Which Spitfire is the most "original"

The owners of X4650 say the composite seat taken out of K9942 is original and was sat in by James Nicholson when he was with 72 Squadron. My question is would K9942 have such a seat when she was manufactured?. Would she not have had an early metal seat?. I would have thought that the composite material seat would have been fitted retrospectively AFTER 1940, at a maintenance unit during overhaul and upgrade. I could be wrong though.

the article on X6450 is interesting and is very poetic. It suggests the seat is original to that sat on by Nic Nicolson VC….as a composite (early) seat…i doubt it survived its fall….not that i care because it is beautiful and a worthy addition….

Thank you all for your replies,interesting to hear your points of view,it’s a subject that can be looked at from lots of angles really I suppose,and as previously mentioned it is great to have them flying no matter what.

Its worth noting that they each portray different points in Spitfire chronology.

P9374 is to Battle of France standard, and incorporates many early features like the handpump, fabric ailerons and so on.

X4650 is to a later standard, with engine driven hydraulics and so on.

Both are heavily rebuilt from crash sites. Neither, despite the claims can be accurately described as ‘time capsules’.

Both are worthy additions to the ranks of flying Spitfires, and we should applaud that.

Bruce

Give that man a beer!!!!!;)
Couldn’t agree more.

Cees

I’ve never seen a photo of X4650 after it’s recovery and interestingly neither does the article show it. Are they in ‘the book’ ?

.

Its worth noting that they each portray different points in Spitfire chronology.

P9374 is to Battle of France standard, and incorporates many early features like the handpump, fabric ailerons and so on.

X4650 is to a later standard, with engine driven hydraulics and so on.

Both are heavily rebuilt from crash sites. Neither, despite the claims can be accurately described as ‘time capsules’.

Both are worthy additions to the ranks of flying Spitfires, and we should applaud that.

Bruce

Dazdaman you are quite right, i`m probably looking at authenticity than originality. As the Flypast article intimates, X4 certainly has used quite a bit of her original airframe and fittings, plus original 1940 items from other Spitfires . We will have to wait for Andy Saunders`s book to find out how many original parts were used on P9. So in terms of authenticity, P9374 is the winner for me. In terms of originality then X4650 wins. Oh ****** it they are both winners!.

Difficult to say really,I just wondered out of P9374 and X4650,which would be considered the most original,not any of the other Spitfires.

The one using the most original parts from said airframe !!

In reply to Sopwiths original question of which one of P9374 or X4650 is the most original, my personal view is that P9374 wins hands down. From an external viewpoint, P9 has a correct spinner for an early Spitfire I, X6`s spinner to me seems a bit odd. P9 also has the correct demarcation line on the lower fuselage for the under surface camouflage,as it clearly tapers to a point near to the tail wheel strut, whereas X4 has a demarcation line for its Sky under surface that only came into being on the Spitfire 2. P9 also has a Merlin III which is correct for the mark as well. Both Spitfires are fantastic additions to the warbird scene and both are a marvellous testament to the people involved in their restorations. I look forward to a flying display of them both together with– hope and fingers crossed– Ar213 and P7350. 🙂

I would have thought what you describe is more authenticity than originality, no?

From the Flypast article, it seems (to me, at least) that more of X4650 survived the ravages of time than P9374. Happy to be proved wrong, obviously. Maybe Andy Saunders needs to write another book! 😉

They are, of course, stunning aircraft, and I can’t wait for X4 to fly again! 🙂

‘Original’ as in ‘least restored’, or ‘original’ as in closest configuration to original entry to service fit-out?

Difficult to say really,I just wondered out of P9374 and X4650,which would be considered the most original,not any of the other Spitfires.

In reply to Sopwiths original question of which one of P9374 or X4650 is the most original, my personal view is that P9374 wins hands down. From an external viewpoint, P9 has a correct spinner for an early Spitfire I, X6`s spinner to me seems a bit odd. P9 also has the correct demarcation line on the lower fuselage for the under surface camouflage,as it clearly tapers to a point near to the tail wheel strut, whereas X4 has a demarcation line for its Sky under surface that only came into being on the Spitfire 2. P9 also has a Merlin III which is correct for the mark as well. Both Spitfires are fantastic additions to the warbird scene and both are a marvellous testament to the people involved in their restorations. I look forward to a flying display of them both together with– hope and fingers crossed– Ar213 and P7350. 🙂

‘Original’ as in ‘least restored’, or ‘original’ as in closest configuration to original entry to service fit-out?

Difficult…….

if least restored than the Mk1s pickled in Chicago South Kensington and Lambeth must be up there near the top

if original as in closest configuration to original entry into service then there must be any number of contenders – and presumably the only limiting factor is money and the determinedness (is there such a word?) of the research undertaken to ensure the correct parts, colours and configuration – eg should cockpits actually be painted what has come to be standardised today as “interior grey-green” or were some cockpits actually an altogether different colour

cf the IWM restoration of their Swordfish

‘Original’ as in ‘least restored’, or ‘original’ as in closest configuration to original entry to service fit-out?

Ahh my bad 😮 Is she not still one of the most original flying spitfires?

The one at cosford hardly looks real even though its supposed to be the oldest one?

MH434 was thoroughly overhauled by ARCO around ten years ago.

I was surprised to read that X4650 has a few parts from the RAF Museum Mk1 K9942.

Septic.

Isnt MH434 the most original flying example, having never been restored?

Or am I wrong there?