• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

The Spitfire

  • Thread starter Thread starter O.C.
  • Start date Start date
I am interested search for the Thames TV Television Production on
“Spitfire MH434”
I have been searching for some years to get a showing of this programme.
However it seems to be lost in the Archives of the Thames TV people
I found a cutting from a magazine .Can't say where it came from .
It traces the history of the rare library film of the men and women who flew her.
However my interest stems from the people who built the aircraft at the Nuffield Centre factory. My father was a maintenance fitter during the second world war.It may have some footage on about them
 
This is a 1/32 scale model of a Spitfire Mk IXc i completed a few months ago in between paintings. Unfortunately I have lost the tail wheel somewhere, probably vacuumed up by now Eric
 
Last edited:
You require a great deal of patience to do that Eric and well done. Hope you do find the wheel one day. Jean.
 
Re: Replies Here

Some years ago I was in Hanley with my grandaughter Naomi when I said lets go and have a look
in the Museum, when we went in there was a Spitfire hanging from the ceiling. It turned out that Reginald Mitchell was born in Stoke on Trent. Bernard
 
Bernard! while sitting outside a chip shop, eating my chips. I noticed "Through a load of scaffolding" a blue plaque on the wall of the house. On closer inspection it was the birthplace of Good old Mr Michell. I'll see if I can take a picture next time I'm up there.
 
Hi folk,
There are two very interesting books about the Spitfire, one is called "Sigh For A Merlin" written by Alex Henshaw , a test pilot at Castle Bromwich, the other is "Spitfire, A Test Pilot's Story" by Jeffrey Quill also a test pilot who goes into a lot of detail about the development of the Spitfire.
Regards Reg. "Roverman"
 
Since the hacking it's hard to see whether these photos have been on before. They're from an old newspaper of my dads, so I'll just post them all here should anyone be interested. These show Spitfire assembly lines at Castle Brom.

Spitfire_Production_Line_WW2.JPG
SpitfireFuselagesAssemblyShopCastleBrom.JPG
 
Thanks Froth, an interesting article. I'd have expected german intelligence would have had info on the factory but it seems incredible that workers had to dodge the German machine guns on occasions, so they must have felt pretty vulnerable at times. Viv.
 
Hmm, the Spitfire pic hasn't come through - it's an 'invalid attachment' when you click it.

Comparing the Hurricane and the Spitfire, which although similar in appearance were actually totally different in design, construction and performance, is discussed in another online forum board where this comment sums it up:

"Both types will always have their champions, but the facts speak for themselves. There IS no comparison between Spitfire and Hurricane. The latter represented the zenith of applied biplane technology: rugged; dependable, for sure. And with its guns grouped more closely together, ultimately a better gun platform. But aerodynamically, in speed, in climb, in development potential, the Spitfire was a leap ahead. And ask yourself this: if you were out flying and you came across an angry Me109, what would you rather be flying - a Hurricane because it would take loads of hits and, provided you weren't killed in the fusilade, still get you home? Or a Spitfire, which was so much faster and quicker climbing that you might not need to get hit at all, and which had the performance parity with the Me109 to actually turn the tables if you flew it well?

I know what I'd plump for any day...."

The Hurricane was indeed a much redrawn former biplane design, whilst the Spitfire was a design modification of the Supermarine S6B acing flying boat of 1931, the first plane to exceed 400 MPH
 
Last edited:
Alright Lloyd, I suppose I will have to admit to being wrong but I am not an aircraft person I said it because to those of us who don't know these things, they do seem to be similar in appearance. They were two pictures I came across as I 'sifted' so to speak.
 
No Stitcher, not wrong, many if not most people even back then thought they were the same. I remembered I'd heard ages ago about them being different but had to look up the quote I provided to find out exactly how.
 
I think the 2 main physical differences are the sloping back of the Hurricane and the distinct difference in mainplane (wing) shape. Eric
 
The assembly line photo must be later in the war...the aeroplanes have the P51D style bubble canopy. I was suprised to see the vast difference in performance between the principal varients of the Spitfire and 109. Just reading the Spit had twice the range...980miles vs 410miles and about 8,500ft. higher service ceiling...43,000ft vs 34,450ft. The Spit achieved it's top speed of 408 mph at 25,000 feet whereas the 109 top speed was only 348 mph at 14,560 ft.
Can't see how a 109 could catch up to a Spit in the principal trims. The Battle Of Britain versions must have been more closely matched.
I don't know what range means...does it mean how far you can go before you have to turn back or total distance ie., 205 miles there and 205 miles back(for a Me 109). If it is the total milage then the time over the target in the Midlands must have been very little and side engagements must have had to be short ones.

