Spitfire N3200. Now there is a surprise…

Many years ago the museum I work for as a volunteer used to have a similar canopy in storage, it was cracked lengthwise but the bulges stood out clearly. I believe it came from the closed Twenthe museum. At some point it disappeared from storage. Something that happened regularly to items.
Cees

Seems strange to think that the frankly rough Spitfire I remember seeing at Overloon in 1985, I think, is now in the air (and I’ve seen it there too).

Overlooon in the 1980s was quite an experience, but can’t have done a lot for the preservation of a lot of stuff.

Adrian

Well, actually two people thought it was worth it.

Yes you are right, the guy who sold it and the one that bought it.:)

PL965 blistered canopy at Overloon.

An email back from Holland this morning.

…the canopy was donated to the Shuttleworth PR XI project before it was sold.

The canopy was damaged but very good to take dimentions from. The plastic was ¼ and the blister

Down to about 2mm.

So perhaps in the Shuttleworth store.

Mark

I see it made £117.12 , someone must have thought it worth the price.

eBay image.

Well, actually two people thought it was worth it.

Mark

Thats terrible – was it the only known surviving example?

It’s a shame nobody has made any of these teardrop bubbles for the early canopies. Are there any surviving bubbles left anywhere?

Peter Teichman’s PL965 at North Weald was fitted with said canopy when displayed at Overloon in the 1960’s in Holland. Not overly pretty it got smashed by vandals.

Mark

It’s a shame nobody has made any of these teardrop bubbles for the early canopies. Are there any surviving bubbles left anywhere?

FB

Re 72: Never say never. But the Rockanje/Oostvoorne coastline has been extensively dredged, reshaped and even reclaimed to put in the Maasvlakte extension to the Rotterdam port…

Re #61: Sorry Mark, but I do not have this edition. I would say that it would be possible to get the images mentioned through the SGLO (www.sglo.nl) who publish the Bulletin…

I see it made £117.12 , someone must have thought it worth the price.

Spiteful

The ‘cherry on the top’ of this thread. Many thanks.

An original..but 80 Euros starting price…ouch.

Mark

Just saw this on eBay and remembered need me. Of this thread. Could this be an original picture, or more likely a copy? http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=web&id=362225894089&globalID=EBAY-GB

A final sign off on this thread.

I am indebted to ‘Roobarb’ for the comparison shot.

N3200 shot from a simulated standing position on the tail plane to show the current relationship of code letters, cockpit door and hinge, inset canopy rail, mirror fairing, wing fillet panel interface…and a bit of the wing trailing edge .

Mark

P8439 QV-X Near Rokanje, Netherlands.

I thought it might be interesting to compare cropped portions of four photos — three (one from Mark12, two from Jerry) showing the port underwing tank on the pranged P8439 and the similar tank from Mark12’s posted photo of an unidentified Spitfire. Note the seam/split line on the P8439 images (clearly seen in Jerry’s two images, harder to see in Mark12’s), essentially at a right angle to the axis of the tank’s length (and essentially the cross-section of the wing’s width).

I have no further observations to add…just thought some closeups might be useful.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.jonbius.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SpitfireNotesfromEdgarBrooks-201605150632.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiijceG5vLUAhXlBsAKHbR3A5wQFgh3MBk&usg=AFQjCNEqSu_5CKa4mnenAdqSWQUrQrH0Wg

Interesting report on the performance of the LR modified Spitfires in the attached link.

TonyC.

I have only ever seen images of just the one tank like this fitted to the port wing.

Mark

A couple of quick questions if I may…

Is the wing tank capable of being jettisoned in flight and would two tanks need to be used, so that the aerodynamics and weight of the additional fuel would be equalised in flight (senility dictates that I cannot think of the correct terminology :apologetic:)?

The tank doesn’t look like it can be jettisoned in flight, due to the way that the tank is shaped to fit over the top of the wing but wouldn’t this then put the pilot in additional danger, if he came under attack and unable to drop the tank!

Plus, looking at the picture, it doesn’t seem that two tanks would be fitted but my simple (non-pilot) brain, thinks that the aircraft would tend to bank towards the side that the tank was fitted so that to maintain level flight, the pilot would need to be applying constant banking to the opposite side, to maintain level flight although, I am guessing that the weight of the additional fuel and the tank are greater than the aircraft is capable of handling without the pilots continuous input!

TIA

As well the photos answer my question as to what the bulge on the leading edge might be. I assume that’s a long range tank I’m seeing.

Possibly one of these.

Mark

.

It could be one of the camera mounts….

Regards Mike