Talk:List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Flyers/non-flyers

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It would be useful to divide the flyers from the non-flyers somehow, maybe sub headers in each country (TOC will be long though) or one section for flyers and another for museum pieces. The Spit Vc AR501 is currently not at all airworthy, its about halfway through a major restoration, there is a photo in the Shuttleworth Collection article and a reference for this in Rolls-Royce Merlin (Survivors section), a big job. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think split the flyers and aircraft on display but leave them under each country heading. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, we can limit the TOC length if needed, 'Airworthy' and 'Non-airworthy' for headers? If we use level 4 they won't show in the TOC. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK I think, just did a search of G-INFO [1] which is showing 16 Spitfires on the British civil register (the other four are homebuilt scaled down replicas), should be able to work out whether they are airworthy or not from their Certificate of Airworthiness validity date.

Might need to take care with non-airworthy and try and restrict it to aircraft on display or we might get every bit of scrap added! so I think we should use aircraft on display. I am sure that Flypast magazine did an article listing all the flyers in the last few years I will have to dig around and see if I can find it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Debulleting?

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I'm afraid that I have to object to the debulleting just to meet the requirements of a DYK nomination, this unfortunately is a list and will not contain much prose. Losing the bullet points makes it much harder to read IMO. Seems to be a silly rule on the part of the DYK team Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Still not sure what DYK has to do with an aircraft project list! MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for DYK, it is currently failing due to low word count, unbulletting the text allows all the words to be counted apparently, ridiculous. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see the paragraph in question is exactly the same length with or without a bullet. I have reverted it to the more normal format. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I have been bothering to nominate articles on DYK is that I have seen it lead to significantly more interest if it does get on the front page - but there are strict rules as you can see. I think I'll go back to working on British bike articles but I would like to see Supermarine Spitfire developed to GA Thruxton (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with nominating an article for DYK and appeciate your contributions but I cant see any reason for removing the bullets. The sentence is exactly the same length as before. I suspect more to do with a problem with DYK then this article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead which will hopefully negate the great bullet debate of 2009. However, may I suggest this list be put in a table so that it can be easily sortable? -- Esemono (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I removed the new lead before I came here, most was not relevant to a list of survivors, this is a sub-article of Supermarine Spitfire and the history is covered in other articles. Dont have a strong opinion on a table or not both have been tried in the past on survivors articles with varying degrees of success. Although the information outside a table encourages better prose not sure why anybody would want to sort it. More concerned by content creep in that sometimes the detailed history of each individual aircraft expands to include every known details (like codes) when most of this infomation is not notable and is better handled by the fanboy sites. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a more related text should cover why so many have survived and notable events like the rise in the warbird movement, the almost product line industry of re-builds and the RAF selling of the gate guardians in recent times. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead should contain information on when the last models were made and were they where exported to. This would have a direct connection to why there are so many survivors spread through out the world. -- Esemono (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename page

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This survey request is redundant to the already closed request at Category talk:Survivors (aircraft) and all articles listed below have already been moved per my closure there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Supermarine Spitfire survivors → List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires — I first thought this page was about people who survived in a Spitfire. Suggested title is much clearer and more grammatically correct. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - List of Foo survivors is standard naming for child articles in the aviation project, with Foo being the main article. Other examples are List of Foo operators or sometimes when it is not a list Foo operators. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. So... this really requires a group move. We'll initiate that tomorrow. These titles are just grammatically incorrect! (This doesn't apply to List of Foo operators since "operators" refers to people, unlike "survivors" in this context.) -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to comment at the related project discussion page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Survivors_articles_rename. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

~~This move request is now part of a group move, see Category talk:Survivors (aircraft). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)~~

Due to technical difficulties, let's try again:

Take 2

List of Supermarine Spitfire survivors → List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires — These titles are just grammatically incorrect! It gives the idea that it is about people who have survived in said aircraft. And don't compare it to List of Foo operators because here it does refer to people operating said aircraft. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you add List_of_Hawker_Hurricane_survivors and possibly also List_of_F-101_Voodoo_on_display. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done (not List_of_F-101_Voodoo_on_display because rename argument doesn't apply here). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grace Spitfire

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why does ML407 only appear in an image and not in the bulleted list? Perhaps I'm missing something obvious but, given the interest generated by its recent celebration of the Spitfire 75th, more than aviation buffs may be looking for it just now.TSRL (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea probably just missed, but I have started an entry for her. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers.TSRL (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dutch spitfires

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The spitfires of the netherlands are missing, atleast one is in airworthy condition. Maybe there are more on static display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.160.168.75 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

