All The spitfire questions you want to ask here

[Max Headroom]

Thanks Edgar. Fascinating as always!

Trevor

[Navy Bird]

My question guys,just finishing early Mk1 (Airfix WZ-T) with the "pole" aerial most of the profiles and drawings show the usual wire running to

the top of the fin,maybe because of the quality,can,t see it on any of the photographs of the real aircraft taken at the time.Do I add it?

If I'm not too late, the pole in the new tool Airfix Mk.Ia/II is too tall. If you search through the Spitfire Site, you'll find the correct actual length, and then you can divide by 72 to get the length of the pole for the model. IIRC, I had to take a couple of mm off.

Cheers,

Bill

[SleeperService]

Hi All

Thanks for the help with my Brigade Models T9 questions above. I now have an instruction sheet via a friend of a friend who saw the thread (Thanks Allan) and the ICM MkIX on it's way from Poland.

There will be a WIP at some stage but I've just sold my house but for a little less than I'd hoped so am frantically packing as it is a cash sale

As my interweb access may be sporadic and I'm going to be sofa surfing for a while it will be quiet on the Sleeper front for a while.

[NORTHDUK]

On the subject of markings, does anyone know how wide the wing leading edge yellow stripes were? I have two references that say they were 4 inches wide but they appear much wider than that in photographs. In addition, did they taper towards the wing tips or were they parallel sided?

Gordon McLaughlin

[Edgar]

5-8-41 the instruction said 4", being 2" either side of the centre of the leading edge, from wingtip to halfway along the leading edge, with no mention of taper (unlike the Hurricane.)

Edgar

[NORTHDUK]

Edgar,

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm surprised that it's so narrow but the lack of taper should make it easier to apply.

Best wishes,

Gordon McLaughlin

[Test Graham]

It is intended to be seen from head on, and the Spitfire has a thin wing section, so it does make sense.

[mackem01]

Stuupid question number three from me.......................In the compartment behind the head armour plate and under the fixed canopy - is that where the IFF "black box" resided on the Mk.IX and did anything else live there?

[Edgar]

No, to the first part; the IFF was normally fitted in the top of the spine just aft of the radio proper; as it was fitted with a destructive explosive charge, which was detonated by the buttons on the starboard wall, or shock (i.e. crash) it's unlikely the pilot would have appreciated it being situated behind his headrest, armour-plated, or not.

Not much, to the second part; the harness passed through, on its way down to the quick-release fitting in the rear fuselage, and there was the voltage controller normally fitted on the back of the headrest. The oxygen bottle wasn't fitted there, any more, having been sent off down to the rear, probably to act as a partial counter-weight to the heavier 60-series Merlin. The twin compressed-air bottles remained on the port wall, and there were the control cables, to the elevators and rudder, running along the bottom of the "floor."

Edgar

[mackem01]

Cheers Edgar, just means a little less work to do. I was under the impression that there was something in there.

[Tartan11]

With ref to Post No165

Although I'm familiar with the Vickers drawing system I can't remember encountering "PMS", but it could stand for Preliminary Mod Sheet --- just a suggestion.

What an interesting thread. I've learned a lot about Spitfires. I'm amazed at the knowledge you guys have.

[Guest]

I have a question as to the attachment of the Sutton harness ultimately being attached to the radio mast. There were a few instances of pilots, one an FAA officer as I recall, that were killed when their aircraft flipped over onto it's back causing the mast to be shoved down and pulling the harness with it, thus choking the pilot and probably breaking the shoulder and collar bones too. Was that issue ever corrected in later model Spitfires?

Cheers

Edited February 10, 2014 by Spitfire addict

[gingerbob]

The accident I believe you're thinking of was to the prototype, and yes, it was changed as a result. That would have affected early-production Mk.Is.

bob

Edited February 10, 2014 by gingerbob

[Seahawk]

It's ever-so-slightly more complicated than that (surprise!)

The first airframe to get metal ailerons was Farnborough's R6718, and they reported favourably in November 1940.

266 Squadron was selected for trials by a serving unit, and had a set fitted to P9505; they also were very much in favour, and said so 21-1-41.

For some (bureaucratic?) reason things slowed down, the ailerons not being introduced, on the Mks. I & II until 17-7-41, under mod 319.

The RAF issued a general leaflet, 22-8-41, allowing units to replace the ailerons, themselves, but they must return the early version to the "contractor," and not do any work on tthem themselves.

As we know, from apocryphal stories, once word got out, pilots were jumping the queue, and going directly to Supermarine to get new items fitted, so it's really impossible to be hard-and-fast about which Marks and serial nos benefitted first.

