Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Graham Boak]

I suggest that early Spitfires would have Aluminium wells - probably black/white inside to the doors.

[Troy Smith]

 

8 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I suggest that early Spitfires would have Aluminium wells - probably black/white inside to the doors.

 

On 7/1/2015 at 20:52, Edgar said:

It rather needs a little lateral thinking, since Supermarine drawings advocated interior areas (except the cockpit and engine bearers) should be silver, but it's a rather moot point if you consider the wheel wells to be interior areas, or not. Oleo legs and door interiors started off silver, but anything could (and did) happen in the first two years of war.

Given that the Defiant, Hurricane and Typhoon wells were all silver, I tend to go with the idea that the Spitfire would have been the same (cue photo of Spitfire with black & white wells,) but the block and noose are now obsolete, so it's really your choice.

 

the few photos where the outer wheel part of the well are visible suggest otherwise.

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234974004-question-for-wwii-aircraft-manufacturing-experts/&do=findComment&comment=1851442

 

 

There is a press vist to 602 sq at Drem in winter 39/40, with a series of clear pics

this is interesting and I've seen more shots from this series bigger, note the leg portion has a light edge, so is catching the light, but the wheel part is dark,

Other black winged Spitfires show blacklegs/wheel hubs

 

 

other photos in the link show the wheel part of the well to be the underside colour,  which make sense if it becomes classified as an 'external area'  

 

No one has yet produced a photo clearly showing a difference between the underside and outer well section.     

 

these show Black/white underside with aluminium gear legs, but white outer well (compare to rad side)

 

 

 

this looks to be all aluminium underneath, again well is same as underside

 

this Mk.II appears as to have Sky legs as well as well

 

There might be a shot of a part burnt out Spitfire on a French beach showing the wells?   

 

just found this

 

 

PS  - film of a Spitfire daily inspection,   for training.

note at 4.50 the very clear view of the wheel wells, watch to 6.00.

wells are clearly white or black.

Also, from camouflage and markings, this look to be May 1940,  note yellow ring, but FACTORY standard underside in  Night/White/Aluminium.

 

and

here at 4.35,  mechanic cleaning port wheel well.  

 

 

At 7.20 there is another Spitfire,  and at this has "sky" undersides.  (making film at crossover from B/W to sky, early June 1940) 

note this is again the port side,  and well looks to be underside colour.

 

 

Final point, at 7.17 "Q" can be seen to have a name on the starboard side.

 

 

 

[Max Headroom]

Idly surfing for pictures of 610 Squadron I came across this montage of photos

 

https://i0.wp.com/i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx269/maltadefender/BoB Build/6101939.jpg

 

The codes on the bottom right hand picture seem to be unnecessarily squashed! Not seen that style before.

 

Trevor

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

Idly surfing for pictures of 610 Squadron I came across this montage of photos

 

https://i0.wp.com/i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx269/maltadefender/BoB Build/6101939.jpg

 

The codes on the bottom right hand picture seem to be unnecessarily squashed! Not seen that style before.

 

Trevor

@maltadefender  is a member, may know more.

 

MY  PB embed is working,  so  I can see this

 

 

possibly an attempt to make them as high as  possible on the slim Spitfire fuselage?  

New one to me as well Trevor.

a quick check says  610 got  Spitfire in Septemper 39,  these are early Spitfires,  the trees are still in full leaf so I  presume they are new and it's early September?

the fuselage B and A roundels are of note as well.

 

cheers

T

 

 

 

[At Sea]

On 27/11/2017 at 4:26 PM, At Sea said:

Apologies if this has been asked before but can you make a Spitfire IXb from the Eduard 1/48 boxing.

 

I see only IXc & IXe as kitted options.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Raising this again as although IXb is an unofficial designation for an LF.IX I was planning to build MH434 which I think has a B wing, as in the same B wing that a Spitfire Vb has.  So 4 machine guns and 2 cannon and a big bulge with no stubs by the inner cannon.  

 

Am I wrong?  

[Max Headroom]

All Mk.IX’s had either the C or E wings. The IXb designation has caused confusion over the years. I can’t say for certain what it refers to but it isn’t wing armament. No doubt someone will be along shortly with a more detailed answer.

 

Trevor

[Magpie22]

As stated above there was no Spitfire IXB. The designation was used at squadron level by some early Spitfire IX users. The reason for the designation is unclear and there have been several suggestions, including one made to me by two ex No. 453 Sqn RAAF pilots who says it stood for boost. This referred to the two stage Merlin 61 in the Mk.IX compared to the early single stage Merlin in the MK.Vs they had been used to. Whatever the reason, the 'B' did not refer to the wing type.