Such was the pace of development that in a very short time the P51 which was a little bigger than the Spit and about 1500 LB heavier could fly 30 MPH faster than the Spit at the same altitude with substantially the same engine and it's range was a whopping 2,300 miles. I suppose that wing tanks played a part of it but still..
I don't know how accurate the data is.
 
Here are the Hurricane and Spitfire models (the Sentinels) which guard either side of the entrance to St. George's Chapel at Biggin Hill. Viv

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1332488750.450710.jpg
Hurricane P2921 model outside St.George's RAF Chapel, Biggin Hill

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1332488769.642337.jpg
Spitfire K9998 model outside St. George's RAF Chapel, Biggin Hill
 
Very briefly:

The Hurricane was, as has been said, biplane technology with one wing removed. It could, however, out-turn an Me109, very useful in a dog-fight, and it could absorb a lot of battle damage. However, it could not be developed as a fighter, but ended up a very successful ground-attack aircraft especially when fitted with rockets and anti-tank guns.

At the time of the Battle Of Britain, the main advantage of the Me109 over both the Hurricane and Spitfire was that its Daimler-Benz engine was fuel-injection, whereas the RR Merlin was carburettor-aspirated, and could and did briefly cut out when the aircraft were bunted into a dive. Not good. The Me109 was also fitted with 2 x 20mm cannon as well as machine-guns, and neither the Spitfire or Hurrican originally had cannon.

In aerodynamic terms, the Spitfire and Hurricane were very different aircraft, and even more different where their method of construction was concerned. Much of the Hurricane was wooden, and fabric covered.

The Spitfire was basically of all-metal monococque construction and was extensively developed from the Mk1 and MkIIc aircraft of the Battle Of Britain, through the Mk 24 and the Seafire and Seafang and Spiteful. The Spitfire's wing was much thinner than the Hurricane's, its actual thickness being determined originally by the thickness of the Dunlop tyres! It was also difficult and complex to manufacture.

The 'secret' of the Mustang was its laminar flow wing, i.e., a wing using a section which was aerodynamically very 'clean' with no bumps or protusions, and which gave the aircraft its superior speed and range as its low-drag configuration absorbed much less power from the engine. Initially the Mustang with its Allison engine was a disappointment, but was transformed by the use of the Merlin. It was still in use in the late 1970's by at least one Central American country.

Will end now, as once I get going about aircraft it's hard for me to stop.....don't want to bore anyone.

Big Gee
 
Very well explained Big Gee. I have mentioned before I now live very near RAF Coningsby where the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is based and I am fortunate to be able to see both the Spitfire and Hurricane in flight quite often, also the Lancaster and Dakota of course.
Regards Reg
 
Ah yes, the unmistakeable sound of a Merlin overhead....wonderful. Lucky fella!

I can just about remember when I was maybe 4 or 5 watching Spitfires flying into Castle Bromwich for scrapping. This went on for quite a long time, or so I seem to recall. I heard stories of brand-new Merlins being dug up, still in their packing-cases, when the Jaguar plant was being re-built and extended. How true these stories are I don't know.

Big Gee
 
roverman,I was fortunate enough to be on the last Lancaster Sqdn based in Africa, 82(PR) Sqdn, I was with them from 1949 to 51 and that memorial flight Lancaster came from our Sqdn (I was a Wireless OP) and i have logged many hours in it on Photographic survey flights in East, West and Central Africa , it was in peace time livery at the time (silver and black) and was restored to war time appearance and all armement replaced, although it has never seen war time service, it was a new Lancaster when it joined the Sqdn about 1945 or 46, (it was initially made for Far East but by then the war was over) the other 6 Lancs we had were unfortunately flown home and scrapped about 1952, we also had a Douglas DC3 (known in this country as a Dakota) no doubt also scrapped, the Sqdn changed to Canberras and was eventually disbanded. I flew over 2,000 hours in Lancasters and of all the aircraft I flew in during my 8 years service they were my favourite. Happy days. Eric
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top