Possibly de-icing – there was a system on some Hamilton/DH hubs feeding fluid to nozzles in front of each blade root.? Can you provide a pic?

On the subject of “Spitfire, the History”, Troy, please don’t rely on it for any figures. As soon as they were faced with producing any kind of table the authors appear to have panicked, got drunk and wrote down how they remembered things last time they looked. So many people swear by it, and it always seems great as a reference due to the sheer volume and level of detail but if you try reading it some glaring inconsistencies and contradictions quickly emerge. If you approach any specific part of it with pre-knowledge of a particular area, as I did with propellers, you will end up throwing it at the cat.

You will also notice that the blades on the Hydromatic-equipped Spitfires are a subtly different shape. They are actually a 4,000 series shank and a different design drawing from the 5,000 series DH props – something to watch out for if modelling an ‘Australian’ Mk.V.

I only have to see a picture of an M.52 to feel sickened.

It’s a good idea – I would be tempted to extend it to other dark arts like drag (I mean the aerodynamic force, not dressing like a sheila), stress and flutter. But definitely start with props. 10 episodes is pushing it, I’ll start writing a synopsis and see what we get. What I need help with – some analogy, easily found in a pub, that starts the conversation off. Not Ice cream, but something of that ilk. We need the visuals as part of the conversation – the more practical the illustration on camera the better.

Not at all, Ed. It was the experts who said it was unsinkable – or were they the idiots?

P&P, dH Australia – they keep coming up as the link between British dH and the Americans, and I didn’t realise they made paddles as well. I’m sure you’re right about the Corsair and Mosquito, and of course that design is up there on the list of new forgings that will become useful in the future. Add to that the 6503 (everything from Battle to Lancaster and a fair few US designs too), 6339 (Spitfire), 6127/6128 right- and left-handers for British and US 800-1000hp radials and some LH Hercules blades (5511xx and/or5517xx) and that’s the ‘product set’ right there.

The ‘as long as it flies’ argument is all very well, but efficiency isn’t just about performance, it’s about fuel economy as well.

As far as I know de Havilland didn’t make any of the ‘paddle’ type blades, could be wrong though. They DID make the ‘needle’ Lancaster blades the DP455800, and that was indeed a copy of the Hamilton Standard 6353. This blade goes back further though – when fitted to a bracket-type hub it was the Hamilton 6503, and when made by DH it was the 55200 series that goes as far back as the HP Harrow.

The Halifax used de Havilland 451100 and 451700 drawings, suitably cropped of course – and I don’t think these had a US equivalent. There is a chap building a Halifax out in Canada right now who would be delighted to find that they did, but there’s no sign. When it came to Hercules engines they were designing their own – starting as far back as the Short G-Class.

Edit – ZRX61, C-47 blades on Hurricanes – I’ve seen them, and they look wrong – and I doubt they are particularly efficient either. It’s funny how much ‘no-one knows, but it fits the socket so it’ll do’ seems to have happened with props in an otherwise heavily regulated sphere. There was a Spitfire Mk.I flying recently in the UK with a cut down T-28 prop.

What are you hoping for, St John? That we do something potentially damaging but so quickly that we also do it in an ill-prepared and half-arsed way?

Just want to weigh in here and say that is the first time in thirty years of quietly looking into these stories that I have ever seen a photo of whole aircraft disposed of in a pit. Remarkable if genuine, and no reason to suppose it’s not.