MK997

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Parts of MK997 have bee recovered from Lake Samsjoen, Vaernes, Norway and will be displayed at the "Warbirds Over Norway" museum. A recovery of larger sections of the airframe is planned for summer 2012. ("Fresh-water Spitfire recovery in Norway". Aeroplane (November 2011). Cudham: Kelsey Publishing Group: p11. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help)) Should this info go into the list now, or wait until next summer? Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Burmese spitfires

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can/should we note the 20 crated spitfires being reported now - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9203822/Spitfires-buried-in-Burma-during-war-to-be-returned-to-UK.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17710598 ? (Msrasnw (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

I think we need to see if they are found and have survived first. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest developments. If this effort sees only a fraction of what is hoped, there could be a case for having a separate page covering the whole operation. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of all the talk of aircraft in pristine condition finding a crate in murky water doesnt sound that promising! MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RM689 - XIVe

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, is the RM689 Spit' Mk XIVe really crashed [2] at Woodford on 27/June/1992? I can't find any informations on the websites... (neither in this) And what happened with it after the crash? --176.63.24.114 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

MH314 (RAF Northolt)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a reason this Spitfire is not mentioned. This is the aircraft on display outside RAF Northolt.46.7.85.68 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not real just a replica. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Totally Destroyed Aircraft (No Longer Extant)

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I removed this section mainly because if they are destroyed they are not survivors, it was clearly just a partial list of some aircraft that have been destroyed. This removal has been challenged by User:Jbs007 with the comment "Undone due to highlight the 'Survivors' that have been totally lost in recent history. Others have crashed yes, but not totally destroyed", two points - recent history is not really a clear definition how far back due you want to go 1945, 1955 or some random date ? and I can think of a few more that have been destroyed in the last thirty or forty years that are not on the list. So I propose to remove the list again as it clearly does not relate to survivors (this is not a survivors since 1989 or such like), I have no objections to a List of accidents and incidents involving the Supermarine Spitfire since 1945 or such like but not here. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Update from JBS007 The reason for this section is to highlight the surviving Spitfires that have been totally lost in recent years (i.e. the last few decades - from the 1980's) Therefore these aircraft made it into preservation and are far past the post-war period, but were subsequently lost. This section is intended to be a definitive listing of aircraft falling into this category. If you know of any other aircraft, which is not listed elsewhere on the page, that also falls into this category please let me know. All other Spitfire aircraft that have been involved in accidents have either been rebuilt or are in storage and therefore do not fall into this category and are listed elsewhere on the page as continuing to be surviving airframes. Happy to discuss further, but I feel this section does add to the overall picture of the world's Spitfire population. Your view welcomed :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbs007 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Still this is not a page for nearly survived, you still have not said how far back this should go 1950 1960 1990 ? clearly a wooly definition that doesnt belong here. It clearly doesnt add anything to a picture of the world's population if they do not exist. I will take this to the project for second opinion when I have time. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this section does add some value, in that it shows aircraft that survived military operational service and were later destroyed. If nothing else it highlights the perils of flying them, over parking them. That said it probably needs some defining of what will be included here and what will not. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that mention should be limited to prose in the top section, along the lines of "many have been rebuilt to fly or restored for display in museums and of these several have been completely destroyed in crashes and hangar fires". The important fact is that there has been attrition of airframes as well as an explosion in numbers, due to the counting of what are in essence a few lumps of wreckage as an aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Whilst I see the point that this is a page dedicated to the 'surviving' Spitfire population, I wanted to show that these particular four airframes are the only ones completely lost since the 1980's. Whilst a small mention in the top blurb would suffice, it would not tell you which actual airframes were lost and by what means. Thought the detailed information would prove useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbs007 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea of listing machines which survived for a while is a good one, not only because they have a place in history but because if an ID plate still exists then the machine may one day be rebuilt. There appear to be three approaches: one is to simply add them here as happened until now, another is to move those no longer in existence to a new article, and a third is to rename the present article to make it more inclusive. I don't really mind which we do, as long as we can establish some consensus for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a standard format of "List of surviving ..." so renaming this page to add aircraft that no longer survive is probably not the best option, which would probably be to split that off as its own page however I disagree with the given rationale for the additional list as many current warbird survivors would not have been on any similar list even twenty years ago as they were still forgotten and undiscovered wrecks in remote locations - and many more wrecks remain to be found and brought back that would be hard to justify with the label "surviving" so using it as possible future survivors is weak at best - particularly when many of the wrecks left almost nothing to rebuild from - meaning it is really a list of surviving Supermarine Spitfire dataplates, assuming that the dataplate even survived. I agree with MilborneOne - List of accidents and incidents involving the Supermarine Spitfire since 1945 seems the logical option - except for the date is arguable, since the Spitfire remained in production until 1948 and in service even with the RAF for a long time after that (1955 maybe?). - NiD.29 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Place of manufacture

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we add, where we have sources, the place of manufacture for each aircraft? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Change to table format?

