Sorry to pose yet another Spit question, but I’ve been wondering why Vickers chose the examples they did for conversion to T.9 status. Airframes like PV202, ML407, MJ627 etc were very well used and bruised war veterans with lots of wear and tear, so why were they chosen over far less used examples that were seemingly abundant at the end of the war? Surely a virtually factory-fresh airframe would’ve made a better candidate for conversion??
By: proplover - 27th November 2007 at 19:40
Wouldnt have thought there were to many ‘virtually factory freash’ Mk9s around by 19456
With the numbers of Mk9s around the Govt at the time were giving them away so Vickers proberbly got them very cheap which then equals ‘cost effective’.
By: mackerel - 25th November 2007 at 19:58
Spitfire T9
Sorry to pose yet another Spit question, but I’ve been wondering why Vickers chose the examples they did for conversion to T.9 status. Airframes like PV202, ML407, MJ627 etc were very well used and bruised war veterans with lots of wear and tear, so why were they chosen over far less used examples that were seemingly abundant at the end of the war? Surely a virtually factory-fresh airframe would’ve made a better candidate for conversion??
H i Ant, The answer you are looking for maybe found in the book “Spitfire-The History” by Morgan & Shacklady. Page 378.
Sign In
November 25, 2007 at 6:31 pm