Spitfire G-ASJV/ MH434

Both shrouds require a 20mm cannon or a dummy barrel to be installed to locate the front end.

Mark

Yes, indeed.

Like this one fitted to AR501.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229338[/ATTACH]

Cheers

Paul

I wonder if AR501 will have the correct shroud fitted when it emerges from rebuild? As you can see, it also had the later ‘e’ type. (Note the different method of fitting the shroud).
Interestingly, there was a picture in Aeroplane a few years ago of a MK IX in RAF service that was in the MH serial range, fitted with these later ‘e’ type shrouds to the extension.

Paul

The shroud and fixing method fitted to AR501 is a genuine ‘e’ wing shroud. The shroud and fixing method fitted to MH434 is an ‘Airframe Approximation’.

Both shrouds require a 20mm cannon or a dummy barrel to be installed to locate the front end.

AR501 still had the extension castings fitted when transfered from Loughborough to Shuttleworth but these were removed for the BoB film and the stub ‘chimney pot’ castings fettled flush to represent a Mk I.

I would hope that AR501 will be fitted with the straight taper shrouds appropriate for the Mk Vc when it finally takes to the air.

Mark

The cannon extension casting is correct for the Mk IX. The curved cannon fairing shroud is however as fitted to the Mk IXe rather than the correct straight tapered shroud fitted to the Mk IX.

That said MH434 whilst on operational service in the Dutch East Indies post WWII was retro-fitted by the Dutch with the later curved shrouds.

Mark

Thanks for the close up picture Mark.

I wonder if AR501 will have the correct shroud fitted when it emerges from rebuild? As you can see, it also had the later ‘e’ type. (Note the different method of fitting the shroud).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229271[/ATTACH]

Interestingly, there was a picture in Aeroplane a few years ago of a MK IX in RAF service that was in the MH serial range, fitted with these later ‘e’ type shrouds to the extension.

So perhaps not a mod exclusive to the Dutch as previously thought?

Cheers

Paul

Mark Hanna requested that 434 should be a bit more ‘manly’, seems he had seen a photo with the a/c with extended cannon barrel fairings.
Thus suitable items some 12″ longer were designed / stressed, manufactured and fitted, to make 434 stand out from the crowd!

The cannon extension casting is correct for the Mk IX. The curved cannon fairing shroud is however as fitted to the Mk IXe rather than the correct straight tapered shroud fitted to the Mk IX.

That said MH434 whilst on operational service in the Dutch East Indies post WWII was retro-fitted by the Dutch with the later curved shrouds.

Mark

Continuing the theme of MH434 and it’s sticky-out bits…

Back in the day 1995 etc, was it really that long ago, Airframe Assemblies on the Isle of Wight rebuilt the wings, fitted new main spars etc.
Mark Hanna requested that 434 should be a bit more ‘manly’, seems he had seen a photo with the a/c with extended cannon barrel fairings.
Thus suitable items some 12″ longer were designed / stressed, manufactured and fitted, to make 434 stand out from the crowd!

Thanks for the info chumpy.

As you may know, not long after OFMC acquired 434 and had her repainted, it would appear that they fitted the shorter ‘e’ wing or ‘e’ armament shrouds (the later type), but not the extension casting, as fitted to the early MK IXs, like 434. (As Mark12 points out and his pictures show, these were clearly shortened from their original length).

Interestingly, when in service with the Dutch, these later ‘e’ type shrouds were fitted to the extension, so I guess it was during this period that Mark saw the pictures from.

Of course, when originally built, it would have had the tapered shrouds (checkout the Bill Burge pictures taken of her while with 222 Sqn at Hornchurch).

This type can be seen today on MK732 and PV270.

Cheers

Paul

Continuing the theme of MH434 and it’s sticky-out bits…

Back in the day 1995 etc, was it really that long ago, Airframe Assemblies on the Isle of Wight rebuilt the wings, fitted new main spars etc.
Mark Hanna requested that 434 should be a bit more ‘manly’, seems he had seen a photo with the a/c with extended cannon barrel fairings.
Thus suitable items some 12″ longer were designed / stressed, manufactured and fitted, to make 434 stand out from the crowd!

Just the one Browning aperture in the leading edge…for a personal camera installation.

Mark

Thanks, I didn’t realise that.

AZ Models are releasing a 1/72 version of MH434 in her Tim Davies-era scheme. Looks nice!

They are indeed. I do a 1/32 decal sheet of the same markings. I know that there are only so many markings to produce but a shame they copied the title of my decal sheet for their kit boxing pretty much word for word onto their release.

http://www.rammodels.co.uk/product_info.php/products_id/207/osCsid/1uvlb0krsa6f2olt5vmup03df5

Assuming the second photo is the later one, she loses upper wing registration, gains some stencils and had white outlined wing tip paint removed. Also outer machine gun holes added which implies they are different wings not just updated for civilian use.

Just the one Browning aperture in the leading edge…for a personal camera installation.

Mark

Thanks folks, yes this thread is for a modelling project, AZ’s new civil Spit kit, by Mark 12’s photos it looks like the decal sheet portrays the first photo. The outer machine gun ports could be the location points for the cine cameras that Tim Davis had installed ?? Just a guess.

Rich

Assuming the second photo is the later one, she loses upper wing registration, gains some stencils and had white outlined wing tip paint removed. Also outer machine gun holes added which implies they are different wings not just updated for civilian use.

I do not believe the wings of MH434 were changed as such.

I suspect that when MH434 was imported from Belgium the first phase of the wing ‘tidy up’ was to flush off the cannon stub castings on the leading edge.

These stubs, the chimney pot castings, were the single aperture type. This has lead many to designate this Spitfire as a ‘Mk IXb’.

There is no such variant in official Air Publications, Pilots Notes, spares schedules etc.

It was just Mk IX and then with the introduction of the .5 Browning all official references are ‘Mk IXe’ and ‘Early Mk IX’ to differentiate.

The Mk IX was initially a short order stop gap Mark that continued and continued. Basically a long Merlin fitted to a Mk V airframe.

The Mk IX wings for MH434 were made using Mk Vb leading edge components.

Mark

Didn’t MH434 get some wings off another Spitfire at some point. Would that be sometime between those two photos?

AZ Models are releasing a 1/72 version of MH434 in her Tim Davies-era scheme. Looks nice!

This post is of no use to anybody ….. but 🙂 of all the schemes the aircraft has worn, that (IMO) is the most beautiful by far !

(EDIT: – Just checked, and these were fitted in May 1965, so it may well have had them prior to this)

Paul

Thanks Mark.

Should answer all of Rich’s questions! 😮

Cheers Paul, what has thrown me is a photo of her as OO-ARA of Cogea she has the slim type in the photo, another thought, did she have the larger wheel blisters on the top surface ?

And there’s me only thinking of cannon blisters! 😮

Cheers

Paul

Mark

Cheers Paul, what has thrown me is a photo of her as OO-ARA of Cogea she has the slim type in the photo, another thought, did she have the larger wheel blisters on the top surface ?

Rich,

I think you’ll find it didn’t!

I believe they were removed when the 27 imp gallon gun bay tanks were fitted, after it was acquired by Tim Davies.

(EDIT: – Just checked, and these were fitted in May 1965, so it may well have had them prior to this)

But all the pictures I’ve seen when under his ownership, it didn’t have any. They were only fitted again after 434 had it’s major overhaul during 1993 – 1995.

Up to it’s time with the Belgians, it had the later ‘slim’ type.

Cheers

Paul