 

On the other hand, in late 1942, Air Min Mods 782 and 820 were introduced to cover the replacement of the double cannon blister panels above the gun bays with a single cannon blister panel, and the flushing off of the No. 2 cannon projection on the LE. The mods were intended to reduce aircraft drag, since the decision had been taken earlier that universal, or 'C', wings were to be fitted with only 1 x 20mm cannon in each wing. Mod 782 was incorporated on the production lines for Mk.VC, Mk.IX and Mk.VIII aircraft. Mod 820 seems to have been dropped due to the time and man hours involved, although I have never seen any written evidence to that effect. (perhaps Gingerbob, Peter A, or Graham Boak have something more definitive). Certainly the time involved was the case with the RAAF, where the Technical service noted in March 1944, that Spitfire Modification No. 3 "Flushing off No. 2 cannon projection and fitment of single cannon blister", (the RAAF's nomenclature for mods 782 and 820), was to be ammended to incorporate only the fitting of the single cannon blister panel on those MK. VC aircraft that were not so fitted. The section relating to fairing off the cannon projection was to be deleted as it consumed too much time and labour and the expected benefit was only in the order of 2 to 3 mph. Only a very few RAAF A/C received the modification.

 

I seem to recall Peter A stating on another forum some ten years ago, that MH434 had her cannon stubs removed in the 1960s for the making of the film Battle of Britain. (Let me know if I am misquoting you Peter!). However, I believe that the mods were incorporated on a few RAF aircraft in the field, probably by MUs, or at the pilot's request, when undergoing major major servicing. MH324 of No. 451 Sqn RAAF is such an example.

 

Peter M

 

 

[Work In Progress]

And MH434 has never, repeat never, had a wing with the same configuration as a Spitfire Ib or Vb. The Vb wing has a dfferent undercarriage geometry from the wings fitted to the Vc, IX and so on.  It has top and bottom cannon bulges, and they are long way aft of the various cannon bulges seen on the upper surface for the C armament.

[malpaso]

Perhaps MH434 got modified this for “Piece of Cake”.  I saw one of the Spits from the production which was displayed at the Royal Tournament that year, in her filming make-up with an explanation that all those used had been fitted with single cannon wings so that the squadron looked reasonably alike.

Cheers

Will

[Max Headroom]

I can’t find a picture at the moment but as G-ASJV* and flying in civilian colours MH434 had no cannon barrels fitted. Her first Hollywood airing was in The Longest Day and again there were no barrels. I can’t say when for sure, but it wasn’t until the 80’s that they were refitted.

 

Trevor

 

* civvie reg corrected

[Biggles87]

I can also remember seeing MH434 at Duxford in the '70s without cannon barrels and with flat ( no bulges ) access panels. She was displayed mostly by the late great Neil Williams and belonged to Adrian Swire.

 

John

 

PS I used slide film in those days and have thousands of then in boxes in the loft. Perhaps sometime when I have a couple of days to spare and no extra jobs allocated by SWMBO I'll look through them and transfer some onto the computer. Don't hold your breath.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Biggles87

[gingerbob]

8 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

As stated above there was no Spitfire IXB. The designation was used at squadron level by some early Spitfire IX users. The reason for the designation is unclear and there have been several suggestions, including one made to me by two ex No. 453 Sqn RAAF pilots who says it stood for boost. This referred to the two stage Merlin 61 in the Mk.IX compared to the early single stage Merlin in the MK.Vs they had been used to. Whatever the reason, the 'B' did not refer to the wing type.

 

Mod 820 seems to have been dropped due to the time and man hours involved... Certainly the time involved was the case with the RAAF...

 

Peter, the explanation given to you by the pilots sounds like the sort of story one comes up with using deductive reasoning.  If 'B' meant boost, in contrast to the Mk.V, why would it not have appeared until the LF, nearly a year after introduction of the (F) Mk.IX?  Most likely to me (using deductive reasoning!) is that the LF was the second variation of the Mk.IX, thus 'B', second letter of the alphabet.  What is most curious to me is how persistent "IXB" was, well after the official designation 'LF IX' was promulgated.

 

I'm afraid that I haven't found a definitive explanation for the retention of the stub either, but anticipation of the 'e' armament change (on IX and XIV) probably had something to do with it.  The logical thing would have been to incorporate a single-port part during production, as was done on Seafires.  It is possible that this WAS done for a time, because the aircraft that I've identified without the stub mostly come from a pretty tight MA and MH serial range (going on memory).  As for retro, I think you're right that it was more work than many people would care to undertake for the very small gain.  [Hmm, the Seafire case gives me an idea- if we can find the part number callout (or drawing for the single-port part), that might give us some information.]  EDIT: Your RAAF info was new to me, and interesting- thanks!

 

I've got the idea that there's a photo of MH434 in wartime service sans second port, but I may be mixing that up- a very quick google didn't show me the image I expected to see, and that's as far as I've gone so far- I'll have to fire up the other computer to check my records!

Edited December 4, 2017 by gingerbob

[Giorgio N]

44 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

And MH434 has never, repeat never, had a wing with the same configuration as a Spitfire Ib or Vb. The Vb wing has a dfferent undercarriage geometry from the wings fitted to the Vc, IX and so on.  It has top and bottom cannon bulges, and they are long way aft of the various cannon bulges seen on the upper surface for the C armament.

