reply to posart’s post #3 (I don’t comment here terribly often, and couldn’t find the “reply with quote” option!)

Very interesting Peter. I had spotted this ‘bubble’ canopy on a late Battle of Britain 609 Squadron Spitfire and always wondered how widespread its use was. do you know any more details about the mod?

AIR 2/2824/72A Nicholl (AOCinC?) to ACAS(T) 15/7/40 [Note: my transcription, so the language isn’t exact, but the meaning should be]
tests have recently been made in 609 Sqn of Perspex tear drop shaped blisters fitted to hood of Spitfire.

2. flown by pilots representing all groups in this command and the consensus is that the view from the cockpit ahead and astern is improved, and the provision of these blisters makes it unnecessary for rear view mirrors to be fitted.

3. not known effect on speed, but general impression is that the speed is not appreciably reduced.

4. recommend consider adopting.
“““““`

I think I have one or two memos concerning this, but don’t know how easily I can find them!

bob

EDIT: well, here’s another, same file:

118A DDRDQ to AOCinC FC 8/4/41
tear drop blisters
re yours 11/3/41, 50 sets of blister hoods have been ordered for large scale service trials, and 50 for Hurricane has been placed, and will be produced as soon as first hood with blister moved 2″ further forward as you request, has passed further service flight trials.

Yes, one can just imagine Mr. Laraman saying “and she was in the Film Battle of britain” and the reporter “forgetting” to write the notes up correctly

You mean there’s something besides the movie?

Definitely high back- built in October ’44, in service in November. Low-backs didn’t get into service until around March ’45.

bob

I hoped I had demonstrated that the Whirlwind was not a lame duck simply ‘because of the engine’…
Dropping the Peregrine was a rational decision. Dropping the programme probably was too…

Quite so, and I made a mistake myself- it is perhaps even more true that the Peregrine was a lame duck [Hmm, I’m getting my birds mixed up!] because of the Whirlwind (programme). But I was not intending to imply that either engine or airplane was a poor one. I also agree that the production order was for the benefit of the company, rather than for the individual, though it was one of those half-way measures that really didn’t answer either the argument “for” or “against”. (The argument that the Beaufighter was an adequate substitute for the Whirlwind is a questionable one, whatever the Beau’s merits.)

I wondered about the wind-tunnel testing, but don’t have any details. I speculate (and that’s all that it is) that little further effort was invested in the Whirlwind (such as producing alternate props to improve altitude performance) simply because it was seen as a dead-end and so wasn’t felt worth the distraction. I don’t know why DH was selected over Rotol for production, and I wonder if it might be another case of “Rotol’s got more important things to worry about right now.”

bob

p.s. The M word has already been mentioned, but I’m trying to shun it!

Article from “Vintage Wings of Canada” that looks at the history of such things:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/577/Bite-Me.aspx

Graham, I think only the second prototype had the new rake angle.

When first flown it had a unique windscreen, which was later changed for what became standard (the internal-glass type); standard DH prop at first, later the Rotol with longer spinner and “steak knife” blades. Regular 8-gun wing (no guns fitted), clipped as Graham described. “Daisy cutter” wheel doors on the main gear. The radiator changed, at least in detail, over time, but I don’t have very good specifics on that- best to look at pictures and do the best you can! Note that it had an attempt at splitting the boundary-layer air. (Also look at the Speed Spitfire, because some of its technology was handed down.) Also, the oil cooler is the type usually associated with the Mk.V (circular intake vs. semi-circular).

That’s a start…

bob

Milne flew P9449 regularly in June 1940 (ORB). I don’t have access to record cards but Morgan & Shacklady lists P9449 as FTR ops over France on 5-7-40 so I think this must have been his aircraft on the day he was lost, rather than P9507.

The three aircraft are listed as R6700, P9507 and P9450. P9507 could have been one of the damaged aircraft…

Hmm, “First of the Few” by Brian Cull gives P9450 flown by Sub-Lt(A) F Dawson-Paul RNVR, claiming a probable and also suffering Cat.2 damage. It gives Milne’s a/c as P9449.

The Air Britain serials series says that P9449 was shot down at Hailsham and became the maintenance airframe (same number)- it gives 22 October but is unclear whether that’s the date to maint. airframe or the date of shoot down- presumably the former.

The records for P9450 and R6700 seem to fit that they survived for some time, so I would speculate that Milne was not actually flying one of those two. So far it seems like a mixup between P9507 and P9449. I’ll check some other sources when I get the chance… starting with: This link gives a hint of prior discussion and also shows possible prior confusion with P9449:

http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?6580-P-O-T-C-Hey-64-Sqn-RAF-lost-1-June-1940

bob

p.s. The Fighter Command Losses series also has the error (apparently) with P9507 being shot down on both days.