Spitfire TE184

Just curious, but did this conversion of TE184 include new fuselage ribs to ‘high-back’ specs, or is it a ‘visual’ change of configuration with the low-back fuselage frames still intact??

You have kind of hit the nail on the head there Archer.

Lets just say that the fuselage frames were all new build, to high back spec manufactured to original drawings, which was not the original intention.

I was recently shown a photograph of a high-back Spitfire under restoration at Blackbushe in the late 1970’s. The top fuselage skin had been removed and very clearly you could see where the top third of the frames had been cut off and an extra ‘high-back’ bit butt-strapped on to it. Obviously original and done in the factory in wartime I do not know why, perhaps due to a surfeit of low-back frames?

Heres something to ‘muddy’ the waters further,

Spitfire TE392 which is now owned and flown by the Lone Star Flight Museum in Galveston, Texas was originally built as a low-back machine and was subsequently converted to high-back configuration during the restoration.

Hey – I’ve got an idea… why not convert a couple of Avia S-199’s to 109 specification, then use the Jumos to rebuild a CASA 2-111 to He-111 spec 😉

Hi Eddie

There had been an earlier attempt at converting this aircraft to high back configuration, which, putting it diplomatically proved to be wholly unsatisfactory. However this issue was well and truly resolved during its subsequent restoration.

I thought perhaps you may have seen the aircraft in its ‘transient’ phase and therefore formed your opinion of the restoration on that basis.

Anyway I am glad you have clarified your point, as I know one or two people who worked hard on that aircraft who would have been quite upset reading your original comments.

Just curious, but did this conversion of TE184 include new fuselage ribs to ‘high-back’ specs, or is it a ‘visual’ change of configuration with the low-back fuselage frames still intact??

On the Buchon subject… did you know that both surviving Hispano engined HA-1109-K1Ls have now been converted to pseudo 109s?

Isn’t one of these hanging in a museum in Germany?

Ah – it wasn’t a stab at the engineering side of things (although the “unsatisfactory” conversion rings some bells – I think I’ve heard it mentioned before). Just to clarify that, my point is about the historical responsibility or otherwise of rebuilding an aircraft.

Archer – it was built by Hispano, in Spain, and was built to have a Merlin, or Hispano engine hung off it.

Well (careful now! 😉 ) you cooouuuuuld argue that a Buchon is nothing more than a Me109 ‘butchered’ to accept a RR Merlin 😀

Not being closely familiar with the intricacies of the Buchon/Me109 airframe I don’t know where the differences are, but if there aren’t that many then you could say that after the conversion you’ve got a Me109 since a large percentage of the aircraft conforms to the original Messerschmidt specifications. As with all airworthy airframes you will never get this figure to 100% as invariably some concessions to the modern age will have to be made.

Further discussion welcome.

Hi Eddie

There had been an earlier attempt at converting this aircraft to high back configuration, which, putting it diplomatically proved to be wholly unsatisfactory. However this issue was well and truly resolved during its subsequent restoration.

I thought perhaps you may have seen the aircraft in its ‘transient’ phase and therefore formed your opinion of the restoration on that basis.

Anyway I am glad you have clarified your point, as I know one or two people who worked hard on that aircraft who would have been quite upset reading your original comments.

On the Buchon subject… did you know that both surviving Hispano engined HA-1109-K1Ls have now been converted to pseudo 109s?

In Doug Arnold’s ownership…

…Mk.XIV Spitfire SM832 came within an ace of being converted to Merlin to make it effectively a Mk.VIII.

The wings have strong engineering commonality.

Mark

That’s a very difficult one to answer. I feel very ambivalent every time I see a Buchon that’s been rebuilt to Bf109 spec – on the one hand it gives that stunning DB605 sound, but on the other, it’s pretending to be something that it isn’t. I find it particularly dodgy when people start claiming it’s an original 109 – it’s almost as if the Buchon doesn’t have any “right to exist” – that it’s a second rate airframe that should be “upgraded” to a DB605.

How do feel about ‘butchering’ a lovely Buchon by fitting a DB605 engine to it? 🙂 😉 :diablo:

Mark

Six and half a dozen… 😉

It’s good, either way!

Oooo nasty.

Real Messers ‘av Merlins!

This thread could run and run…

How do feel about ‘butchering’ a lovely Buchon by fitting a DB605 engine to it? 🙂 😉 :diablo:

Mark

The aircraft is definitely a XVI… it was originally low back, but was butchered to a high back config in its “restoration”.
There were some XVIs built in high back spec – the difference between that and a IX is the XVIs have Packard Merlins.

Just to confuse things further, there were also Spitfire IXs built as ‘low-backs’, such as the SAAF Museum TE213 (see pic).

Tr.9 TE308 was originally built as a low-back Spitfire, prior to becoming a two-seat trainer…

But you probably already know that! 😉

Yes, I suppose you’re right – butchered was a bit of a harsh word. I’d put that kind of modification in a different category to adding fuel tanks, etc – those are for practical purposes, and are presumably relatively easily reversible. Modifying a Spitfire from Low back to high back is a presumably because the owner thought it would look nicer that way.

One extreme example of aircraft conversions is the P-38. Looking through warbird registries, it seems to me that out of the 3 surviving airframes that were built as P-38M two seat nightfighters, ALL of them have been converted to P-38L specification, of which there are around 13 complete examples (not including the modified P-38Ms).

Apart from cosmetics ,was there a reason to”alter” her from a low back to a high back,was it to do with filming or the fact that High backs resemble the more “popularised” B o B look for a Spitfire.Maybe airshow bookings,seems a strange alteration to make.

So would ‘converted’ be a better term rather than ‘butchered’. To be fair to the restorers the fuselage conversion is well done. Yes it also has extra fuel in the wings, but then so do a number of others.

Doesn’t she also have several extra fuel tanks fiitted in the wings? :confused: