce, it’s an early Mk1 Spitfire canopy, similar to the one fitted to K9942, unless I’m mistaken?
I think you are. This canopy is clearly bulged on top. The earliest Mk I canopies had flat top and I think K9942 has (or at least was supposed to have) a ‘flattop’ canopy. I would say it is a later production Mk I or early Mk II canopy.
By: skypilot62 - 11th March 2004 at 02:03
Thanks one and all!
It never ceases to amaze me just how much knowledge is out there.
Not all the bits were acquired over the weekend – sorry if that was misleading. The instruments came all together a while ago but only now has my interest been rekindled in them so i thought i ought to know exactly what they were. I’m trying to get a Spitfire V panel together with a very long term idea of a cockpit section home-build. The glider instrument appealed to my magpie nature and was only £5 so I figured what the heck! Wish I’d bought the other one too!
Not wishing to harp on too much, the prop came from Scotland although I’ve heard of several fences like those mentioned in various other locations. There was a fairly well noted one near Speke too.
Should there be any markings visible on the blade, if so, where? Also, anyone got any suggestions on how to remove just the top layer of green paint and what to treat the wood with as it has seen better days and was obviously a hit with a particularly malevolent gang of woodworms!
By: dhfan - 11th March 2004 at 01:08
I don’t know if anybody other than DH and Rotol made prop blades, but AFAIK, DH only used ali (and much later – steel) so it would seem to be Rotol.
By: 682al - 10th March 2004 at 23:59
…and both the Mk. IB Artificial Horizon and the Switchbox, Identification are pretty much common items across the whole range of British wartime aircraft (and for many years post war, too).
The Mk. IB A/H came in in about 1941. The Switchbox is the later, bakelite, type which replaced the original metal cased version from about 1943/44 onwards – the metal ones are now quite scarce.
A nice haul of bits you’ve found!
By: 682al - 10th March 2004 at 23:53
Skypilot, it’s not from somewhere in the hills above Macclesfield is it?
I remember that fence well! The fields around Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope used to be lined with them, too. I’ve still got one or two in the garage.
The Cable Angle Indicator is the sort of thing that all the British assault gliders had and I think we fitted them to Hadrians, too. It was also known as “The angle of dangle” indicator.
By: Mark12 - 10th March 2004 at 22:52
That prop.
It has a very broad section, unless this is your lens, and is not Spitfire/Seafire family.
The Barracuda has very broad blades such as these. There was quite a lot of this sort of stuff in the Perth, Scotland area. Milnathort, Balado Bridge – RN Air Yards etc.
Here are what are thought to be Barracuda blades mounted on a Spitfire.
Mark
By: skypilot62 - 10th March 2004 at 22:24
Thanks Mark 12!
I was pretty confident it was Spitfire but couldn’t find any 300 prefix part nos. to confirm it.
Any more ideas on the prop and the Mk1B AI? I’d like to know what types the AI was appropriate for, or if it was generic across all a/c.
If you’d been at Glasgow airport at the weekend, you’d have seen the odd looks I got from my passengers carrying the prop under my arm! As the Dash-8 is a turbo-prop, I’m sure some of them were a bit disturbed that the Captain has to carry spare blades “just in case”!
By: Mark12 - 10th March 2004 at 19:54
6S-
6S- is the prefix usd by the Supermarine division of Vickers. This appears on all data plates, inspection stamps etc within the whole of that division, not just Southampton; Chattis Hill, Keevil and Aldermarston. Read CBAF- and SMAF- for Castle Bromwich & South Marston Aeroplane/Aircraft Factories respectively; CO- for Cunliffe Owen; WASP- for Westlands and so on.
Indeed Airframe Assemblies Ltd, manufacturers of bespoke Spitfires to the gentry, have christened their new factory/hangar on Sandown Airport ‘6S’ and it will duly be adorned with a 6S in a circle on the the roof.
Mark
By: skypilot62 - 10th March 2004 at 19:05
Originally posted by Bruce
Canopy appears to be Spitfire, but its an unusual shape – Early Mk1 I think – odd that the metalwork is entirely missing.S6 or more usually 6S shows that the part was made at Southampton
Bruce
Bruce, the markings could easily be 6S as the run around the circle thus “6 S 6 S”. At first I thought it was “G” but it does look more like a “6”.