Ian,
You don’t have to disbelieve what has been written.
It was very often that pilot’s log books included just the numerical part of the serial, preceded by the aircraft’s code letter. This becomes quite obvious with the later serials that only had three didigits, while with the early ones it can be quite misleading.
“Z8363” might in fact be P8363 with a unit code **-Z (you would have to check the previous unit, before 74 Sqn).
Similarly, “P3080” looks like Mk I N3080 **-P.
The other ones may have been entered as they were, in absence of any codes, unless of course both were coded **-P.

Thanks, this is the one I have as well.. Anymore? 🙂

Yes. That one was before. This is after.

I was thinking D-INJR the Me209V1.

I suppose this shouldn’t be that difficult. If the Germans manage to extract the sole surviving PZL P.24 from the Museum in Turkey, I guess the Cracow people might agree to swap.

Mike J – it’s incredibly difficult to do deals with the museum in Krakow. I supplied through another party a reduction gear for the Spitfire. A couple more deals were done but they are painfully slow.

So, it was you! I heard something about the deal, but no details.

Surely it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility to organise another swap deal (a la Spitfire / DH9A fuselage) – airworthy MiG-21s (especially 2-seaters) seem to have value in the USA, static Mustang projects (P-51Ds) and Hurricanes (ex-Russia) are obtainable.

Well, like they say: nothing’s impossible, it’s just that some things are less probable than others.

Come to think of it, the RAF Museum have a ‘spare’ Mustang now, at Cosford………I’m sure they’d like a nice MiG-23 to display in their new Cold War ‘shed’……..hmm…….

OK. Who do I call about it for a probability test?

However it was noted later, that in conversation over a pint at the Plough Inn after the show, he rated the Polish version of the fairer sex to be of a much higher quality that it’s English counterpart and claimed these two “ladies” as honorary Poles.

(1) IIRC EN830 was the one to express his gladness at having so many representatives of the Polish version of the fairer sex (‘Pvotfs’) in his current area of residence, and it was him who stressed the easily noticeable visual difference between said ‘Pvotfs’ and its English counterpart. (I believe all those present understood his comment to be of a general statistical nature, and not referring to any individuals in particular.)
(2) Said two ladies were not ‘honorary’ Poles. They are both direct descendants of a Polish airman (this being the reason for their presence there and then) which tells a lot in view of para (1) above.
(3) Said pint may serve as a plausible excuse for the inconsistence in the testimonies delivered here by those present during the conversation in question.
I rest my case.

JDK, here I come.

EN830, no I haven’t made it in under 3 hours… (I still think I could have, but wasn’t given the chance!)

Mark12, yes I have been to Sikorski Institute, Kew, IWM, RAF Hendon, and all those places in less than 3 days I had in London.
The Mustang photo you showed us was not at Coolham. This is a Mustang I of no. 309 (Polish) Squadron during their Tac Recce operations in 1942/43 and they never used Coolham at the time as it wasn’t an airfield then. Coolham was an ALG established for the invasion (see the excellent “Spit & Polish” as well as “Coolham Airfield Remembered” for more details).
Btw. is “coolham” the opposite of gammon steak in English?

Re. the Polish marking: until 1993 there never was any strict ruling on the arrangement of red vs. white fields. If you look carefully at WWII pictures you will see both forms, although the red in TLH prevailed. In 1993 a new ruling in Poland said it has to be white in TLH corner. Which is just as well, because you can apply the other form on warbirds without any formal problems as technically it is not a military national marking (this is important because Polish law regarding markings of civil aircaft, including warbirds, is not as liberal as in some other countries).

Apart from ‘those roundels’, the rather strange, straight mask on the camouflage underneath the ‘G’ on the starboard side, the size of Gabszewicz’ bulldog emblem and the Polish marking on the cowling (too large), style of the ‘S’ of the squadron codes is wrong, missing command pennant under the windscreen, should say ‘City of Warsaw’ where the ‘Mylcraine’ lettering from MH434’s old scheme has remained, Gabszewicz’ aircraft had cannon stubs, underwing racks and fishtail exhaust stubs, and possibly wheel discs too…….

Haven’t done your homework mate!
In general, I take the markings on MH434 for the air show as ‘a representative Gabszewicz Spitfire’. At the time he was W/Cdr and then G/Cpt, Gabszewicz flew about eight SZ-G-coded Spitfires in sequence. “City of Warsaw” was only seen on one of these. The boxing dog motif varied in size on each. The style of SZ-G letters also wasn’t the same on all. At least one of those Spits (MH314) did not have outer stubs. At least two (MH314 and EN526) did not have underwing bomb racks.
If MH434 was to be very correct for the occasion, she should have worn D-Day bands and the full set of markings as seen on NH342 (look at the cover of ‘Spit and Polish’). So, the 316 Sqn badge should be under the windscreen, the dog much smaller and further aft, etc. Early style undercarriage should also have been retrofitted (no scissor links on oleo legs) and the headrest removed as this was not fitted to Mk IX Spitfires at all. Further, you should remove some aerials, to say nothing about refitting the guns and ammo. Ah, and there should have been the “WYCIERAC OBUWIE” (“WIPE YOUR SHOES”) stencil under the cockpit.
To sum up, I think this has been about the most accurate Polish warbird scheme done entirely by the Brits I have ever seen. 😉
Big THANK YOU to all those involved in having it!

All in all, I don’t recall when was the last time I enjoyed an air show as much as this one. Great thanks to all those involved in setting the thing up. I can’t wait to see it all happen again.