 

Another difference is the position of the inboard MG along the wing span: on the B wing it's closer to the centreline, on the C wing is one bay farther out. The outer MG position did not change, so in the C wing the two MGs are closer

[Giorgio N]

On 21/11/2017 at 9:02 PM, Max Headroom said:

Idly surfing interwebby to research a whif I came across this French Spitfire Vc 

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2009/02/with-the-mediterranean-allied-coastal-air-force.html

 

Any thoughts? My only reaction is that it has USAAF style wing markings and has a late war Mk.V ‘bitsa’ field mods.

 

Trevor

 

Nice interesting subject !

I've seen this captioned as being EP813, a late Castle Bromwich production Vb. It was the aircraft most often used by ace Georges Valentin of 326 Sqn, or GC.II/7 in French nomenclature.

This aircraft is clearly a former USAAF machine, and its delivery to the USAAF in North Africa is mentioned in the The History. The camo scheme is impossible to understand, the machine would have worn desert scheme initially and as the previous US insignia is quite visible it's likely that the scheme was retained but there are so many areas touched up...

[gingerbob]

I think that EP813 may not be correct.  The aircraft in the photo is a 'c' (note longish cylindrical portion of cannon, and position of blister on the wing), not a 'b', and EP813 does appear to have been a 'b' by production date.  I suppose it is possible that the wing was changed at some point, but more likely, perhaps, that someone made an error of identification.  I'm familiar with the photo, but don't recall seeing a serial associated with it before (not that that means anything!)

 

bob

[Smithy]

Al Deere always maintained that the difference between the IXA and IXB was the IXB had the Merlin 66. Whilst pilots aren't always the most technically minded it's at least conceivable that Deere was correct in that this wartime designation was to differentiate between the earlier first generation IX and the performance improved Merlin 66 version.

[gingerbob]

Yes, the Merlin 66 is what made it an LF IX- lower gear-change altitude compared to the Merlin 61/63.

[Work In Progress]

2 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

I can’t find a picture at the moment but as G-AJSV and flying in civilian colours MH434 had no cannon barrels fitted. Her first Hollywood airing was in The Longest Day and again there were no barrels. I can’t say when for sure, but it wasn’t until the 80’s that they were refitted.

 

Trevor

This whole thread on the Key historic forum is of value to anyone interested in MH434's past.

https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?130617-Spitfire-G-ASJV-MH434

 

In civilian colours here: no cannon barrels.

 

First film: not The Longest Day but A Bridge Too far. (I too often mistakenly refer to one as the other.) No cannon barrels. Zoom forward to 21:25

 

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Work In Progress

[Biggles87]

No matter how many times I've seen that clip it still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

[malpaso]

Jeremy Flack's "Spitfire" shows pictures of MH434 as ZDB with single cannon barrels and no cannon bulges in the one top view - book published 1985.

 

Cheers

Will

[Max Headroom]

Small correction on ‘434’s history.

 

Her movie debut was ‘Operation Crossbow’, see here:

 

http://www.mh434.com/history/

 

Trevor

[At Sea]

Wow.  Thanks, no wonder I was struggling to find a definitive answer on my own.  There isn't one!

 

I'm pretty happy that if I build it as a LF.IXc with a round tail and large filter then it will look like MH434 did at some point. 

Thank you all.  This sort of resource is what makes forums like this work so well. 

[Graham Boak]

6 minutes ago, At Sea said:

Wow.  Thanks, no wonder I was struggling to find a definitive answer on my own.  There isn't one!

 

I think that's unkind.  You have been given definite answers: there's no such thing as a Mk.IX with a b wing; MH434 was an LF Mk.IXc; some Mk.IXs with a C wing did not have the outer stub and this includes MH434.  

 

I would point out that this was not a matter of filing off existing stubs, which would simply leave a hole in the leading edge, but the fitting of a different section of the leading edge with only one hole for a cannon.  This may have only rarely been seen on the Spitfire Mk.IX but was the standard fit for C-wing Seafire Mk.IIIs. 

 

[gingerbob]

I thought he simply meant that the specific configuration of this aircraft changed over time?

 

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I would point out that this was not a matter of filing off existing stubs, which would simply leave a hole in the leading edge, but the fitting of a different section of the leading edge with only one hole for a cannon.  This may have only rarely been seen on the Spitfire Mk.IX but was the standard fit for C-wing Seafire Mk.IIIs.

 

In terms of retro, I think you would have to "file off" the existing stub, then patch the hole.  I think it is very unlikely that erks would disassemble the leading-edge structure enough to change out the cannon-port part.  I think that the Seafire III, on the other hand, introduced a single-port part, but I don't know that for a fact.

[Graham Boak]

There has been a discussion on this Mod, either here or on Flypast's historic forum, with major input from Spitfire owner and expert posting under the name "Mark12" and more from the late Edgar Brooks. This did centre around the original state of MH434.  However I don't recall any discussion of in-field modifications, only the introduction into (and then removal from) production of this part.  In the event of this having to take place, there'd be no great problem in removing a few rivets on a panel and exchanging two parts.  That would be well within the skill set of squadron personnel.  It's more difficult to see why anyone would bother "filing and filling", which is a much greater task on the real thing than on a model.