Two-Seat Spit On Provenance

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:23 pm

Thanks folks, it seems to be strongly in favor of keeping the original factory design which is fine with me. It would be interesting to fly in one with the low canopy and see how it works. I almost got a chance to do that with Carolyn Grace but the weather twice turned bad at Duxford.

mustanglover · **Posted:** Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:13 pm

Bill Greenwood wrote:

Thanks folks, it seems to be strongly in favor of keeping the original factory design which is fine with me. It would be interesting to fly in one with the low canopy and see how it works. I almost got a chance to do that with Carolyn Grace but the weather twice turned bad at Duxford.

Actually..........let me ride in the back of the existing and I will evaluate

change the canopy and I will re-evaluate

when done, I will let you know what is best

deal?

gregv · **Posted:** Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:53 am

David J Burke wrote:

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

thanks for the info; something tells me they felt pretty lucky at finding the actual bits removed from the aircraft in the first place :shock:

cheers

greg v

Dan Johnson II · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 1:49 am **Posts:** 659

PeterA wrote:

Jack Cook wrote:

Yes, the 52nd FG flew Spit Vs and IX in Africa and Italy. the markings are accurate and refreshing 8)

Thank you. :wink:

PeterA

Image by Harry Stenger

I thought they looked kinda nice too

Mark V · **Posted:** Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:41 am

Trey Carroll wrote:

Whose Spit on the right, when you look at the main pic on Provenance's website?

http://provenancefightersales.com/index.htm

That's a pretty sweet paint scheme.

T

Going back to the original post - its fantastic to see these two together, complete and so long after being 're-born' in the same hangar back in England 16/17 years ago. BL628 (YO-D in the background) was commenced in July 1989 and 'MH367' followed her in the Dick Melton Aviation jig the following year. They both had quite different paths to completion, BL628 via Peter Croser in Australia and later Avspecs in NZ and MH367 with Harry Stenger in Florida. But here they are together and how wonderful they look. Sadly it looks like its a temporary meeting but great to see nontheless.

b29flteng · **Posted:** Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:01 am

Tough call. I'd vote for a lower canopy, 99.9% of the folks out here wouldn't know the difference.

gregv · **Posted:** Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:01 pm

Mark V wrote:

Going back to the original post - its fantastic to see these two together, complete and so long after being 're-born' in the same hangar back in England 16/17 years ago. BL628 (YO-D in the background) was commenced in July 1989 and 'MH367' followed her in the Dick Melton Aviation jig the following year. They both had quite different paths to completion, BL628 via Peter Croser in Australia and later Avspecs in NZ and MH367 with Harry Stenger in Florida. But here they are together and how wonderful they look. Sadly it looks like its a temporary meeting but great to see nontheless.

Mark V

pardon me if this has been covered before, but what is the background on "MH367"? Is it a complete new build, or a rebuild using some original fuselage sections with existing wings?

Whatever the case it looks to be a nice job and a great aircraft.

cheers

greg v.

David J Burke · **Joined:** Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:52 am **Posts:** 189

The aircraft is new build . It was constructed by Dick Melton whilst under the ownership of Charles Church circa late 1980's. Subsequently it headed to the U.S . In the early 1990's the Flowers scrapyard at Chippenham was being cleared - amongst various bits of D.H Beaver scrap and the cockpit of one of the London-Christchurch air race Canberra's- the mortal remains of Spitfire IX MH367 was found .
This headed to the U.S and gave the new build Spitfire an identity other than the Dick Melton one.

PeterA · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:21 pm

Here is the only known example of a two place Spitfire used by the RAF.

This is clearly a 'Field mod' to an ex SAAF Mk V.

PeterA

Steve · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:24 pm

MH367 isn't listed in the Registry

Stev

daveymac82c · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:47 pm

That is a really interesting field modification.

It doesn't look like there was much leg room up front, there.

Thanks for posting that picture. It's very cool.

-David

Steve T · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:14 pm

Hi Bill--

Yours was one of the original T9s...I think she looks great as she is! And I was beyond delighted to see her at Geneseo last summer, having waited over 30 years to do so. Thanks again for bringing her so far east.

Now if you wanted to repaint TE308 into the markings of a USAAF "P-74", though...far as I know there's only ever been the one flown in a USAAF scheme, with two others (at Dayton) statically displayed in USAAF finish. As the Godfrey T9 shows, some of the "Yank" liveries were very striking indeed. Even if MH367 retains these markings under her new ownership, there won't still be a USAAF Spit flying Stateside; and the Army operated hundreds of them in action, well worth commemorating...

Then there's the late Irish scheme with the polished metal...hmm... :wink:

S.

PeterA · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:50 pm

daveymac82c wrote:

That is a really interesting field modification.

It doesn't look like there was much leg room up front, there.

Thanks for posting that picture. It's very cool.

-David

David,

That is what I thought.

So I managed to persuade my good friend Steve Vizard at Airframe Assemblies to mock it up on a new build fuselage to study the ergonomics.

Clearly the top fuel tank would have to go, but the cross stays at the datum longeron would have to remain to stop the firewall lozenging...so perhaps just a platform on top of the braces or maybe a cut down Spitfire seat bucket. If no seat, some diaphragm would be needed to keep the passengers back away from the instruments.

It quickly became apparent that with this arrangement the passengers knees would be adjacent to their ears, so further erosion of the primary fuel would be required and I estimate about a third would have to go to accommodate the lower legs with feet resting on the main carry through spar.

Additional secondary fuel would be needed in either the occasional rear tank, normally a C of G no-no, an external belly tank or dedicated custom tanks in the armament bays.

Even for our model, a slight female aeronautical engineering graduate, there was precious little room.

Just a bit of fun.

PeterA

RMAllnutt · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:07 pm

Steve wrote:

MH367 isn't listed in the Registry

Stev

Yes, it is, just not as MH367. It's in the "Unidentified Airframes" section.

PeterA wrote:

That is what I thought.

So I managed to persuade my good friend Steve Vizard at Airframe Assemblies to mock it up on a new build fuselage to study the ergonomics.

Wow... that is an amazing demonstration of the physical limitations, and quite something for Mr.Vizard to have mocked it up. I imagine that it was quite a tricky beast to fly, and wouldn't have had much range. Do you know how long the airframe survived?

Cheers,
Richard

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:46 pm

Quote:

Now if you wanted to repaint TE308

If Bill ever repaints her I'd vote for either Oscar Coen of 71 Eagle Squadron or John Gillespie Magee

Warbird Information Exchange

Two-Seat Spit On Provenance

Who is online