Form 700 – Spitfire identity

The number has no resemblance to either a cockpit or a firewall contructor’s plate for a Spitfire.

Six digits would be right for a Merlin engine number but not in that range.

Mark

Should that not be a 6S prefix, then?

Interesting theory.

What does Mk12 have on that c/n?

Could it be the manufacture’s construction number as sometimes seen stenciled at the top of the rudder?

If that is the case, could the number present in the Aircraft No box be his service number?

Not unless he was a very old trainee it is in following batch! if 317642

316001 to 326000 Oct 1918 RAF – Cadets

even if 517642

505001 to 549999 Oct 1925 Civilians

The date of fitting is interesting – by 1948 it seems that the RAF had done away with Mk IX Spitfires…

I’d go with a training airframe too. The incomplete paperwork and a made-up serial number fit in with non-airworthy parts and a learning environment…

Fwiw, I have the same opinion as DaveF68, i.e. it looks like a 3 to me too.

(I’ve never done a course though!)

Looking at the number,and the other items on the sheet, I’d say the first number is neither a ‘5’ nor an ‘S’ but a ‘3’.

There are no 5s to compare with, but compared to the Ss, the style is different, but the lower half is very similar to the threes.

I knew that hand writing analysis course would come in useful someday!

Thanks Mark

Unfortunately these elements are blank on the cover.

Perhaps this is consistent with the suggestion made by Slipstream. The prop change seems to be due to it being out of “thrash” or “crash”, difficult to read the handwriting.

However, closer inspection of the handwriting suggests it was written with the same fountain pen and the signatures appear to be written in the same hand. Again, perhaps further evidence of it being a sample written up whilst the airman was training.

If that is the case, could the number present in the Aircraft No box be his service number?

VACB,

I say again, if you can give me the units and date on the front cover I can make an electronic search on the Spitfire data base.

Mark

Just a thought, could this be a training document used to teach fitters (Cosford was No 2 school of technical training) how to complete the paperwork and as such does not relate to a real airframe?

There is something which doesn’t strike me as quite right regarding the hours of the installed and replacement propellers as well as the uncompleted fields for the hydraulic / oleo oil.

Thanks Mark

The front cover also says S17642!

Only other clues from the front cover are R.A.F. Cosford in the Unit entry.

An oddity it seems.

OK. What is the date and the unit to which this Spitfire has been tranferred as written on the front cover?

Mark

Thanks Mark

The front cover also says S17642!

Only other clues from the front cover are R.A.F. Cosford in the Unit entry.

An oddity it seems.

Here’s the picture of the information. Any ideas please?

Looking at a Spitfire form 700 that I have, the RAF serial number TD135 is in the box where you have S17642.

Turn back to the buff front cover. Top right it will say Aircraft No………….

Any clues there?

Mark

Here’s the picture of the information. Any ideas please?

Thanks for your thoughts chaps.

I have checked the form again and the “Aircraft No.” appears twice, written in the same format, once on the front top r/h corner and again inside.

It definitely looks like the number “1” rather than a lower case “L” but there is a possibility that the “S” is a number “5”. Would that make any sense to the serial if it was?

I’ll try and upload a picture over the next couple of days to see if it makes it easier for others to interpret.

Thanks again

Thanks for your thoughts chaps.

I have checked the form again and the “Aircraft No.” appears twice, written in the same format, once on the front top r/h corner and again inside.

It definitely looks like the number “1” rather than a lower case “L” but there is a possibility that the “S” is a number “5”. Would that make any sense to the serial if it was?

I’ll try and upload a picture over the next couple of days to see if it makes it easier for others to interpret.

Thanks again

More authenticity and provenance than many a flying $pitfire, you just need to attach the carry through spars, and chocks away!

More authenticity and provenance than many a flying $pitfire, you just need to attach the carry through spars, and chocks away!

Yes….I beat you to it! 😉 Well……almost…but not quite.

I also checked SM642

Yes….I beat you to it! 😉 Well……almost…but not quite.

I also checked SM642