Mk V Spitfire BL628 – Engine runs

Quite simply stunning! 🙂

Went out to Ardmore yesterday to see the first flight. Unfortunatly, I had to leave prior, but managed to get some photographs of the preparations. Port and starboard views:

Detail of fuselage/cockpit area:

and the tailgroup, showing the new US registration (she’s off to the USA as soon as the work is completed):

JDK, you can put the lights back on now.:D

Cees

Bloody brilliant news! Well done to all who had a hand in the restoration! 🙂

First flight, at 16:25 local NZ, completed at Ardmore today Saturday.

Congrats to all Avspecs.

To quote Sqn Leader ‘Skipper’: “Don’t just stand there, get one up!”

Well done to all those who got an aircraft back to the skies.

First flight, at 16:25 local NZ, completed at Ardmore today Saturday.

Pilot Keith Skilling reported minor U/C retraction glitch.

Congrats to all Avspecs.

Mark

Too much for one day?

I was lying down. I now turn out the light.

😀

Very interesting. Thanks.

James

…Ah! Now comes the twist.

If no guns were fitted you could also fit the panel from the the ‘E’ wing.

On this wing the the Hispano is moved to the outer station, with a larger calibre,.5 inch, Browning fitted along side. The slim bulge, correspondingly, is moved outboard on the panel.

Too much for one day?

Mark

As I said:- “So only the broad bulge will service both options”.

The aperture and fixings are the same, but if you tried to fit the slim bulge panel over a two Hispano installation it would foul the second magazine.

Of course this is assuming there’s missing gun(s) where there’s no bulge.

OK, so I specifically mentioned removed guns, and you pointed out the magazine would foul the cover.

So, having gone around the houses, and with thanks to Bruce for a concise answer, and patient responses from Mark, these different bulges do not ‘prove’ different model wings, as G-ORDY stated. (Of course there are other differences in the wings, which may or may not prove the non-pair fit. But G-ORDY’s evidence, on a ‘gate guardian’ (often gutted) Spitfire prove nothing, although they are indicative.

Gee, the hours of fun one can have debating the minutiae of Spitfire wings. I must go and have a lie down.

(It’s a pity so few other types have ever received this depth of attention though, but it is a great thing that the Spitfire saga is so well covered and discussed.)

Thanks!…

AR614

AR614 had received a wing from an EE series aircraft, but I am pretty sure this was while it was in service. I very much doubt it flew with two different wing covers!

The wing covers were in any case, directly interchangeable.

Bruce

Thanks, But my question was meant to be ‘can you fit a broad bulge panel or a narrow bulge panel, or is the space a different shape or structure?’

In other words, if you could fit either panel to the same wing structure, the bulge doesn’t prove the wing is a particular version (or not) irrespective of other design and armament differences.

:confused:

As I said:- “So only the broad bulge will service both options”.

The aperture and fixings are the same, but if you tried to fit the slim bulge panel over a two Hispano installation it would foul the second magazine.

Mark

Thanks, But my question was meant to be ‘can you fit a broad bulge panel or a narrow bulge panel, or is the space a different shape or structure?’

In other words, if you could fit either panel to the same wing structure, the bulge doesn’t prove the wing is a particular version (or not) irrespective of other design and armament differences.

:confused:

James,

With the ‘C’ wing introduced on the Mk V, two armament fit options were available, hence the term ‘Universal wing’.

Most aircraft were fitted with the two cannon and four machine gun option. This required just the slim bulge cover to clear the single ammunition magazine.

When fitted with the second option, four cannon only, two side by side in the bay, the broad bulge cover was required.

So only the broad bulge will service both options but might carry a slight aerodynamic penalty.

AR614 has clearly had a wing change or just picked up a rare panel along the way in ‘Maintenance’ training service.

Mark

AR614 was fitted with wings from two different aircraft by the time it got to Bridgnorth – note the different cannon bulges in this shot.

Thanks G-ORDY. I may be wrong here, my interest in Mitchell’s finest being more towards the four + seater Supermarines… Surely the type of bulge can very, as shown, but the actual hole for the breech cover access panel is basically the same, irrespective of the bulges in the detachable cover? As can be seen in the pic, the shape of the panel is (about?) the same, so unless there’s different locations for the Dzus fasteners from one type to another, or something else I’ve not considered… Of course this is assuming there’s missing gun(s) where there’s no bulge.

Well, silly me – I’m forgetting it’s a British and Supermarine built aircraft, in wartime, so why would I even consider part interchangeability? Such an American concept. 😉 😎

Illumination from the Spitfire experten appreciated.

Nice 401 sqn.RCAF scheme on BL628, is this an accurate scheme that she wore during the war? I like the five spoke wheels, makes a nice change.

Yes. 100%

Mark

Nice 401 sqn.RCAF scheme on BL628, is this an accurate scheme that she wore during the war? I like the five spoke wheels, makes a nice change.

Good Lord…

That would have been fun to trim…:eek:

AR614 wings

AR614 was fitted with wings from two different aircraft by the time it got to Bridgnorth – note the different cannon bulges in this shot.

As one of the restorers of AR614, I can answer this one!

AR614 did not have the B wing cannon apertures fitted – it had modified Mk IX ones (internal as opposed to external).

As I recall, and its a few years ago now, the original castings had been cut flush with the wing, so new ones were required. The new castings were modified to match the shape and the openings on the original leading edge skins.

Whilst the cannon barrels were probably not correct, the basic wing structure certainly was.

Bruce

Thanks for the clarification Bruce.

I guess like most things, sometimes comprimises have to be made.

I must admit, it does seem rather pedantic to pick out the smaller things such as cannon fairings and if the matching wing arrangment is correct, but I guess when the rest of the aircraft appears to have been given such attention to detail (especially in areas people might never see) it stands out more!

Photo linked from the HRL website

Cheers

Paul

Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!

Congrats to the guys who have all worked on her,I,m just stoked another V is on the way up:D Thanks for the update Mark….;)Been following this rebuild for many a year.A long journey but the rewards are priceless.Hope we get to see her in the flesh one day…