Jump to content

Spitfire MKIXc BS227. FU*U.


Rick Brown

Recommended Posts

Chaps.

I'm looking for information and pictures for this Spitfire.

BS227. FU*U.

I have the Soutern Expo "Hornchurch V Luftwaffe Northern France Forays" decal sheet, which has this aircraft.

However, I can't trust the accuracy of their information as the same sheet has MH434 listed as a MKIXc when it's actually a MKIXb!

I just can't seem to find anything about this aircraft whilst googling around.

Rick.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think there were any Mk.IXb Spitfires.  I read somewhere that "b" on this mark was a Squadron designation, but to differentiate from what I can't remember.

So I haven't really helped much!

Cheers

Will

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS227 was an early F.IX fitted with a Merlin 61, optimised for high altitude performance

 

You may be confusing two different and incompatible sets of letters assigned to Spitfires. No service Spitfire IX was fitted with what we know today as the B wing.

 

The contemporary designation IXb was what most people today refer to as the LF.IX, and had what most people today refer to as a C or "universal" wing. It was the second version of the IX to come into service, and differed from the F.IX by having a Merlin 66 engine, optimised for a different, lower altitude band. No clipped tips, no wing difference at all. The terms A wing, B wing and C wing were not in use at the time.  MH434 was built as an LF.IX, just as MH433 and MH435 were.

 

To make things even more confusing, after the LF.IX  ("IXb") came in, some people at squadron level started referring to the straight F.IX in service elsewhere as the IXa, to distinguish the high-level fighter from the lower level fighter.  But the use of the letter "a" did not mean it had eight .303 Brownings, it had the same armament as a "IXb", or what today we would mainly refer to as a IXc.

 

The early F.IX and LF.IX are visually identical *as they rolled off the production line* and when modelled as new aircraft may be regarded as the same thing for modelling purposes, all with the Universal wing and "C" armament. However, any of these aircraft which survived any length of time were subject to modifications and updating, and MH434 having had more than 60 colour schemes has also flown with many, many different combinations of Spitfire IX features, early and late, and even been modified and dressed up to resemble other marks altogether. See post 5 on this Flypast forum thread by the late Edgar Brooks for the possible source of some confusion about MH434 and some people's spurious belief that it ever had a B wing:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?118887-Questions-on-1943-Spitfire-Mk-IX-MH434&p=1923280#post1923280

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick Brown said:

Chaps.

I'm looking for information and pictures for this Spitfire.

BS227. FU*U.

I have the Soutern Expo "Hornchurch V Luftwaffe Northern France Forays" decal sheet, which has this aircraft.

However, I can't trust the accuracy of their information as the same sheet has MH434 listed as a MKIXc when it's actually a MKIXb!

I just can't seem to find anything about this aircraft whilst googling around.

Rick.

 

 

 

Your not going to like this but there is no such things as Spitfire Mk IXb or Mk IXc. All official paperwork, aircraft movement cards, manuals, spares book reference and Pilots Notes refer to just Mk IX. When the Mk IXe was introduced the former Spitfires were referred as 'Early Mk IX.'

 

It is an uphill battle. :smile:

 

.

Edited by Mark12
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southern Expo messed up badly there. BS227 was FU-? usually flown by Don Andrews per the attached photo.

 

BS227-01_zpsnsd6c0oc.jpg

 

Decals will be available shortly for this machine in 1/72 on DK Decals sheet 72038 along with many other airframes from 453 Squadron.

 

Steve Mackenzie

Edited by Hornet133
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what code letter did it carry originally, before it was "FU-?"

"?" code letters were never applied to new aeroplanes. Usually they went on  buckshee airframes that were 'off the books' in some way, usually by having been repaired using parts from other scrappers.

BS227 may well be the aircraft in your picture - it is obviously well-worn and not new - but that cannot have been its original code, so it's quite possible that the Southern Expo sheet is also correct.

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Can you prove that he had it from new? If there's contemporary documentation saying so I'll accept that it probably never had worn a conventional code. Accusing another organisation of "messing up badly" suggests you have positive proof that it never wore that code. Photo proof of a used aeroplane wearing a "?" isn't the same thing,

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent chaps!

