Sky Pilot Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Were any of the standard Spitfire Mk IXs, not LFs or HFs, fitted with "e" wings. The Eduard ProfiPACK IXe kit provides for a Mk IXe, the third option listed, but no identification is given. Can the serials for this and any other IXes that might exist be found. The Eduard Royal kit provides for several Mk IXes which, from their serials turn out to be LFs. Any advice would be appreciated. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't think any F.IXs were equipped with the 'e' armament. And no, I haven't found any comprehensive record of which aircraft WERE delivered (let alone subsequently re-fitted) as 'e' types. There may be some attempt in "Spitfire the History", but I've learned not to trust that book for such detail specifics. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The F Mk.IXs were early airframes and would have been getting elderly, and as such not prime choices for modification. Bear in mind that the LF variant wasn't that Low-rated: there was only a few thousand feet difference in the full throttle height, not the major difference seen in the Mk.Vs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Pilot Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Would it be right to assume that any IXs with clipped wings would be LFs - but were all LFs clipped winged. The "Main Spitfire" site does not show which LFs and HFs have "c" or "e" wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 No. Most LFs were not clipped - it was only introduced on the fighter-bombers to reduce the loads on the inner wing during the pull-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Were any of the standard Spitfire Mk IXs, not LFs or HFs, fitted with "e" wings. The Eduard ProfiPACK IXe kit provides for a Mk IXe, the third option listed, but no identification is given. Can the serials for this and any other IXes that might exist be found. The Eduard Royal kit provides for several Mk IXes which, from their serials turn out to be LFs. Any advice would be appreciated. John There was a thread here regarding early conversion to e wing in summer 1944. see links below. May I suggest adding specific details of an aircraft in an Eduard kit, the IXe kit is this one? http://www.eduard.com/store/Eduard/Spitfire-Mk-IXe-1-48.html the 3rd option is Israeli? OK, I see what you are getting at, it list it as a plain IXe, no LF or HF. This is a bit of a red herring, as Israeli Spitfires came from a variety of different sources, including RAF dumps and trying to assign any RAF specific terms to them is basically pointless, as they were rebuilt to a serviceable condition, with no reference to what the airframe might originally have been. Very interesting subject, fascinating markings, but essentially irrelevant to your quest as I understand it, as you have not asked about Israeli use. Would it be right to assume that any IXs with clipped wings would be LFs - but were all LFs clipped winged. The "Main Spitfire" site does not show which LFs and HFs have "c" or "e" wings. Hi John Even if an airframe was built in a certain configuration, they could be and were modified/upgraded during their service life. Wingtips were changeable, Edgar posted here that it took 6 hours or so, IIRC, so it wasn't done often, but could be done if actually needed. an LF rated Merlin could easily be fitted into a standard IX, but would not necessarily be listed as such. IIRC some early Packard Merlins were listed as IX's. until for the sake of clarity and spares the XVI designation came in. Here's an interesting little discussion - http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234924385-spitfire-mk-ixe/ and - http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234911158-johnnie-johnsons-mk-392/ A more pragmatic approach would be to find a scheme you like, or find significant or representative, and get the specifics of that scheme. This may depend on how far you wish to go with searching out markings, or even if you wish to go down the route of getting masks made for codes. Eduard have done a pretty good job overall, but I'd not take their word as definitive. There are member's here whose word I would take as being as good an answer as you will get anywhere. So, asking general questions about certain time frames of airframes can only really give you a general answer. I'd be looking for a specific airframe(s), and then nailing down the details of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Pilot Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Troy I'm unable to reply to your email using the link provided by BM. I suspect the problem lies, yet again, with IE. Consequently I am, here, thanking you for the information provided which I know even now will be invaluable. I have seen it said of you, somewhere, that you "go the extra mile" to help fellow modellers. How right that is. Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 What could REALLY have made the Spitfire a lot faster, without military disadvantage, would have been a more P-51-like cooling arrangement. But given that the fundamentals of its design were laid down so much earlier than that of the Mustang, I can't see that as a failure by Mitchell (or indeed Joe Smith), working to a significantly earlier state of the art.The "Meredith effect" was known in 1935, when Meredith published his paper, "Note on the cooling of aircraft engines with special reference to ethylene glycol radiators enclosed in ducts," in which he said that he believed that, at speeds over 300 mph, a net thrust was possible, but trials were needed to ascertain this. It seems likely, looking at the design of the Spitfire radiator, that Mitchell took note of Meredith's work, and incorporated it. There is a school of thought that the Spitfire did achieve thrust, eventually, or, at best, was "drag neutral," but I haven't found any test reports on that score. Meredith used the same theory in his "Invention relating to the jet propulsion of aircraft," even earlier in 1935, for which D.D.S.R. reckoned that the Air Service could not find a use; did they ever get that one wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark12 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Edgar, I am pretty sure there was a report and I have a copy somewhere. It may take some finding. I think it was Farnborough. PeterA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 One significant thing