Would the reported location of the suggested Halifax be a clue?

Counting the wrong way.. GMT-8 = 05.47, therefore GMT = 13.47, Shirley?

Rabid pedant.

So it’s a Sunderland, then 🙂 Don’t forget the .303 the OP mentioned.

Sunderland

Mk II and V, 10′ 9″ at most. But later marks, different undercarriage arrangement and different thrust line with a Griffon.. so different calculation. Still, these changes would have to have put the hub centre 3 1/2 inches higher to give any clearance at all, and 10 1/2 to maintain the original clearance. That would result in a funny looking spitfire – almost certainly not a Spitfire prop you have there.

Dropping in..

Article here describing the VDM approach – http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%203291.html

The relationship between the different organisations involved in providing these spinners was very complex, and created by Govt edict. Westland used CSA’s VDM spinners on De Havilland prop hubs for the Whirlwind. CSA were sub-contractors to de Havilland. Both had their own proprietary designs available, CSA’s being the licenced VDM solid type.

There is an interesting exchange in Flight‘s letters column which shows the deteriorating relationship between DH and CSA/VDM – It is also interesting, and possibly related to this spat, that it is hard to find a post-1940 use of a CSA/VDM spinner on a DH prop, though they do appear frequently on Rotol props (MkII Spitfire, for example).

The situation was resolved for DH by taking on Sankey’s (GKN) as an alternative sub-contractor from September 1941 – Sankey’s not having rival designs of their own. Again, this seems to be largely a decision of the Ministry, who also gave them a contract to produce Rotol spinners – as well as the free loan of some plant and machinery, some of which appears to have been ex-CSA –http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=149-db25&cid=5-4-14#5-4-14

In 1942, one of the Sankey family ended up as regional controller for the Ministry of Production while his brother ran the business, continuing to receive contracts from.. the Ministry of Production.

Shortly afterwards CSA were hauled over the coals by the very same Ministry of Production for their “refusal.. to meet Minister’s requirements by way of design and production of spinners for propellers” – http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C3447202

Are we all sure this is the same erudite and straightforward Sopwith.7f1 / Bob that we know from this forum, and not a borrowed identity?