Hi All,
I was looking at this picture colourised by Markos Danezis of Spitfire LF Mk XVIe TD241. I couldn’t work out was wrong about it until it hit me that the canopy was a traditional “high backed” with a clear rear view section behind rather than the traditional Blown plexiglass as found on the Mk XVIe.
Any opinions?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239941[/ATTACH]
By: Matt Poole - 17th August 2015 at 22:43
Thanks for your generosity in posting that photo, Mark.
Matt
By: Mark12 - 17th August 2015 at 16:47
Here is a low back Mk XVI, TE384, in the process of being converted to a high back for taxi shots in the BoB film of 1968. RAF Henlow 18 March.
Mark
Image:- Peter Arnold
By: Archer - 17th August 2015 at 16:28
Is it just me or does the spinner seem to be missing from the aircraft? I have a feeling that more of it should be visible from this angle.
Correction, it is visible on the B&W image but appears to be almost the same shade of grey as the sky. The gentleman who coloured the image missed this and only left the shadow of the prop blade visible. I thought for a minute that it might have been removed for work on the engine/prop. Seeing as the tail is lashed down engine runs must have been planned for this aircraft.
By: Mark12 - 17th August 2015 at 15:42
Yes & correct.
Mark
By: j_jza80 - 17th August 2015 at 15:25
So was the windscreen frame common between the high back and low back Spitfires? And one would assume that the canopy rails, and their dimensions must be common to both types?
By: Edgar Brooks - 17th August 2015 at 13:01
As Mark 12 says, it was a “lash-up” engineered in the post-war Greek Air Force, who possibly struggled to get pukka spare parts.
By: Flanker_man - 17th August 2015 at 13:00
The original B&W image – without the watermark – is here :- http://history-color.blogspot.gr/search/label/SUPERMARINE%20SPITFIRE%20MkXVI
Ken
By: Mark12 - 17th August 2015 at 12:30
A fascinating image but a shame about the OTT water mark.
What we have here in my view is a need for a replacement ‘tear-drop’ canopy…but no spares.
Solution…fit a high back canopy, for which you have a spare, and dummy up a local plug to fill the gap and seal between the rear hoop of the canopy and the low back fuselage.
Probably just a temporary fix.
Thank you for posting.
Mark
By: Archer - 17th August 2015 at 11:34
Certainly looks different from a normal teardrop canopy as the top profile seems stepped. Also the glass is darker where the sliding and fixed bits overlap, which makes sense if it is a regular hood over a fixed teardrop section. One for the experts!
By: Trolly Aux - 17th August 2015 at 09:07
But on a teardrop the whole canopy slides back not a portion.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239942[/ATTACH]
By: Flanker_man - 17th August 2015 at 08:47
It looks to me like a standard ‘teardrop’ canopy – with a piece of cloth draped over it.
Note where the cloth/frame extends below the canopy over the sliding rail.
Don’t get too excited.
Ken
By: DazDaMan - 17th August 2015 at 04:27
Certainly a new one on me!
Sign In
August 17, 2015 at 2:26 am