Spitfire P9373 Data Plate

Absolutely 100% agree with you on that! I’m
Not a modern spitfire bad mouthed! Infact the more of the graceful old birds in the sky the better!

Well, there are some Mustangs around that share an identity. Does that count?

Edit: I should clarify that this issue has been resolved a few years back and both Mustangs are back to using different identities:
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/serial/44-12016
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/serial/44-63864

Am I right in thinking after reading all this topic that there’s a possibility of P9372 P9373 and P9374 all flying together? Assuming the wrecks don’t keep getting pushed to the back of the line?

And there seems to be a possibility of P9373 and P9373 flying together, right?

Has there ever been such an issue — two separate project rebuilds, each using a separate dataplate from the same wreck?

I think a lot of people don’t appreciate the hard work (and financial effort) needed to be able to get these airframes flying, no matter the percentage of original parts.
Looking at the Mk I’s it’s nothing short of amazing that these are build according to the specifications laid down at the time they were operational, as opposed to converting essentially Mk IX airframes using earlier Merlin marks.
At the other side of the spectrum, it woud be great to see a twenties series aircraft flying someday.
Keep up the good work chaps.
Cees

Amen to that, Trolly Aux!

What a pity there are still so many to denigrate efforts to re-create these Spitfires, or the means by which that is now usually achieved.

From one who tried hard to reproduce one from scratch any Spitfire is an achievement.As is any plane that that is built or rebuilt to high specifications..Its not about what we do now its laying the groundwork for the future generations to continue our work.

Amen to that, Trolly Aux!

What a pity there are still so many to denigrate efforts to re-create these Spitfires, or the means by which that is now usually achieved.

I do not care if they are 100% or 1% of the original aeroplanes I am happy to soak up this vision that I never ever thought I would see, Battle of France/Battle of Britain Mk Spitfires, the baby Spit is the one for me.
Thank you to all the owners who allow these Spitfire to be built with their hard earned cash, Thank you thank you thank you.

Thankyou Mark 12!
Even though they are not the originals it would still be a special sight of wartime sisters flying together!

Am I right in thinking after reading all this topic that there’s a possibility of P9372 P9373 and P9374 all flying together?

Technically possible. 🙂

Am I right in thinking after reading all this topic that there’s a possibility of P9372 P9373 and P9374 all flying together? Assuming the wrecks don’t keep getting pushed to the back of the line?

It is/was a human process so therefore is fallible, but it was set procedure laid down in the appropriate ‘Air Publication’.

Do you have anything specific in mind?

Mark

Thanks, nothing specific, just a general question.

We’re the wing bolt oversize plates infallible in matching Aircraft serial number with construction number?

It is/was a human process so therefore is fallible, but it was set procedure laid down in the appropriate ‘Air Publication’.

Do you have anything specific in mind?

Mark

We’re the wing bolt oversize plates infallible in matching Aircraft serial number with construction number?

Although the RAF serial does not appear on any of the manufacturing construction plates, if when in service any of the wing bolts are reamed oversize in .004″ increments this has to be recorded adjacent to the holes on both the fuselage and the wing. This is to notify the engineering status of the holes for subsequent wing changes down stream. To facilitate this a special data plate is stamped up and it is required that both the RAF serial number and the wing or fuselage construction number be recorded on this plate.

By extreme good fortune the oversize wing bolt plate for P9372 was extant in the substantial recovered crash remains revealing the main fuselage construction number to be 6S-30563.

With all three Spitfires P9372, P9373 and indeed P9374 being delivered on the same day and all allotted to 92 Squadron on 6 March 1940 the main fuselage construction numbers for P9373 and P9374 are 6S-30564 and 6S-30565 respectively.

Mark

An attempt to clarify 🙂 :-

The data plate on ebay is most certainly from the Time Team Spitfire P9373.

It is from the ‘frame 5’ firewall. This was a sub-asembly manufactured by Heston Aircraft and carries an HAI (Heston Aircraft Industries) 6S Supermarine sub contractors data plate.

Analysis of the surviving Spitfire inspections shows that Heston Aircraft manufactured vast numbers of firewalls for SUPERMARINE including all mks VIII, XI, and XVIII production.

The firewalls for VICKERS ARMSTRONG Castle Bromwich built Spitfires in the main were manufactured in house the organistion.

The skeletal fuselage is bolted to the frame 5 sub-assembly at the four longeron points and further attached by rivets to the side and bottom skins to complete the monocoque fuselage assembly.

In this process the fuselage then receives the main fuselage data plate that is riveted to the skin on the inside of the cockpit below the datum longeron on the right hand side.

This main data plate is insignificant looking. It carries no indication of the RAF serial and looks no different to the many similar plates on the various sub-assemblies. Only the 30027 indicates the plate is from the ’27’ fuselage group.

SUPERMARINE also stencilled the ‘6S’ main fuselage construction number on the outside of the fuselage adjacent to the cockpit on the right hand side.

In hindsight, and with a lot more accumulated knowledge, the portion of data plate fresh out of the ground, post 11, presented to camera on Time Team as the main cockpit plate was incorrect. By sheer chance the ’27’ visible are the last digits of a construction number and possibly from the ’08’ wing group.

Mark

The ebay item is claimed by the seller as coming from the Time Team-excavated P9373, and P9373 has a quoted Construction Number of 6S-30564. Yet the Construction Number in the ebay-shown data plate is HA1 6S 5419.

So, then, the ebay item is not from P9373, right?

Is there a rational explanation for why his/her dataplate Construction Number doesn’t match P9373‘s known Construction Number? EDIT: Oh, in rereading some posts I see that the ebay item seems to be from a Frame 5 sub-assembly, and it’s Construction Number is considered an unreliable match to an aircraft’s true serial number. OK, so apparently the claim that the dataplate is from the wreck of P9373 is reasonable, unless proven otherwise by one of our experts.

I zoomed in to the Construction Number seen below the rear cockpit in Mark12’s photo (EDIT: P9373‘s main C/N, per Mark12), and I am convinced that it does read “6S30564”. Thus, the photo indeed shows P9373, the very Spitfire excavated in the Time Team project in 1999. I watched this Time Team episode on youtube today, and clearly “P9373” is seen stencilled onto two recovered pieces.

Interesting, this ebay dataplate…and right now its provenance is puzzling to me…though I am an outsider looking in with no Spitfire C/N or dataplate knowledge other than that gleaned from this forum.

In the Squadron/Signal Publication no 39 “Spitfire in action” page 5 there is a “Flight” photograph of a 602 squadron machine with the same strip. It is noted as a flame damping strip.
I havn’t come across many mk 1s with one. I think the early Spitfires had the forward fuel tank as the outer cowling but this was subsequently covered over with an armoured cowling that stood a bit proud of the other panels.

M12s pic is also a 602 aircraft – possibly a local modification for night fighting? Or for attaching plates to?

That’s great information re. the plates and the stencils Mark12, always good to learn new things. Thank you, very much appreciated.

30027 suggests yes, but a check on Sheet 7 would confirm.

Mark

30027 Sht 7 G is indeed “Front Spar Frame 5”

Are those strakes stiffeners for the fuel tank cover? Too shallow to be anti glare shields.

In the Squadron/Signal Publication no 39 “Spitfire in action” page 5 there is a “Flight” photograph of a 602 squadron machine with the same strip. It is noted as a flame damping strip.
I havn’t come across many mk 1s with one. I think the early Spitfires had the forward fuel tank as the outer cowling but this was subsequently covered over with an armoured cowling that stood a bit proud of the other panels.