We like a good discussion on BM!

I actually have the Expo 1/48th sheet and their pictures are pretty generic, which doesn't help.

I've had a scan through the OFMC site and they at some point called MH a mkixb and a quick glance at their photos the wing does indeed look similar to a B wing.

But Work in Progress' link to Edgar's post clears that one up nicely.

 

The reason for the original post is I've found, in my stash, a part built ICM MKIX with the universal wing. I was matching up the kit to a good set of decals from the stash.

MH434 was the obvious choice for me as I love current war birds.

Unfortunatly I've already built the wings and put the wrong bulges on for its current configuration!

But after reading Edgar's post it'll be fine to finish it as it was in War survive.

The other option on the sheet was BS227 as FU*U. I was looking for photos to see if that aircraft had the same wing configuration as the model as built. I can ignore that aircraft now.

 

Rick.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Rick,

 

One caution about Edgar's comments in the link- I think he is wrong about when the "slender" cannon bulge arrived, and since removing the surplus "chimney pot" (cannon port) was part of a collection of mods to reduce drag, I would expect that the slender style would be fitted at the same time that the outer stub was removed.  (This may or may not have been done prior to delivery, I don't yet know.)

 

4 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

The terms A wing, B wing and C wing were not in use at the time.  MH434 was built as an LF.IX, just as MH433 and MH435 were.

 

The early F.IX and LF.IX are visually identical *as they rolled off the production line* and when modelled as new aircraft may be regarded as the same thing for modelling purposes, all with the Universal wing and "C" armament.

 

The first sentence is not true, BUT as 'Mark12' points out, the suffix was not applied to the Mk.IX because there was no variation of wing (until the 'e' armament set-up came along).  Technically, the letter referred to the wing's structural design, rather than the installed armament, but in practice that's almost always an academic point.

 

There ARE some visual differences between F and LF IXs, but they are very slight.  The main one that comes to mind is the position of the oil breather vent (or whatever its correct name) on the starboard cowling.

 

bob

Edited by gingerbob
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bob, I was still pondering that one.

im now seriously considering removing the offending bulge panel and finishing the kit as she is now.

Just a note, so she wouldn't have been built with clipped wings then?

I have seen a post somewhere that stated she had her wings extended sometime in the past to help short field work?

Rick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

The early F.IX and LF.IX are visually identical *as they rolled off the production line*

 

There are in fact some slight visual differences -- most notably, very early F.IXs lack a fuel cooling intake in the port wing root, but there are several other minor differences externally as well -- I'd love to sound smug about it, but I only found out by reading Wojtek Matusiak's Spitfire IX: 1942-1943 yesterday.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, gingerbob said:

There ARE some visual differences between F and LF IXs, but they are very slight.  The main one that comes to mind is the position of the oil breather vent (or whatever its correct name) on the starboard cowling.

 

Oh blast, beat to the punch! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop it, it's not a race!

Do you have an ISBN for that book?

 

I've now moved along a little.

I can't remove the bulged cannon covers, therefore this'll be a build of MH434 as it rolled out the factory.

Full span C wing and armament. That'll do for me.

 

This is part of my quest to NOT start anymore new builds until I've finished a load of part builds!

I can do this, I AM strong!

 

Now, to beat the ICM MKIX nose into some kind of acceptable shape......

I'll be back in quite awhile...

Rick.

 

Edited by Rick Brown
Cause I'm a Eejit...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

OK. Can you prove that he had it from new? If there's contemporary documentation saying so I'll accept that it probably never had worn a conventional code. Accusing another organisation of "messing up badly" suggests you have positive proof that it never wore that code. Photo proof of a used aeroplane wearing a "?" isn't the same thing,

 

I would suggest that RAAF air and ground crew did not feel overly bound by RAF marking practices. That was certainly the case with my late father's crew in 466(RAAF) Sqn on Halifax's and indeed with many other RAF instructions/practices - after all they were all volunteers who had travelled halfway around the world to save the pommies from the Germans, for a second time. And cock-ups by decal manufacturers are hardly rare.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OFMC, the aviation press, and the model manufactures have referred to MH434 being a 'Mk IXb' purely on the strength that the wing used a single aperture 'chimney pot' leading edge casting as used on the Spitfire Mk Vb rather then a 'capped off' dual aperture casting as used on the Spitfire Mk Vc. ...and so it perpetuates.