Edgar

From Spitfire into War by Sandy Johnstone:

Jeffrey Quill visited 602 Sq at Tangmere on 19/11/40 with a Spitfire with metal ailerons (p.162);

602 wrote off its first Spitfire with metal ailerons (LO-J, no serial quoted) on 23/11/40. It was one of the few on the squadron that had them. (P.166)

[P.o Prune]

This is probably one for Edgar :-)

I'm just wondering if there was any reason for the somewhat unusual design of the "joystick" in the Spitfire?

All other fighters had a "stick" in the floor and that was that. But the Spit had this split thing with the chain connection to the ailerons...

To me it seems more vulnarable...

[Edgar]

I don't know the reason (has to be harking right back to Mitchell's original idea,) but the movement of only the top part would ensure nothing on the cockpit walls would get in the way of the full travel (on the Seafire 47, with the introduction of the bomb selection panel on the port wall, the grip took on a vertical-half-moon shape, in order to miss it) the amount of physical movement for the pilot would be less, and, if the amount of travel of the cables needed adjustment, new gears, with different numbers of teeth, would probably suffice.

Edgar

Edited February 11, 2014 by Edgar

[Daniel Cox]

Hi P.o Prune,

The chain and sprocket feature wasn't unique to the Spitfire, for example it could also be found on the Hawker Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest and even the De Havilland Mosquito.

Here is an example of this feature as found in a Hawker Hurricane.

SA Kuva

Cheers,

Daniel.

[gingerbob]

The reason was to not have to make room for the swing of the stick at the pilot's legs - by hingeing it higher, the cockpit could be kept narrower. The same arrangement was used on the Type 224, and as a bit of trivia, the part number for the chain remained 224__ right through the series, and possibly even on the Spiteful- I don't remember for certain.

bob

Edited February 11, 2014 by gingerbob

[gingerbob]

From Spitfire into War by Sandy Johnstone:

Jeffrey Quill visited 602 Sq at Tangmere on 19/11/40 with a Spitfire with metal ailerons (p.162);

602 wrote off its first Spitfire with metal ailerons (LO-J, no serial quoted) on 23/11/40. It was one of the few on the squadron that had them. (P.166)

I don't have Johnstone's book, or if I do it is packed in a box somewhere, but this (latter) must be an error. Quill brought X4268 on the 19th, which was fitted with the ONE pair of metal-skinned ailerons, first flown on R6718 on 7 November. [This was on charge of Supermarine at the time- Quill allowed a couple of RAE pilots to fly it- see p.182 of "Spitfire -A Test Pilot's Story" (my edition- chapter "Aileron Problems")] The ailerons were changed to another aircraft in order to check that they still behaved the same way on it, and X4268 had already been testing various modifications to try to improve aileron control. As of 13 Nov Smith was saying that they were preparing a second set of ailerons.

On 24 Dec Smith wrote to DTD proposing to fit metal ailerons to P9505, which had been sent in as a 'rogue' by 266 Sqn, "...with a view to getting some early Service experience with the new type of aileron." He went on to say that these would be the first modified pair, and "The second pair which we modified we are of course retaining for our own use." Serby's reply of same date agrees that metal covered ailerons can go to a Fighter Unit for test provided Boscombe Down check in flight and approve. The subsequent report from the OC 266 Sqn (5 Jan) says that the aircraft returned to them on 27 Dec.

A comment on 4 Feb said that 20 sets were being made up and would be sent out to squadrons. This apparently refers to the "production" type, while a memo of 30 Dec had said "I shall let you know immediately metal covered ailerons are available for fitment to machines from operational units." It went on to propose having ailerons modified at 4 repair units (Exeter, Cowley, Hamble, and Prestwick), and said that this had to be done at the units, not by squadrons. This seems to suggest re-skinning of existing fabric-covered ailerons. [Edit: plans seem to have changed- see below]

Finally, a 27 June memo says "now that sharp-edged metal ailerons had been in production for some time..." and another of 28 June, from the Overseer at Supermarine, says "For the last two months all production aircraft have been fitted with metal covered ailerons." This, however, refers to Supermarine production only. It also gives a table of aileron spares for retro-fitting, with supply seeming to have begun in early May. A 9 August memo confirms all Supermarine production with metal ailerons, and says "most Castle Bromwich, and will be on those delivered by Westland." (Westland delivery of Spitfires began, slowly, in July '41, with a small number of Mk.Is.) This memo also says that conversion of fabric ailerons can only be done by Supermarine, which is different from the intent of the previous paragraph.

Getting correct aileron trim was a bit tricky, and the metal ailerons didn't really change that, though they did tend to remain in trim regardless of airspeed, whereas the fabric ones didn't always. Perhaps this was a reason that Supermarine wanted the repair units doing the installation of metal ailerons, since it required an experienced test pilot and people who treated the ailerons with the appropriate care.

Sorry, didn't mean to go on at such length, but I thought this could shed some light on the arrival of metal ailerons. The intention was for Mk.Vs to have them (approximately 90 Va/Vb were originally delivered with fabric ones), the IILRs also required them, and some Mk.I/II were also retro-fitted, though these had not been intended to get priority.

bob

[Fernando]

Hi, all,

I have always thought of the Seafire XV as a kind of a navalized Spit XII.

I have also seen in a reference linked in a thread around here as stating that Seafires had the "c" or "universal" tyoe of wing with multiple armament options. TMK, though Seafire II and IIIs armament could be described as "c"-type, the wing didn't allowed for armament options, RNhaving relinquished this to save weight.

Fernando

Edited February 17, 2014 by Fernando

[Adam Maas]

Hi, all,

I have always thought of the Seafire XV as a kind of a navalized Spit XII.

I have also seen in a reference linked in a thread around here as stating that Seafires had the "c" or "universal" tyoe of wing with multiple armament options. TMK, though Seafire II and IIIs armament could be described as "c"-type, the wing didn't allowed for armament options, RNhaving relinquished this to save weight.

Fernando

The II/III/XV wing certainly was a C type wing, although modified for Naval use. There's a lot more to the C wing than just the armament fit, and the Seafires had the other aspects (undercarriage installation and structural changes). Note that some IXc's had the same basic single-cannon installation as the Seafires.

The XV wasn't a Navalized XII, it was a Griffon-engined Seafire III with certain Spitfire VIII features added (including the Radiator setup and the late VIII/IX pointed rudder).

Edited February 19, 2014 by Adam Maas

[Max Headroom]

If memory serves, it was the outer gun port station used on the XV because of the path of the wing fold.

Trevor

[Fernando]

Hi, Adam,

I said "I thought of", not that officially is.

However, if you re-read the "recipe" you provide (replacing "Spitfire Vc" for "Seafire III") what you obtain is a Spitfire XII!

In concrete, a Seafire III IS a Spitfire Vc (the basis for the XII), plus navalization; the VIII enlarged rudder was used in the XII (even allowing the over-enlarged trim tab typical of the latter and the Seafire XV -and of course "stinger-tails" had a "further enlarged" rudder similar to that of the Spit XVIII); the radiator set up was not the twin radiator installation found on Spit VIII/IX, but rather one was a radiator, and the other an enlarged oil cooler, it looks like twin radiators, but it is not. And, of course, they share, uniquely, the "short" Griffon installation.So, IMHO, the nearest way to get a Seafire XV (even in modelling terms) is a Spit XII.

David Brown, in "The Seafire: The Spitfire that went to sea", page 24, clearly states "The basis of the Seafire IV was therefore to be the Spitfire XII..." (Seafire IV was the denomination first considered for the XV)

Of course, nothing is so clear in things Spitfire and some paragraphs below he says: "To the Spitfire VB-based fuselage and the LIII folding wings were added the enlarged fin and rudder of the Spitfire VIII, with that Mark's retractable tail-wheel, wing-root fuel tanks from the Spitfire IX, the Spitfire XII's engine installation and auxiliaries, but with a solely naval Griffon variant". Leaving aside the LIII wings as a natural consequence of navalization, and that the enlarged fin and rudder and retractable tail wheel were also present in the XII, the lineage from this variant is the strongest.

Max; the outer gun station (I guess you refer to the two inner ones) was not used in any folding Seafire wing; it was always the inner. The outer in fact was deleted (the provision for actually installing a gun in it, that is)

Fernando

Edited February 19, 2014 by Fernando

[Max Headroom]

Fernando I stand corrected,

Memo to self - never make sweeping statements unless I have my references to hand (I didn't)

Trevor

[Edgar]

Before this goes too far, perhaps I should point out that the XII had an enlarged rudder, but did not have an enlarged fin; its area of 4.61 sq.ft. was identical to that of the I, V, VIII & IX. The enlarged fin was fitted to the XIV, and it initially had a removable wooden 2" top section. probably for the planned contra-props (which never happened, so the fin reverted to all-metal.)
Also the "Mk.VIII" rudder was not fitted to the XII, it was the other way round; the enlarged-chord rudder was always referred to as the "Mk.XII rudder," and its trim tab remained the same size.
There was an even larger-chord rudder fitted to the bubble-canopy XIV & XVIII, which had different styles of trim tab, and a deeper horn when used with a contra-prop.

There was a (sort-of) tie-in between the XII & Seafire XV, since there were tentative plans to convert the former into the latter, but that came to nothing.
Edgar