Super Aereo Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 A question that came out while discussing ICBAF Spitfires on Facebook: was there a local modification in the Mediterranean theatre to enable Spitfire Mk.V with the b wing to carry bombs under their wings or was it a factory kit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramedic Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I was under the impression that it was a field mod (on Malta?) on te b´s. Vc´s got it from the factory (could?) but not b´s.. I will check my references when I get home but I suspect someone else will be faster..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 2, 2014 Author Share Posted September 2, 2014 I knew the modification was common on the c wing, but I suddenly realised that I am quite ignorant about whether it could be used on the b wing or not and it is doing my brain in while I am stuck in the office... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramedic Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Yeah, damn, forgot this last night - and no one else has corrcted me yet? Cannot remember as well if Vb´s actually did use it.. Too bad Edgar is not around here anymore.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 3, 2014 Author Share Posted September 3, 2014 In Malta it was a modification using the empty inner cannon bay on the "c" wing, it would seem - I am not sure bombs carriers were ever used with the "b", nor whether the structure of the "b" wing could actually sustain the stress of carrying 2 x 250lbs, but I have had very little time to browse through the usual references: hopefully I'll be able to do that tonight. Edgar not around? What happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmeyer Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I checked Edgar's profile and under Topics I've Started, he left a post stating he was done. Too many personal attacks on him for information he provided that apparently didn't fit others' ideas of how things were. So, he said he's done. Very sad; I enjoyed his information and knowledge a lot . Tom 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramedic Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Yepp, it is a huge loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) Very sad if he leaves for good. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but the man has done more original research on primary sources by himself than a lot of internet gurus put together... I really hope he reconsiders his decision. Edited September 4, 2014 by Super Aereo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 Anyhow, my doubts arise from the fact that although the b wing was theoretically not stressed to carry ordnance, some photographic evidence points to the opposite direction: Does anyone have any info about this..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 No, it didn't exist- that's just an optical illusion I really don't know about this, so I'll have to poke around, and meanwhile hope someone else has already looked into it. Thanks for the pictures! bob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesa Jussila Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Can this be some kind of test plane? There have been time to take good pictures and if you are preparing plane ad-hoc for not designed usage I assume photo evidence is not first priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 8, 2014 Author Share Posted September 8, 2014 I don't think it was a test plane or a one-off: there are images of what appear to be the same installation on at least one Spitfire of the Co-Belligerent Regia Aeronautica and possibly on one of more of the NOVJ, both operating under the Balkan Air Force. I was going to do more research at the weekend but SWMBO had different ideas.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWFK10 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) "Spitfire: the History" says that "the Spit-bomber, a sub variant of the Mk Vc, was introduced by Keith Park when he was CinC Malta" and quotes a letter he wrote to the Air Ministry in Dec 42 urging the production of mod kits. There are some diagrams in the Mk V chapter showing the carriage both of 2 x 250 lb bombs under the wings, as in the photos, and (from the AP, by the look of it) of a 500 lb bomb on a carrier under the fuselage, but I can't see any more about it in the text. However, Brian Gull's "Spitfires Over Malta" identifies EP201 as the first aircraft modified to carry 2 x 250 lb bombs on wing racks, and this was a Mk Vb. Two other serials quoted are Vcs. The prototype rack, at least, used "a steel rib which protrudes less than one inch from the wing" and was the only component of the carrier that stayed attached to the aircraft when the bomb was released. A Beaufighter bomb rack, presumably a different installation, was also used. "It operated by pulling a piece of string in the cockpit, which pulled out two pins holding the bomb in the rack"! Edited September 8, 2014 by AWFK10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 8, 2014 Author Share Posted September 8, 2014 Huge thank you. I had consulted "Spitfire:The History", but I didn't think about Cull's book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) The caption to the main photo says that it's 452 Squadron, but there's something not right about it; 452 ceased operations in March 1942, in preparation for sailing to Australia as one of three reinforcement squadrons (where they used the Vc.) The order, for the "C1" roundels on the fuselage of day fighters, wasn't made until 30-4-42, and, also, the aircraft doesn't have a Sky spinner. I also have grave doubts about the airfield, which has a background looking remarkably like that at Ta Q'ali; even if that isn't Malta, Kenley and Andreas (452's last two U.K. airfields) were grass, and not built on white sand. The conversion kits that Park required were not bomber conversions, but "de-tropicalising" sets, to get the V back to a position where it could face the 109G, since it was struggling against it, while still carrying the Vokes filter. The photo isn't clear enough to be sure, but there seems to be a chance that it's a Vc, not Vb, since the cannon fairing, on the Vb, had a strengthening plate around it on the wing's leading edge, and I can't see it. Park, in his report on how they'd cobbled together their conversions, said that they favoured the Vc, because they could move the cannon out, to the outer position, and use the inner bay for the bomb-carrying mechanism; the bombs had no sway braces, since they just used rods, which went into slots cut in the wing and holes partly drilled into the bomb casing. When released, the rods went with the bombs leaving a virtually clean wing. Park also said that they had problems with this idea, due to a wing modification, in which the outer cannon mounting, in the wing l/edge, had been cut off (Supermarine mod 820.) This gives rise to the intriguing question as to whether all the "Vbs" sent to Malta were actually Vb, or misidentified, modified, Vc, especially since Malta were promised, in May 1942, that, henceforth, they would only get the Vc. The Air Ministry didn't like Malta's mod, and asked Supermarine to