 

The Mk IX was to be a short term build to get the 60 series Merlin in to production quickly by upgrading Mk V components. In the event delays to the Mk VIII resulted in vast numbers being manufactured

 

9-MH434%20Movement%20Card%20Peter%20Arno

 

Copy%202%20of%205-MA338%20Movement%20car

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark12 said:

OFMC, the aviation press, and the model manufactures have referred to MH434 being a 'Mk IXb' purely on the strength that the wing used a single aperture 'chimney pot' leading edge casting as used on the Spitfire Mk Vb rather then a 'capped off' dual aperture casting as used on the Spitfire Mk Vc. ...and so it perpetuates.

 

The Mk IX was to be a short term build to get the 60 series Merlin in to production quickly by upgrading Mk V components. In the event delays to the Mk VIII resulted in vast numbers being manufactured

 

Well, sorry if I come across as contentious, but are you suggesting that MH434 literally used a 'b' wing leading-edge casting?  I find that highly unlikely, but don't see the point in arguing my case unless that's what you actually meant.  Have MH434's maintenance records (for lack of the precise term) from new survived, by any chance?  That would list the mods incorporated upon delivery and subsequently, at least in theory.  (I've only seen such paperwork for one Spitfire, which, if I remember right, was a XVI.)

 

 

As for question marks, I doubt the statement that a new aircraft would NEVER be given that as an individual identifier, but I think the question of whether this particular aircraft might have previously carried a letter is reasonable, and I'd love to see a factual reply.  Aircraft could and did sometimes have their individual letter changed on a squadron, let alone when moving from one squadron to another.  (Though in the latter case, I'd predict that they'd keep the same letter unless I could show otherwise- why do more repainting than necessary?) [Edit: for that last statement, I was thinking of a wholesale change, such as squadrons trading aircraft.  Obviously one new (to squadron) aircraft would have to be given a letter that wasn't already taken, or the current one would have to be changed.]

 

bob

Edited by gingerbob
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of examples of RAF/Commonwealth squadrons flying with a ? as an individual letter, but none (AFAIK) suggesting that this was something applied to "used" aircraft.  It's just one of the odd things that sometimes occurred.  Older airframes on a unit just get passed down to the newer NCO pilots - unless it's the CO's favourite, perhaps.

 

The main reason for repainting the individual letter on a move is that the receiving unit already had one of those.  Which wouldn't be the case on complete replacement (common on Mk.IXs, of course); or an aircraft passing through an MU in between postings, where it would (probably) have been repainted anyway.  

 

I see three theories (or possible explanations if you prefer) for the brief disappearance of the outer stub in the middle of Mk.IX production.

1.  Mk.Vb bits being used to get the Mk.IX production going.  The difficulty I have with this is that they don't seem to appear on the very early aircraft, which is where they would be expected by this theory.  MH434 isn't even an F Mk.XI.  It is well down the line from any initial rush.  

2,  Using up a batch of Mk.Vb bits built in excess as orders changed and "found out back".  Waste not want not - but they were in demand down at Westlands on Seafires, so could have been stuck on the back of a lorry.

3.  Part of a low drag programme together with (or even separate from) the thin blister.   This seems to fit better, but why go back to the version including the unwanted stub?  Possibly foreseeing the change to the e wing?

 

None of the above describe simple mistakes - perhaps Mk.IX production outran the supply of two-hole bits and they had to go scratching around for alternatives, and raided spares holdings?  Or indeed a lorry the other way from Westlands?  (Or their common supplier.)

