Warbird Information Exchange

Keep it original, and NEVER, EVER remove a roll over structure. Seems we learned that lesson with a certain Seafury roll over accident.

Not what caused it. The sand he flipped over in was so soft the windshield frame was simply buried in the ground and the canopy rails were flush with the ground. In that Sea Fury incident, it is highly unlikely the roll over structure would've made a difference........picking the airplane up where he could breath would've been the thing to do. But I digress. Sorry for the rant, but it sucks when a friend of yours dies and folks that don't know the whole story (no offense, Matt) think that just one thing would've made the difference. Charlie's mishap was a chain of events that if just one of those links had've been removed, he'd likely be with us today.

However.....with all of that being said, having roll over structure in your airplane isn't a bad idea. It just won't necessarily be the thing that can save you should the airplane get upside down on the ground. Harry Doan's accident is another example of this.

Sorry to hijack your thread with this Trey.

Gary

Jack,

Here is one of a number of photos used to develop the scheme.

The individual elements, roundels, code letters, insignia etc were all drawn full size on transparent Mylar draughting film using scale references of known dimensions on a Mk V Spitfire. These film elements were then taped on to a two seat Spitfire at Duxford and adjusted and positioned to give the best visual balance, bearing in mind Levine's was a short engine Mk V and Peter Godfrey's two seater is a long engine Mk IX with the front wind screen moved some 13 inches nearer the the fire wall.

The initial painting was not without its transposition problems but when sorted finally, PeterG was very happy with it.

PeterA

The original Supermarine design is undoubtedly the one to stay with. They designed it entirely with the idea of affording the rear pilot the best view possible which is highly desireable in any aircraft used for training.
the 'Grace' canopy arrangement might seem better looking but owning an historic aircraft isn't really all about that in my view.

Perhaps worth mentioning that the original Type 509 Spitfire is a Military Trainer designed for the 'Command Pilot/Instructor' to be seated in the rear.

In today's Warbird terms, the 'Command Pilot/Owner' in my experience nearly always flies in the front.

...and yes I know there is some Warbird training carried out on Spitfires but it represents a very small percentage of the yearly hours on two seat Spitfires.

PeterA

My two cents, Bill, for what it's worth, would be to keep the original configuration. Your machine has a special history all its own, why confuse the masses ?

Of course, as always, it's your Spit and you've done an admirable job protecting it for future generations it so far. Do what makes you happy, short of donating it to a static museum, of course !

Whoever is in back will just be darn happy to be here and won't know the difference. Leave it original.

That being said, if changing it up would give you the capability of hauling my 250 lb butt....

some artwork of ER570 from the recent Osprey release "American Spitfire Aces of World War 2":

http://www.hyperscale.com/reviews/books ... ewrk_1.jpg

here is the full review from HyperScale:

http://www.hyperscale.com/reviews/books ... ewrk_1.htm

For what its worth Bill, I think your Spit would look great either way, but my bias would be for the original setup. I wonder, though, how hard it would be to configure it either way, depending on mood? Might make for a nice change every once in a while. Also, how rare is the original kit of parts for the high-canopy set-up anyways? I think I read that when HFL rebuilt PV202 they had a bit of a time getting the original bits, but that could be my faulty memory.

cheers

greg v.

If you're putting one together go with the new look.
If you preserving an original don't change a thing!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Great photo of the original scheme, Peter. And like the famous Mike Jordon ad for Haines, it answers the question of "boxers or briefs".

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Bill in my opinion the original configuration is great. No need to change a thing.

Regards,

_________________
Live the Good Life
Bluedharma
http://flickr.com/photos/bluedharma/
http://www.airport-data.com/photographe ... arma;1045/
bluedharmawix@gmail.com

Greg - The rebuild of PV202 to IAC 167 luckily managed to use the parts discarded from her original rebuild . As for original TR.IX parts - I guess very thin on the ground but everything can be manufactured at a cost I guess.

David, wasn't it IAC 161?

Bill Greenwood wrote:

Guys, which canopy do you think my Spitfire should use in the back seat? Mine is the original factory type that is higher. This Spit as well the the Grace one use the lower more streamlined rear cover. To do so, the remove some of the rear instrument panel so there is a view forward inside. It also looks like the rear rollover protection brace may be removed. Should I keep mine original or go to the more attractive streamlined style? I have not had a chance to fly one like that.

As it is the factory original, and it's removal would also require a loss of rear seat instrumentation; I would opine that retaining the present canopy would be the best option.

And the fact it is a spitfire means that there is no "more attractive" mode.

Just my two cents.
Vital Spark
The constructor of 500 Airfix Spitfires - every one lost in vigorous combat.

Your airplane, your $$, your preference, your choice.

I'd keep it original, but that's just me.

Either way, I'd gladly sit in the backseat...