come up with something different, but "an interim scheme for bomb-carrying" didn't appear before May 1944. P.S. the second photo is printed back-to-front (unless it had the oil cooler under the starboard wing.) Edited September 11, 2014 by Edgar 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramedic Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Nice to see you here again Edgar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Misidentifying some Mk.Vc as Mk.Vb from photographs is certainly likely, but would this have applied to the aircraft record cards? There were many tropicalized Mk.Vb sent to the ME, and they can also be identified (OK, some of them, given a photo at the right angle) by the more upright undercarriage. One such is EP257, shown on Malta in Spitfire the History p213. If we are to believe the established records, deliveries before Operation Insect appear to have been entirely Mk.Vc, but the following ones almost entirely Mk.Vb. However, the long-range aircraft flown directly from Gibraltar were Mk.Vc, despite some mis-captioning. The comment about the bomb mounting being inboard is interesting given the number of photos of aircraft from Operation Calendar and Bowery with the cannon in the outboard position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) The photo isn't clear enough to be sure, but there seems to be a chance that it's a Vc, not Vb Welcome back, Edgar. This one's definitely [oops, probably shouldn't use that word...] a 'b'- I think in the first photo I can see a bit of the plate around the cannon port, and compare the gear angle to Troy's side-views. A possible explanation of later delivery of Vbs is that as Supermarine was going out of production of the Vc in around August '42, Castle Brom was only just getting started on Vcs. Westland made the switch in about June, but their volumes were lower. However, I haven't studied this in detail, so this is just thrown out there in case it is relevant. bob p.s. I noticed the 452 reference, too, and also questioned its accuracy. Edited September 11, 2014 by gingerbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivor Ramsden Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Welcome back Edgar. With my pedantic hat on I'd like to mention a couple of points about 452 Squadron and RAF Andreas - largely irrelevant to the topic but just to set the record straight. First, 452 were active at Andreas until May 1942, flying their last defensive patrol on the 23rd and second, Andreas had tarmac runways, not grass. None of our photos of 452's Spitfires show "C1" type roundels but that's not to say they weren't applied in the Squadron's final days at Andreas. All of our photos show Sky spinners and fuselage bands. We've got no record of their aircraft being fitted for bombs, nor does the ORB include any reference to bombs so I'm certain that the 452 reference is wrong. Maybe it was taken in Australia but I'm sure it's not a 452 Sqn aircraft in the British Isles. The big photo's background is indistinct but I'm certain that it is not Andreas. It looks much warmer than the Isle of Man but to me it doesn't look like Ta Qali either. Can anybody confirm the origin of the photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Look at the tail under the Spit's belly- that might be a clue by type and colour. I tried, but couldn't see it clearly enough to have the lightbulb come on. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Nice to see you here again Edgar! Let's just say I missed my friends. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie22 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Missed you Edgar. Good to have you back! Edited April 26, 2015 by Magpie22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) The caption to the main photo says that it's 452 Squadron, but there's something not right about it; 452 ceased operations in March 1942, in preparation for sailing to Australia as one of three reinforcement squadrons (where they used the Vc.) The order, for the "C1" roundels on the fuselage of day fighters, wasn't made until 30-4-42, and, also, the aircraft doesn't have a Sky spinner. I also have grave doubts about the airfield, which has a background looking remarkably like that at Ta Q'ali; even if that isn't Malta, Kenley and Andreas (452's last two U.K. airfields) were grass, and not built on white sand. The conversion kits that Park required were not bomber conversions, but "de-tropicalising" sets, to get the V back to a position where it could face the 109G, since it was struggling against it, while still carrying the Vokes filter. The photo isn't clear enough to be sure, but there seems to be a chance that it's a Vc, not Vb, since the cannon fairing, on the Vb, had a strengthening plate around it on the wing's leading edge, and I can't see it. Park, in his report on how they'd cobbled together their conversions, said that they favoured the Vc, because they could move the cannon out, to the outer position, and use the inner bay for the bomb-carrying mechanism; the bombs had no sway braces, since they just used rods, which went into slots cut in the wing and holes partly drilled into the bomb casing. When released, the rods went with the bombs leaving a virtually clean wing. Park also said that they had problems with this idea, due to a wing modification, in which the outer cannon mounting, in the wing l/edge, had been cut off (Supermarine mod 820.) This gives rise to the intriguing question as to whether all the "Vbs" sent to Malta were actually Vb, or misidentified, modified, Vc, especially since Malta were promised, in May 1942, that, henceforth, they would only get the Vc. The Air Ministry didn't like Malta's mod, and asked Supermarine to come up with something different, but "an interim scheme for bomb-carrying" didn't appear before May 1944. P.S. the second photo is printed back-to-front (unless it had the oil cooler under the starboard wing.) Fantastic to see you back Edgar! Part of my perplexity arises from the fact that, according to G. F. Wallace in "Guns Of The R.A.F.", the 20mm Hispano cannons only used muzzle brakes with the 60-round magazine, since the use of the 120-round belt feed of the c-type wing required their removal to have enough recoil energy to actuate the feeding mechanism itself. Because of this I believe that the presence of the muzzle brake could be a good identifier for the b-wing. Kind regards, Flavio PS: edited to correct a minor grammar error on my part. I am a bit OCD that way... Edited September 12, 2014 by Super Aereo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 15, 2014 Author Share Posted September 15, 2014 Sorry to bump this but: does anyone have any info contradicting or adding to what related by G. F. Wallace, i.e. that Hispanos fitted with the muzzle brake could only be used with the 60-round drum magazine (i.e. in the b-wing)..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted September 19, 2014 Author Share Posted September 19, 2014 Last bump before I give up: has anyone got any info on this installation which appears to be on a Mk.Vb? Unless some hybrid version of b/c wing existed in which drum-fed cannons were used. Any help welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now