Marks of Spitfire

Yes, but what is the definitive document? An AP or a Maker’s document lol!!!!!!!
The maker’s document was produced in response to the AM’s contract!! But do they know or they do know their product best (allegedly!)?
I once had to find the definitive definition of CVS (as in the carrier….and NO this not an invitation to thread drift!!) – it varied between people’s recollections and several APs with different definitions….put simply, it may not be so easy to distinguish the correct vernacular (sp – please forgive any misuse JDK!!)….you could find two official documents with different formats.

Ah, that explains it, just post ’48, is that when the 16 came into use?

The Mk XVI entered service in the Autumn of 1944.

The Pilots Notes marked ‘SPITFIRE 16’ are fourth edition.

Mark

Mark

It is a document and not from an AP

Paul

I have AP 1565 L Pilots Notes dated August 1949 for the ‘SPITFIRE 16’.

Clearly a transitional period.

Ah, that explains it, just post ’48, is that when the 16 came into use?

‘Traced by SMAF’ may have some signifcance here. So this is a Vickers document/drawing rather than an Air Ministry AP.

I have AP 1565 L Pilots Notes dated August 1949 for the ‘SPITFIRE 16’.

Clearly a transitional period.

Mark

I know it doesn’t show all Marks but it does show the Mk 21 as XXI. I just posted the chart for interest. The link is interesting especially as they are selling pilots notes for BBMF a/c that are no longer current and are possibly still subject to crown copy right.

Here is a copy of a drawing from the BBMF archive showing some late Spitfire marks in Roman numerals

It doesn’t seem to cover the 22 & 24, or Seafire 45, 46, & 47 which could be defined as the late series production marks.
This is quite a useful link to show designation style change, http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/Spitfire.html

I don’t doubt for one minute though that some APs continued to use Roman for a while after the change in ’48, especially with types already well known in that style and where manuals have continuation and cross referencing to earlier marks.
The above link shows another anomalie with the Mk.XVI being shown as 16.

I still stick with production Spits generally being known in Roman up to the XIX and Arabic from 21 on.

“All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?”

They helped prove to you a list did exist in an official document 😀

Well, that’s solved that little conundrum. All we need now is to answer what Mark 12 doesn’t know about Spitfires and what is in Andy Saunders PM box, and we’ll have solved all the questions worth asking. :diablo:

Adrian

“All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?”

Here is a copy of a drawing from the BBMF archive showing some late Spitfire marks in Roman numerals

…the Rolls Royce management are looking in to it.

Rolls-Royce …;)

Two actually, on the new Apron for RVL and they were digging it up again today, only been finished a couple of weeks. block paved so not a quick dig and fill job…

A hole has appeared in the hard standing at East Midlands….

…..the Rolls Royce management are looking in to it.

Mark

That’s two to go in the hole then………… 😀

aww, are we allowed to say…

…we told you so!:D

at least you’ve been good enough to admit it Tony:)

I spoke to Richard Wardle today, he says hello Peter, he says he added the pages to the front of all their original manuals and was having a damn good laugh at my expense today….. the git…

So hands up, I was stitched up 😉 but have the courage to eat humble pie, at least I now have a deep enough hole and the shovel to push Ritch into it …. 🙂

You’re wrong Mark 12 but life it to short to keep pointing it out to you, they have simply lifted it from the manuals.

The hole is getting deeper. 🙂

Keep digging.

I will be pleased to acknowledge my error…when you can show me the dedicated and indexed page in an original manual, if not an Air Publication.

I would refer you to pages 345-353 for the full Vickers Type list in – ‘Supermarine Aircraft since 1914’ by C F Andrews & E B Morgan.

Mark

You’re wrong Mark 12 but life it to short to keep pointing it out to you, they have simply lifted it from the manuals.

Well,thanks everyone for all the input,with regards to the origin of Edgar’s list.Brilliant.