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Call sign	Model	Flyable	Location now	Country	Details
P7973	Spitfire IIa	Yes	Australian War Memorial	Australia	Flown by several Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) squadrons in 1941. Assigned to No. 452 Sq. (RAAF) (RAF Kenley and RAF Hornchurch) (Markings: R-H) flying 24 operations. Shipped to Melbourne, Victoria, Australia for display. One of the few Spitfires still in its original paint it has not been repainted since the Second World War.
TE456	Spitfire LF XIVe	No	Auckland War Memorial Museum	New Zealand	Taken on charge by the RAF on 8 August 1945, the aircraft initially went into storage at 6 MU at Brize Norton. It was issued to 501 RAuxAF Squadron at Filton in March 1946 (coded RAB-J), and then to 612 RAuxAF Squadron at Dyce in May 1949 (coded 8W-?). It has been on static display at the since 1956 when New Zealander Sir Keith Park, commander of No 11 Fighter Group, arranged for it to be donated.
MH350	Spitfire LF IXe	No	Norwegian Air Centre	Norway	Norwegian Air Centre, Bodo Air Base.
SL721	Spitfire XVI	Yes	Gatineau, Quebec	Canada	(C-GVZB). One of the newest Spitfires to fly in Canadian skies is owned by Michael Potter. Refinished in the markings of No. 421 Squadron RCAF and is now registered in Gatineau, Quebec as part of the Vintage Wings of Canada Collection.

may I suggest this list be put in a table so that it can be easily sortable? -- Esemono (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont have a strong opinion on a table or not both have been tried in the past on survivors articles with varying degrees of success. Although the information outside a table encourages better prose not sure why anybody would want to sort it. More concerned by content creep in that sometimes the detailed history of each individual aircraft expands to include every known details (like codes) when most of this infomation is not notable and is better handled by the fanboy sites. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This articles is shaping up to be an actually good article on aircraft survivors. If we can continue on in this strain, adding more prose and keeping as far away as possible from codes, tables and the like, this article will probably be the form all other survivor articles will need to follow. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A sortable list would allow readers to quickly find out how many model XX are available or the number of flyable planes etc... -- Esemono (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if enough people think it adds to the article, maybe along the side, a bare-bones list.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Survivor numbers
Variant	Produced	Surviving
1A, 1B	1,567	1
IIA, IIB	921	2

This looks much better. Why was it never enacted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Spitfire statistics

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello to whoever may read this

I was correcting and adjusting the statistics table for the status of surviving Spitfires and I came across something odd. Some of the Spitfire numbers didn't correspond with the list of surviving Spitfire numbers.

Two examples I'll list now: 1, the table suggests that the number of Spitfires in Australia is 32, but there are only 11 Spitfires mentioned under the Australia section. 2, the table suggests there are 112 Spitfires in the UK, but there are only 50 are mentioned in the UK list. Those are the only two I'll mention, but those aren't the only two with this problem.

Do we really need the extra Spitfire numbers in the table that aren't mentioned under the country lists?

Thanks -Spitfirepilot19

Thanks, I think we could propably remove the table as it doesnt appear to be accurate, I dont think I have seen a summary table used before. MilborneOne (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Spitfire P9374 in US

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello all.

I've recently read that Spitfire P9374 was sold to Ronald Lauder in New York, the USA in 2017. There obviously needs to be information on it. There are photos of it online and The FAA has a record of it being in the United States, registered as N92SQ. I'm not good at posting citations, so can someone take the information I'm going to give/gave and update the information on the actual Wikipedia page, please?

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?nNumberTxt=N92SQ FAA's information on it http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=65502 the forum where it was discussed, along with the following photos that were shared on it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jpbarlow/37351587121/sizes/o/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/jpbarlow/37351587371/sizes/o/

Thanks -Spitfirepilot19

I have updated the entry using the FAA registration data, but that is a weak ref, as it does not mention the serial "P9374". The others refs, forums and photos can;t be used as they are WP:SPS and not WP:RS. It would be nice to have a third party ref connecting the US registration N92SQ to P9374. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will try to find other information on it in the US. Spitfirepilot19 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to note the vickers serial number 6S-30565 in the FAA record is also mentioned on the CAA G-INFO site which does give a previous identity of P9374 (search for G-MKIA). MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)