South East Asia Spitfires – Beyond reasonable doubt?

Any more news on the identity of G.15-75?

To clarify. G.15-75 was a Spitfire TRAINER (That’s how Vickers referred, in upper case). I have three images of it so marked.

All I have on identity is that it was possibly 670 of the Egyptian Air Force, the mystery second Spitfire TRAINER that is refered to in some publications.

Of particular interest in the ‘Foote/Pharo’ documentation is a further list of Belgian Class B registrations from G.15-141 to G.15-170 with Belgian and RAF serials cross referred. This is the missing gap in the listing in the Andrews/Morgan ‘Supermarine Aircraft since 1914’ book. This list drives a ‘coach and horses’ through the published RAF/Belgian/Class B tie-ups. I shall be sitting on this for a while until the Belgian historians, who have been alerted, have delved more deeply in to this.

Mark

Any more news on the identity of G.15-75?

Spiteful

Yes – Dg up my Source Material from 2007 now (the book Under B Conditions)

The question is does the Pharo/Foote Archive provide any more info for suggesting

“that G.15-75 is a further Tr IX, and the initial, delivery 670 to the Egyptian Air Force.”

Also I note the Under B Conditions (well 1978 imprint) has for Vickers… “G-15-111 to G-15-156 Untraced” this should now be

“G-15-111 to G-15-140 Spitfire Mk XIV’s to Thailand”, “and 141 to 156 Untraced”

I could only say that Spitfires with clear provenance will have a better selling point to one that is just a replica purporting to be an actual late 1930’s/1940’s build .Beauty is in the eye of the beholder .You get what you pay for.

A very interesting article, and many thanks must go to those that obviously dedicate a lot of time and energy to collating these frustratingly minute amounts of information into workable historical fact.

Showed the thread to a visiting Canadian friend this morning and was not surprised by his obvious interest, however he did point out that as a lot of us fully understand, ‘Who cares really, the average man in the street could not tell the difference between a Spitfire and a Cessna, this debate will rage on between us as evening draws near.

While personally I have no doubt that provenance is the faith of all aviation historians it does raise the question given his statement of ‘When is a Spitfire not actually a real Spitfire’, to clarify, at which point does an airframes history become so obscure that a complete example cannot actually be of any historical value other than in name due to successive repairs, restorations, rebuilds, later day modifications and parts substitution.

Is it really all down to the data plate or reading over my shoulder, he ask’s the provenance of frame 5.

My guess is this debate will rumble on through the decades but it also raises the question about how many other airframes proudly listed as being the real article are there now sitting on display that might not be all they are advertised to be.

Thanks Mark, very interesting!

Peter

Fascinating article .. Well at least the collective knowledge of Spitfire c/ns at Chattis Hill has moved on

Can we use the B Serials list to prove the “missing Tr9” ever existed ? Can’t remember all details at moment and not got access to my records

Paul

Is this the thread you are thinking about:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?72188-SPITFIRE-Tr

Get your coat! 🙂

Fascinating stuff. I was rather saddened to read that they’re considering abandoning the restoration because it ‘only’ has an RAAF, rather than Canadian, history though. 🙁

OMG, its the end of the Warbird Industry as we know it (or as was seriously threatened the last time this forum discussed categorising restorations in terms of provenance and originality), yet heres a serious and respected flying museum/collection apparently openly recognising and admitting some aircraft are nothing more than new build “reproductions” and only one step away from being dreaded “replicas” because they are all new metal but at least have a data plate on them.

(I wonder if that holds true with a reproduction data plate as well?)

Worse, the author has the audacity to dare to even categorise such restorations into 3 levels – I’m sure the phones will again be running hot, demanding that such things are taken down off this forum so as not to bring the Warbird Industry to an end.

Smiles, and its refreshing to see out there is the real world such concepts of provenance, significance, identity and originality are being taken seriously by parts of the Warbird Community and permitted to be expressed on their own museum/collection website, despite the Doomsdayers.

In relation to the derelict Spitfire fuselage there is clearly no dispute its original but battered, but its identity and provenance has justified its acquisition and deep restoration to its current owners.

Well done to serious researchers willing to re-assess identity and provenance and be the bearer of bad but truthful news, even better, well done for a serious warbird collection to admit and acknowledge it publicly – a win for the rivet counters.

And a very healthy and refreshing change to the past practice of some, in re-birthing restored airframes as other identities or even new-birthing new-build reproductions as originals with provenance.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Andy

Peter Foote didn’t have a list of “missing” Burma/Indian Spitfires by chance did he!

Get your coat! 🙂

Fascinating stuff. I was rather saddened to read that they’re considering abandoning the restoration because it ‘only’ has an RAAF, rather than Canadian, history though. 🙁

Andy

Peter Foote didn’t have a list of “missing” Burma/Indian Spitfires by chance did he!

Peter

Fascinating article .. Well at least the collective knowledge of Spitfire c/ns at Chattis Hill has moved on

Can we use the B Serials list to prove the “missing Tr9” ever existed ? Can’t remember all details at moment and not got access to my records

Paul

Fascinating read!

Very pleased that I was able to make the crucial evidence available for your further interpretation, Peter.

A job well done.