Spitfire Query.

Looks good. Any thoughts on the F-CRB codes?

In consequence I filtered out all the ‘TB’ serial Spitfires that operated with FTS in their recorded history and produced a shot list of ten. Two are particularly promising and in the right time frame, one from 17 SFTS, a forced landing at Hixon and the other with 7 SFTS, an undercarriage collapse at Hibaldstow. The latter airfield known to have several blister hangars.

So Hixon and Hibaldstow in 1945/6 will be the next port of sleuthing should anybody care to join the party.

Mark

I have now had full access to the original print and scanned it and portions of it at very high resolution.

The two Spitfires that met the criteria of being IX/XVI with a ‘TB’ serial that had served with an SFTS and therefore carried the post WWII codes, the yellow panelling and been in accidents/belly landings were TB328 & TB347. I favoured TB347.

I have scanned the area under the tail plane in deep shadow, the area where the serial was repositioned in the period colour shot. Scanning at very high dpi as a TIFF I have then progressively lightened the shadow area to see if the serial is visible. It is there and see the attached shots. Although there is an induced corona around the dark areas you can see that the last digit looks very passable for an ‘8’ rather than a ‘7’. Look at the preceding numerals and the ‘3’ is just about there with ‘2’ looking a bit marginal particularly with the strength of the black at the RH of the horizontal base.

TB328 belly landed at RAF Hixon on 13 November 1945 and was SOC on 16 January 1946 as scrap. The image may have been taken at RAF Hixon, equally with a two months gap it might have been recovered to an unknown MU and dumped by the blister hangar ready for the scrap dealer to take it away.

For me it is TB328 beyond reasonable doubt at a location hopefully to be determined.

Mark

Mark12,

Thanks again to you, the OP, and others for another interesting thread and puzzle. In playing with some of the photos in PS and other image programs I can’t get anything certain, but the first 3 characters on the underside of the starboard wing sure look like “TB5” to me. (TB525 you mentioned?)

Also when playing with exposure, contrast, and levels trying to see something of the tail number it seems like the last character is a more round-shaped number such as 0, 9, or possibly an 8. Something round like a zero pops out when playing with the levels.

I look forward to what you find when you get to see a higher-res pic. Thanks again.

Regards,

DC

Still awaiting sight of the original print.

Mark

Ah, hope that happens.

No further info on this mystery?

Still awaiting sight of the original print.

Mark

No further info on this mystery?

Might the splitting up of the codes (FC-WG compared to F-CRB) be from a neccessity to keep the fuselage band to roundel location correct up to a certain era… ??

Great stuff Mark12, good luck.

Yes, I would’ve thought that F-CRB could not be so unfathomable to get to the real guts of the picture… ??

Well it has stumped the UK’s recognised experts Andy Thomas and Vic Flintham.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Combat-Codes-Explanation-Listing-Commonwealth/dp/1844156915

I hope to access the original image in the near future.

Scanned at very high resolution I may be able to bleach out the area below the tailplane for a hint of an RAF serial in the shadow in the non-standard position, as the image in post 68.

Mark

Yes, I would’ve thought that F-CRB could not be so unfathomable to get to the real guts of the picture… ??

So is there any light at the end of the tunnel re. the Spitfire’s identity yet?, fasinating detective work so far. Hope it get’s a definitive answer.

So, Mark, decades after a bloke drew the RAF Hibaldstow site plan, he introduced error into your home’s architectural drawings!:cool: (That’s the first emoji I’ve ever used…but, Mark, you are emoji-worthy…and, besides, you emoji’ed me first…so THERE!:D)

Gotta see more evidence to sway me regarding location, though your research is impressive. I’m certainly not saying it’s not RAF Hibaldstow, only that the photo evidence so far doesn’t match one simple map and the modern satellite view which shows only what is there now. I hope that you are spot-on with your serial number ID and location.

Matt,

7000 odd feet of airfield north to south has been scaled down to about 3 feet of drawing paper then further reduced for publication and circulation.

This is a site plan with numbered structures and features. It is not an architects layout/plan. The sort of plan you show visitors at the main gate.

If my modest new home in 1985 can be 6 feet askew from the boundary on the drawing and slightly rotated to the architect’s plan it only takes a modest reposition southwards of the Blister hangar and some rotation of the Blister symbol to meet your criteria for the sight line from the crittall window to the E revetmnet. 🙂

Mark

No, the same main fundamental problem remains: what looks like a revetment to the RIGHT of the front right-hand side of the blister hangar is absent from the site plan and the Google Earth sources. There is no chance that the green E revetment can be seen from the angle of the photo, or at least to the right of the hangar. Sorry to say, Mark.

But again, a site map’s depiction of buildings and angles of foundation construction is not to be taken as gospel. Air photography from late in the war or beyond would be most helpful. As we know from a certain airfield far, far away, a site was often in a constant state of flux, with expansion, demolition of existing structures, earth movement, etc. taking place post-war. So, for me to have any confidence in RAF Hibaldstow as the location, I would have to see supporting air photo evidence, or positive evidence from more ground photos, or another map, at least.

Mark, one of your lines is perpendicular to the hangar frontage, but the photo is shot at an oblique angle.

Mark,

Neither the site plan nor the satellite image fits the Spitfire photo. .

Try this.

Bear in mind this is a very small crop from a drawing probably drawn at at AO size of the whole airfield then reduced for Air Ministry circulation.

The Blister hangars look to be a standard symbol. Even the thickness of a pencil line is going to be several feet thick at this scale.

What is deemed reasonable accuracy on the part of the draughtsman at this scale at this period. +/- 10′ ?

Where would he get his information from for the whole airfield? Out there with his measuring tape?

I have drawn the sight line as viewed from the crittall window. Not perfect, but within tolerance?

The E revetment is in green and the end of it is exposed just to right of the blister in he photo.

The top of the revetment passes across the view through the open blister.

Mark (Apprenticed Design Draughtsman)

I disagree – all I can see is high ground – it rises and falls too much to be anything other.

There just isn’t enough detail in the photo to know if it’s terrain in the background or perhaps trees — which can readily give a false impression of irregular terrain.

And why that spoil heap is behind?

Got to agree with Matt, the draughtsman/ artist in me was screaming no, the angles are all wrong before I read Matts post.
The Tarmac in the foreground as I mentioned before is unusual with the concrete blister floor which appears to carry on beyond the other side of it, possibly suggesting the taxiway entrance is the other side, which then leads to the question, why the Tarmac ? Connecting with another bit of older taxiway/perimeter track ?

Mark,

Neither the site plan nor the satellite image fits the Spitfire photo. The blister hangar, in the photo, is viewed at an angle. Behind the Spitfire we see the right front and right rear of the hangar (front meaning the open end closest to the camera), and a possible blast pen is seen in the background to the RIGHT. This would be beyond the perimeter of the airfield. There is no such revetment in the site plan or in the Google Earth image. The blast pen you highlighted with the text “Former Revetment” would not be seen in the viewfinder of a camera pointed towards the right side of the blister hangar; it would be too far to the left.

Mind you, if the blister hangar’s alignment was not as seen in the site plan, and the position of the windowed building was different than that in the plan, there are possibilities. I’ve seen one RAF airfield engineering drawing showing planned construction, but the actual construction was different.

An air photo would be of some use…but I can’t get over to the US Nat’l Archives to see if they have anything.

Looks like a good fit.