that is sometimes forgotten is that the early models had a manual radiator shutter (door/flap/what have you). The radiator could perform best when thermostatic control was fitted on the Mk.IX (and presumably other variants at about the same time). bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoSheds Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Hi, I am about to start a Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire Mk IXc, and am reading the 'how to build' book by Brett Green, but there is a comment in the book that I need clarification on please...In 'Corrections and Deviations', section 13 he says: "The 20mm cannon barrels (part CC3 in step 64) are really only appropriate for the early Spitfire Mk IXc" but there appears to be no mention of what is appropriate for the later ones, or when the change occurs from 'early' to 'later'.It is my intention to build the kit option 'A' (J E Johnson, Kenley Wing) more or less straight from the box, so could you tell me: are the 20mm cannon barrels appropriate for that aircraft? And if not then what IS? Thanks in advance Roger The Noob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 It isn't easy trying to second-guess somebody's meaning from what they've written. He could simply mean that the parts are only appropriate for the IXc, and a shorter type would be needed for a IXe(which you're not doing, so we can safely ignore that.) There is a second possibility, which also won't apply to your model; during trials of the E wing layout, it was found that the blast from the .5" Browning was causing the tapered fairing, on the 20mm cannon, to collapse against the barrel. A strengthening piece was eventually fitted inside the fairing, which gave it a slightly barrel shape, and this became standard on both C & E wing cannons. The report on the trials didn't happen until early February 1944, and the initial reaction was to do nothing until damage was reported by squadrons in the field, so it's doubtful if Johnson's would have had the modification. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoSheds Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 It isn't easy trying to second-guess somebody's meaning from what they've written. What never occurred to me until you said that, is to attempt to contact him direct - I have googled him and (as probably everyone except me knows) he is the man at Hyperscale.com, so perhaps I'll see if I can get an answer there.. If I do I will report back Thanks for the reply Edgar. In the short time that I have been on this forum I must have read dozens of incredibly informative posts from you... Very much appreciated, sir! Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Brett Green is indeed contactable through Hyperscale. I did it myself a few years ago regarding a Pegasus Spitefule that he'd converted to a Seafang. Quite a nice bloke I thought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airgunner Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) I'm about to embark on Eduards 1/48 Mk IXc(early), building it as EN313 of 93 Sqn. The instructions call for the IFF wires running from fuselage to tail. Simple question, yes or no for an early Mk IX? Edited January 17, 2015 by Airgunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, at least until early 1943; according to the RAF, the IFF Mk.III (with the bar aerial under the starboard wing)started in January 1943, while Supermarine say March 1943. Anything before that should be the Mk.II, with wires. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airgunner Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, at least until early 1943; according to the RAF, the IFF Mk.III (with the bar aerial under the starboard wing)started in January 1943, while Supermarine say March 1943. Anything before that should be the Mk.II, with wires. Excellent thanks Edgar. It seems the a/c was delivered to MU on the 9th Jan 43 so one would assume fitted with the Mk II, but could the Mk.III be fitted before it was sent to Malta in March, or thereafter? My friends relative, who I'm building it for first flew it on 12th July, so just want to make sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 That raises the question of when the IFF Mk.III was standardised in the Mediterranean. A year earlier, tropicalized Spitfire Mk.Vs were fitted with an earlier standard of radio than UK-based ones. Does IFF Mk.III require modifications to the ground-based radars? Or was it simply a sand-alone bit of kit that would operate anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 This thread is becoming quite long so if I am repeating this question, please forgive me. I am working on the Tamiya Mk I. The spinner looks like a DH (pointy). The period of the model is 19 June 1940. If I am correct Rotal spinners were not converted to until after the 22nd as per the directive to DH tp go into the field and make changes. One photo show a sqn of Spits during the Bob with mixed spinners Have I understood all of this correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The change was from 2-position variable pitch DH props to constant speed DH props: the spinner shape was not changed. The Rotol-equipped aircraft were separate from this directive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 54 Squadron (Al Deere, Colin Gray & co) had Rotol Mk.Is from sometime early in the year. I believe that they still had some of these aircraft during the BofB, but that replacements would have had DH props. (Then Mk.IIs came in in late July/early August (I think- not checking) and they had Rotols, but not likely to have been mixed with Mk.Is by an operational squadron.) bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 OOPS - think I made a rookie error just put a decal on starboard wing (right) "walkway forward" it a MK 1 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 On a Mk.I it's a straight line on the right wing, no bit running fore/aft near the root. bob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 "Walkway forward" appears on both wings, on the line of the mainspar, and forward of the stencilled line; "walkway inboard" appears only on the inboard side of the line running fore-and-aft a step away from the cockpit door. Both should be readable from the aileron position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oops, I think I answered the wrong question! bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts