Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[PhantomBigStu]

Thanks @Work In Progress and @Graham Boak further research has shown that the pic is not of mv268 and no photos of it have surfaced. So i will go with it as clipped, and if it’s wrong I can just say it’s a model of the modern G-SPIT  

[Graham Boak]

Thanks.  The comment from the Yugoslavs with their Mk.Vs was that the rocket-firing Hurricanes did not have to get so close at weapon release so suffered less from flak.  I don't think that they considered them otherwise preferable.  Unfortunately there is no equivalent Yugoslavian Hurricanes book.  What is available seems to feature their earlier Mk.Is.

 

The Mk.VIII had a 90 gallon fuselage tank rather than a 75 gallon, which apparently was unpopular with the ground crew because it was more difficult to replace.  It also had 23 gallons (total) in the two wing root leading edge tanks, so an extra 38 gallons total, or 50% extra.  I've not seen any comments on it suffering from the additional weight, maybe they were not always filled?  If anything, most pilots seem to have preferred the Mk.VIII but it isn't terribly clear quite why.  (So do I but that's no guide to anyone else!  Although Jeffery Quill  has also said that, and he should know.)

[Seahawk]

52 minutes ago, KevinK said:

I agree that rockets would have been useful, but the only aircraft in the theatre cleared to use rockets in 1944/45 were Hurricanes and Beaufighters. 

A bit off-topic but there are an interesting few photos in Chris Shores' earlier (1973) edition of Pictorial history of the Mediterranean Air War Vol Two showing Mustang IIIs of 260 Sq, 239 Wing, fitted with rocket rails.  Interestingly they are 2 double rails (think Airfix Beaufighter TF.10 kit) per side and Chris reckoned that one photo showed the rails mounted on their side.  But that was not until early 1945.

 

The book has no page or plate numbers in the photo section but there are 3 photos in the last dozen or so pages.  (Right next to the photos of 73 Sq Spitfire IXs with underwing 250lb bombs!)

[KevinK]

6 hours ago, Seahawk said:

A bit off-topic but there are an interesting few photos in Chris Shores' earlier (1973) edition of Pictorial history of the Mediterranean Air War Vol Two showing Mustang IIIs of 260 Sq, 239 Wing, fitted with rocket rails.  Interestingly they are 2 double rails (think Airfix Beaufighter TF.10 kit) per side and Chris reckoned that one photo showed the rails mounted on their side.  But that was not until early 1945.

Yes, and there were Spitfires of 73 Sqn which were fitted with rockets, too, for a short time! That was why I said "cleared" to use rockets.

 

In Dec 1944 there was a communist uprising in recently-liberated Greece and 73 Sqn was detached from Yugoslavia to provide (very) close air support to the British Army. Rockets were available and were believed to be the best weapon for the targets involved. The squadron engineering officer fitted the available (possibly ex-Beaufighter?) rocket rails and missions were flown from Athens airport with rockets being fired almost downwind, in the circuit

as the fighting perimeter tightened.

 

All this was done by local squadron initiative: there was no A&AEE clearance of the Spitfire to fire rockets at this time - not that the aircraft had a problem, but there had not been an operational need. Consequently, when 73 Sqn rejoined 253 and 6 Sqns in 281 Wing, the local mod to fire rockets was removed.

 

It may be that 260 Sqn's Mustangs had the same sort of history. It will be interesting to read the relevant (next?) volume of Chris Shores' current mighty Mediterranean Air War history when it is published.

 

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The Mk.VIII had a 90 gallon fuselage tank rather than a 75 gallon, which apparently was unpopular with the ground crew because it was more difficult to replace.  It also had 23 gallons (total) in the two wing root leading edge tanks, so an extra 38 gallons total, or 50% extra.  I've not seen any comments on it suffering from the additional weight, maybe they were not always filled?  If anything, most pilots seem to have preferred the Mk.VIII but it isn't terribly clear quite why.  (So do I but that's no guide to anyone else!  Although Jeffery Quill  has also said that, and he should know.)

When a Mk VIII was used, the wing tanks were always filled: no reason not to, given the available performance. Operationally, the Spitfire burned about 50 gal/hr, so the net result was an additional 40 min or so of fuel.

 

My Dad said the same thing as Quill about preferring the Mk VIII to the IX. He said that it was a little better all around - more fuel, slightly faster, numerous improvements such as the revised wing - but the main difference was the build quality, the Mk VIIIs being Supermarine-built rather than Castle Bromwich.

 

I think that it's an indefinable thing unless you've flown them both!

 

For completeness - I once asked my Dad which Mark of Spitfire he preferred, having flown the Mk I, V, VIII, IX and 22: he said that for pure flying, he would take the Mk V with a Merlin 55, but as a fighting aeroplane he preferred the Mk VIII with a Merlin 66.

[Ray_W]

Does anyone have an image of the attachment of the pneumatic brake hose to the brake hub? Was it in the same position on all Spitfire models? In particular, when a trailing torque link would interfere with connection?  In this case, the piping comes down the rear of the undercarriage leg (as normal), then half-way down goes to the front around the back of the leg before dropping down ending in a flexible hose that disappears behind the wheel. What's going on?   

 

Thanks in advance,

Ray

[72modeler]

7 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Does anyone have an image of the attachment of the pneumatic brake hose to the brake hub? Was it in the same position on all Spitfire models? In particular, when a trailing torque link would interfere with connection?  In this case, the piping comes down the rear of the undercarriage leg (as normal), then half-way down goes to the front around the back of the leg before dropping down ending in a flexible hose that disappears behind the wheel. What's going on?   

 

Thanks in advance,

Ray

Do these images help?

Mike

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Supermarine+Spitfire+brake+hub&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAwsq666TpAhVMaq0KHQGWAC0Q_AUoAnoECBAQBA&biw=1280&bih=654#imgrc=gjlh4kE3D12ssM

[Ray_W]

38 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Do these images help?

Hi Mike,

I've been hunting through images on a similar search looking for that bottom brake hose connection and could not find it. It also twigged my interest in terms of how the brake hub mechanism actually operated. As we know it was pneumatic, operated from the pilot's spade grip.  What's happening in that wheel hub? I'll keep hunting. Thanks for your help.

Ray

[303sqn]

Try the Key publications forum.

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation

[Ray_W]

9 hours ago, 303sqn said:

Try the Key publications forum.

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

I found what I wanted in Monforton's book on the Mk IX and XVI. The brake air hose attachment is angled into the rear of the brake hub. The brake pads are then extended using an airbag/bladder within the hub. What I then expect is that with a rear torque link, the axle housing is swapped from port gear leg to starboard and vice versa positioning the link at the rear and the air hose attachment then moves to the front.  This now makes sense looking at the tortuous path followed by the piping on the a rear link gear leg.

 

An additional observation, the gear leg brake pneumatic piping appears to be at most 1/4" diameter (6.35 mm). Equivalent to 5 thou (0.13 mm) in 1/48. Very fine.

 

I'll go with this on the current build.

 

Ray

[Max Headroom]

I found this on The Spitfire Site

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2013/10/oakey-spitfires-quest-to-discover-mint-condition-buried-spitfires-goes-on.html

 

Ignoring the buried Spitfire trope, what is it with the roundel of the nearest aircraft? Is that sun bleaching, or was this some weird one-off marking?
 

Trevor

[303sqn]

The red has been painted over with white, normal practice in the Far East.

[Magpie22]

10 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

I found this on The Spitfire Site

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2013/10/oakey-spitfires-quest-to-discover-mint-condition-buried-spitfires-goes-on.html

 

Ignoring the buried Spitfire trope, what is it with the roundel of the nearest aircraft? Is that sun bleaching, or was this some weird one-off marking?
 

Trevor

 

10 hours ago, 303sqn said:

The red has been painted over with white, normal practice in the Far East.

"Far East"?? The RAAF had their own practices, not those of the RAF in the Far East.

 

A58-427, (LV652), was received from the UK finished in 'desert camouflage', and carrying full RAF roundels and fin flash. After arrival she was repainted in the RAAF colours of Foliage Green over Sky Blue. The roundels and fin flash were modified to meet RAAF standard. On the fuselage roundel. the resd was overpainted with white, the yellow outer ring with camouflage, and the width of the blue and white adjusted to meet RAAF specifications. In the referenced photo of her in the knacker's yard at Oakey, several years after the war, the white paint is falling away from the roundel revealing the original red circle. If you look at the fin flash you can see that only the red has been overpiant leaving a flash where the white section is of greater width than the blue.

 

Below is a photo of A58-427 when in service with No. 452 Sqn, circa May/June 1945. You can clearly see the form the fuselage roundel took when she was operational.

