Back to TE184,

It is true that it’s cockpit has some non-standard structure comparable to the rear cockpit of a Spit two-seater?
If this is the same aircraft I saw a cockpit photograph of, there were some triangular posts fitted between the fuselage walls and the frame the instrumentpanel fits onto.

Cees

Thanks Mark,

The other Mk 22 is that the one now on display in the local museum?

Cheers

Cees

About PK350. I remember reading somewhere that the remains were not scrapped but are also lurking somewhere.

Can we expect a ressurection of this aircraft in the near future as well?

Beautiful aeroplane.

Cheers

Cees

Peter,

Well, I’m not going to tell him. His prices are a bit “steep” even when the items describes aren’t even what they are claimed to be.

Makes you wonder. :rolleyes:

Cheers

Cees

Scotty?

Cees

About workmanship in general.

I’m not a technical expert nor will I ever be, but every now and then I read reports in the warbird press about new owners having to “undo” the previous owners work. Harry Stenger said something similar about the ex-Melton Spitfire cache, and the restoration of Spitfire RM797 in Australia was also completely redone, if I must believe what was written way back in 1988 (also in FlyPast, from memory). Perhaps Oscar Duck can confirm this, him being the owner.

Bottom line is:

There are so many different companies busy (or have been, but no longer) working on a lot of Spitfires all over the globe, there must be a whole bunch of different standards of restoration. Is there one standard to name that could be considered “modern standard workmanship”. Historic Flying perhaps, or Airframe Assemblies?

Apart from that, I just remembered having seen a photo of TE184’s cockpit and there was some very “strange” structure in the cockpit reminding me of the structure of the aft cockpit of a Spit two-seater.

Your turn

Cheers

Cees

Chaps,

IIRC this was never claimed to be a restored ’40’s vintage/warbird Spitfire but more a prototype of a new aircraft. Mr Melton had used all the best qualities of the various Spitfire subtypes (Mk V, Mk IX, Seafire Lf IIC etc.) and built them all into this aircraft. He also mentioned in a FlyPast article that this aircraft had a lot of power and was one of the few aircraft (at that time) that could do a proper hesitation roll without heightloss (this is from memory. not sure about the designation of the type of roll).

As far as I know Mr Melton also designated the new built two-seater fuselage the DM008 or something. It is now MH367 (typo? ). And why not?

Cheers

Cees