 

The Mk.VIII was always going to take longer to get into production because it required more changes to the production line.  The key decision was to place the Mk.IX onto the Castle Bromwich line, which was the mass production "do not change without very good reason" line.  Once it was placed there, there was little to no hope of the Mk.VIII becoming the major variant.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

 

Well, sorry if I come across as contentious, but are you suggesting that MH434 literally used a 'b' wing leading-edge casting?  I find that highly unlikely, but don't see the point in arguing my case unless that's what you actually meant.  Have MH434's maintenance records (for lack of the precise term) from new survived, by any chance?  That would list the mods incorporated upon delivery and subsequently, at least in theory.  (I've only seen such paperwork for one Spitfire, which, if I remember right, was a XVI.)

 

 

 

Bob,

 

The movement card for MH434 shows the first entry direct to 222 Squadron on 17 August 1943 right through to 15 June 1944. There are no intervals  away at MU's or Repaired On Site entries

 

Period photos of MH434 dated March 1944 at Hornchurch appear to show just the single aperture on the leading edge with the extension tube and the shroud for the 20mm Cannon.

 

Shots taken in the Dutch Air Force clearly show the same configuration.

 

It is my personal view and opinion that at that time, well over a year in to Mk IX production, it is not unreasonable that available and surplus Mk MVb leading edge components, skins and castings were used up. Technically they would be compatible.

 

If you can tell me that that a mod was issued for 'in service' Mk X's  to be modified by fairing over the surplus aperture for a very modest gain in performance..I'll put my hand up. :smile:

 

If there was a mod, why was it rescinded?

 

Peter

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you leave me no choice :rage: - all in good fun, mind!

 

(Here's an earlier thread that discusses this, but I'll carry on anyway.)

 

The movement card isn't enough- I was thinking of that airframe's "maintenance logbook" or papers.  I don't feel at liberty to share the one I was sent an example of (a copy, not an original!) but one piece of paper is "Form 1125 (Revised) Inspection Test and Modification Certificate" and lists the modifications embodied.  Mods incorporated subsequently are listed on other sheets.  That would allow us to pinpoint whether or not it was done at the factory or later- but what are the chances of such a piece still being somewhere we can find?

 

The Mod in question is number 820 (Seafire Mod 131) "To Remove the Outboard Cannon Front Mounting Casting" first mentioned at the LTC (Local Technical Committee) in Dec '42, again in (month unclear) '43.  The Seafire mod was at LTC 3/2/43. (Class 4B, amended to 3B on the Spitfire Mod ledger).  While we're on the subject of mods, thanks to the linked discussion above I saw the entry for "Mod 782 To introduce the single blister door called for under Mod 683 [which standardizes the armament] as a retrospective item".  Edgar's claim that this mod dates to Jan '44 refers to the "cleared" date, but it was discussed at LTC in Nov '42, and my interpretation of the cleared date (at present) is more like "all taken care of".

 

A number of LF.IXs in the MA/MH serial range have been spotted without the outer stub (thanks mostly to Wojtek).  These all have delivery dates from end of June '43 through July.  Interestingly, Mod 1029 "To introduce 2 x .5" guns in lieu of the 4 x .303" guns" first went to LTC 29/6/43 (a comment in the ledger says "It is essential that Mod 820 is not embodied").

 

Now, as to using Vb parts, I have a couple of problems with that idea:

1) Even Castle Brom had gone out of Vb production by the end of '42, and indeed were soon to be done with Vcs at the time these "stubless" IXs were appearing.  Very certainly we are well beyond the period (and factory) when the Mk.IX was a quick-and-dirty interim rush-job.

 

2) The Front Mounting Casting for the 'b' wing mounted OUTSIDE the wing skin, whereas that of the 'c' wing was internal.

 

bob

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

I put my hand up. You are correct. The Mk Vb chimney pot would not carry over to Mk IX.

 

The puzzle is why so many subsequent Mk IX's to MH434 production and prior to Mk IXe production were not so modified.

 

This has to be a factory mod in my view.

 

In mitigation in the possible using up of surplus parts. The restoration of wings in recent years has revealed among other things redundant .303 machine gun fixing and inspection structure and leading edges apertures in  'e' wings. 

 

Peter

 

 

Edited by Mark12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...