 

There is an error in the caption with the photo on the Spitfire Site. A58-427 was not Coded QY-D befroe becoming QY-X. After being received by the squadron in March 1945, she was coded QY-O for a time, until she was recoded QY-X. A58-518, ex CR-C, became QY-O at that time. Squadron Leader Birch's aircraft, from December 1944, was A58-500, QY-D. It was replaced by A58-636, QY-D, in May 1945. After Birch left the squadron at the end of May, A58-636 was flown by his successor, Squadron Leader Barclay.

 

Peter M

 

[Ray_W]

@Magpie22

 

Peter,

That photo is also great for another reason, not related to the current discussion. It's a good image for RAAF gun patch and cannon muzzle "condom" colours. 

Ray

[Magpie22]

6 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

@Magpie22

 

Peter,

That photo is also great for another reason, not related to the current discussion. It's a good image for RAAF gun patch and cannon muzzle "condom" colours. 

Ray

Yes and no. This is the full shot. QY-S, in the foreground, does not appear to have the red patches over the mg's, but does have one over the gun camera port in the wing root. I have other shots that show light coloured patches. so one cannot infer any standard practice.

Peter M

 

[Ray_W]

11 minutes ago, Magpie22 said:

Yes and no. This is the full shot. QY-S, in the foreground, does not appear to have the red patches over the mg's, but does have one over the gun camera port in the wing root. I have other shots that show light coloured patches. so one cannot infer any standard practice.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the clarification. Yes I agree to the lack of an applied standard having seen images of the light colour patches and a variety of solutions. Notwithstanding, your colour images are extremely valuable in developing an understanding of what was actually going on and improving the interpretation of B/W photos. 

Ray

[Bugle07]

Evening All, I'm looking for help with the codes and/or serial of John Mungo Parks MkI Spitfire from the Battle of Britain period with 74 squadron. 

 

I've been unable to find any info or pictures online so far, (precious few pics of any 74 sq plane from that period) Christopher Shores Aces High has no info against his name for that period either.

 

I know he was shot down in ZP E, in 1941(different Mk and plane I know), would he have been flying with that code the year before?

 

Any help greatly appreciated as the codes ZP E are my wife's initials and it may mean I can get away with buying the new Tamiya 1/48 Mk I without getting 'the look' ....

 

Geoff 

[gingerbob]

Having a quick look at August '40, R6772 seems to be a preferred aircraft.  (No codes are given.)

[Max Headroom]

It’s Saturday and I’m aimlessly googling through the IWM photo archive and I came across this oddity

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205371218

 

I’m concentrating on the machine in front. A shark mouth, three lots of nose decoration and ‘M236’ hand painted on the nose. This would be an interesting scheme for the new Airfix Vc. I’m assuming it’s the right sub mark because the serial on the other machine looks like JG89*. Is there any more info out there on this example?

 

Trevor

[Graham Boak]

I suggest that the photo belongs in the Mediterranean, when the Mk.Vs of the 31st were handed over to the French.  So it may be possible to reduce the possibilities to a few dozen.   Not a lot of  help, I'm afraid.

[303sqn]

Location looks like La Senia, Algeria. Vc ER180, MX/P had shark mouth marking but it is not the same aircraft as in the photo. ER180's shark mouth is slightly different and the eyes are  just in front of the exhausts.

[Magpie22]

Note the squadron emblem on the engine cowling. I believe that the 2nd FS of 52nd FG, called itself 'The American Beagle Squadron'. They flew Spitfire VC aircraft from North Africa and Corsica. In April 1944 they converted to P-51B. 

Now to find a pilot with 2 1/2 vics at that time. 🧐

Peter M

[Hornet133]

Easy one, Richard Alexander (eventually 5 vics).   Photo turns up on a regular basis.

 

Attached under fair use provisions is the profile of this airframe from P.204 of the 52 FG history 'Spitfires & Yellow Tail Mustangs' (authors Tom Ivie and Paul Ludwig) Stackpole paperback edition.

 

Great book, highly recommended.

 

 

 

[Magpie22]

Ah, should have known that you would have the answer, Hornet!!

Peter M

[Max Headroom]

Thanks everyone!

 

Any clues as to what ‘M236’ means?

 

Trevor

[Hornet133]

Max Headroom - if these airframes are in the process of being transferred to the French as suggested, it is probably just an inventory reference applied by the RSU (whatever) where they appear to be stored.