One for the Spitfire fraternity

I took the second post at face value as I couldn’t make out the last number of the serial. Having made the reasonable assumption that post #2 quoted the correct serial I spent a good couple of hours hunting around the web for any info I could find on SL569.

In my book that doesn’t justify tagging me as lazy.
I did my best to help out another forum member but if that is going to mean that I get insulted for my efforts I just won’t bother in future so, like a lot of others before me, I am outta here..   

New Forumite RUNWAY 23 seems to have misunderstood the purpose of this forum, in my opinion. Isn’t it a platform to openly discuss, I suggest,  without fear or favour opinions on the general topics and and specifics that interests all Forumites? Thus when respected Forumite Air Ministry or anyone else opens a new topic that puzzles and intrigues him he is welcoming our opinions to help him resolve that puzzle.

That RUNWAY 23 then releases sarcastic responses to contributing Forumite (Steve611 in this instance) where he has contributed a line of research generously given, that insults all of us who look in here to consider and debate the topic’s questions and answers.

His lack of understanding about the purpose of this forum causes him, does it not,  to be regarded in the future with our collective disdain.  Let us hope that he will find an alternative platform somewhere and be gone from here.

Blimey,

I take the trouble to scan what I believe to be a previously unpublished photo of what is probably quite an obscure example of the Spitfire and then upload it to this forum (formerly and jocularly referred to as “the Spitfire Forum” because of its love of the type), in the sincere hope it will stimulate a bit of discussion and maybe a bit of education for the members and I return to find myself referred to as a lazy researcher by an ungrateful member of just 2 days, 2hours (as I type this)…

Thank you for the info Runway23 (whoever you may be), but  I can’t help thinking you’d probably fit in better on a Facebook “slag off a lazy Spitfire researcher” discussion group.   If one doesn’t already exist you can start your own.

Thanks to member Spartabus for taking the time to post his appreciation of the photo.  Sadly, I find myself concurring with his other comment too…

….and this is precisely why I dropped from a daily visitor and contributor to maybe visiting once every 6 weeks or so……

Great photo, btw. Nice find. I love the late model Spitfires, especially when they are photograhped candidly rather than being tarted up and posed.

The second post was put up as fact – when it was pure conjecture. I knew I was right. The major clue – Marham – was ignored and the definitively mentioned ‘Central Gunnery School’, as ‘any fule kno’ was at a place called Sutton Bridge.

So [steve6etc] I didn’t accuse you of anything – merely stating my opinion that two posts were ‘lazier’ than the first. I hadn’t noted your name, regarding it as insignificant – now you just present as the child who probably ‘ran to teetcher’ to complain ‘cos little Billy got the answers before me‘.

I thought ‘scientists’ always checked ‘either side’ of their results – the second figure in the ‘serial number’ is obvs a ‘six’ or ‘eight’ – just twenty serials to check. So chuck out your Reference books which are probably ‘Janet & John’ editions and seek out the Spitfire Production list [as I did]  which details the use, and ultimate fate, of every known model. As others have now done I used a simple Photo app to lighten the underwing area.  The third poster produced a silver-coloured aircraft instead of a camouflaged one . . .  interesting perhaps, but of zero relevance. I fail to understand his ‘lemming-like logic’ for doing so.   

Frankly, I could hardly contain my indifference to your whinge, so wasn’t going to respond to a puerile attempt at sarcasm and other snarky remarks – resorting to swearing is a good indication of inadequacy in my book. I was content that most would realise your response was that of a pub boor.  But having started, I’ll finish.  As for apologising I refer you to the well known legal exchange of Arkell v Pressdram.  A fine example of a chap, full of his own sense of entitlement and pomposity, who also demanded an ‘apology’.  The reply he received is the same as yours.

Dorothy? Surely Barbara?

Took longer to sign in (why is it “spammers” can get in and I can’t?), than to do a little ‘research’ on a photo manipulation programme into the registration.  Positively, absolutely, clearly a 3, making SL563.  The shape of the bottom curve of both 5 and 3 looks not to be quite normal (a little elongated?) perhaps. 

As to ‘Babs’ it was a ’40s abbreviation for Dorothy, so girl friend or sister perhaps?  The aircraft registration may have changed, but the original question remains valid.  Added on edit: Sorry, typing without thinking the comment through fully.   Thanks “dhfan” in the following post.

As to my opening question.  The answer is likely that at age 17 they know exactly what they are doing, at 70 I’m still fumbling around!

I agree that the wing blocks a full view of the rear fuselage and its registration but on the under-surface of the wing it is clearly visible!

The registration SL563 looks obvious to me. I don’t wish to be drawn into this spate.

Oh Mighty Runway23. I bow down to your excellence. It is said that humour on the Interweb doesn’t translate well. I hope that this is the case here. In your post you accuse me of being “even lazier” than the OP. The OP posted a picture, admitted that he was lazy, and then walked away.  I stared at it for ages trying to work out the best fit for the serial number on an admitted low resolution picture. I then went through several of my reference books repeatedly cross-referencing them, for about an hour. I posted my best guess for what I found. Lazier? Bollocks. Post your apology or at least qualify your attempt at humour. The second poster took up my post and found a picture that matched my guess at the serial number. That picture actually adds another question as to what the fuselage codes mean. I spent a while today and can’t work it out.

Finally- you claim that you are right and I am wrong. The interpretation of the last digit is nuanced. Unless you know for sure for a reason other than looking at the picture. If you do know for certain please educate the forum as to why. As a scientist I never denied the possibility that I might be wrong or my interpretation could have missed something. I hold that position to this day. Right now we have my best interpretation versus your statement that I am wrong and lazier.

The OP at least admits to being a lazy researcher . . .  the next two posts are even lazier – on another plane – so to speak!

Correct ID is: SL563 LFXVI CBAF M266 33MU 23-8-45 Central Bomb Estab Marham 7-3-46 u/c jam wheels up landing CE 18-6-467 sold scrap Eyre Smelting 10-3-48

Delivered 33 MU RAF Lyneham 23-8-45. Issued to the CBE 7-3-46 (Central Bomber Establishment, Marham). Written off 18 Jun 1947, when pilot (Air Commodore John Herbert Thomas Simpson, O/C RAF Cottesmore) was flying Spitfire No. SL563 of the Central Bomber Establishment on practice flight when he discovered he could not select the undercarriage down and was forced to carry out an emergency wheels up belly skid landing at RAF Marham . . .

…perhaps his dog was called BABS!

There is a photo of the port side here in an all silver scheme.

The Aviation Photo Company | Latest Additions

Mk XVI SL569 seems to have spent her entire service career at the RAF Central Gunnery School. Babs isn’t listed as an official name, although there WAS a BABS donated by the British and American Benevolent Society Mk V EP688, taken on charge 27 July 1942.