Another Spitfire question!!

I got there in the end! My original Mk1 column is 540 +/- 4mm (due to crash damage)

Thanks vacb.
It would be unlikely for them to go back. It would be like them saying “well, we got that improvement wrong”.

Mmmm.. What we need is someone with a Mk1 column and someone with a Mkv column to go and measure them for us!.. Now, who do we know who has got these????

Knifeedgeturn.
Your point about the chain guard is the reason i would like to know because, at some great expense, i am going to have one made!!

That’s how I would interpret it cornovii, but without similar information from other marks we don’t know if there was any change after the MkI (30033), which reverted back again for the PR19. Unlikely but possible I suppose.

Also, there would only be so much space within which the column could more fore and aft, and extending the column tube length would restrict that.

TonyT, did you manage to check yet please?

(edit: apologies, the previous quoted degrees travel for the control column was for aileron)

vacb.

Does the fact that your PR19 manual shows a 300 prefix mean it would not have changed fom the Mk1 right through to the Mk19? If it had changed for the mk19 would it not have been 389 or 390 prefix?

True….but surprised if they changed

I would agree with that Tony. The reference source I used for the part numbers above was the Swedish PR19 manual and the column drawing shows mainly 30033 prefixed part numbers.

True….but surprised if they changed

OP does say mkV.

Ah!!! But the early columns did not have chain guards!! I have an original Mk1 tube somewhere

Doesn’t the chain guard set the distance ?

The information I have is that the tube (30033/17) is exactly 21″ long, making it 533.4mm.

Also, my understanding is that part numbers 30033/789 (yoke) and 30033/13 (bottom bearing housing) fit inside each end of the tube so that should not alter the apparent length of it.

Would love to know what dimensions the Spitfire restorers use in flying examples.

Michael

Yes makes me think that perhaps they did vary between types! I also wonder if they could have just made a mistake? After all, on the drawing they shopw it as drawing No. 30033 – 21 Surely this No. is for the R/H chain guard?..

the end

Wondering where the measurement starts from.The bottom slides over the bottom uni housing but slides into the top bearing housing..Maybe the descrepency is there..

Yes.. I had seen this. It was this that made me ask if anyone knew what it should be as previous measurements i had put it nearer to 540 give or take a mm

Got it at 508 here…

Will look