Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Chuck1945]

3 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

We know this is after 13 April 1945 though. Before then it was a Luftwaffe airfield

That does remove at least some of the ambiguity wrt date 🙃

[JackG]

Yes, the date undoubtedly bounces Walz out of the picture, as he became a pow on Feb. 24th.  I've looked through at the operational serials further on in the diaries, and only one IX is listed in March.   In April there might have been one (same one?), but it could just be a smudge in the margin - difficult to see with the watermark over top.   As it is, the reproduction quality is so blurry, can't read the serial - page nine form this link:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D8405113

 

 

regards,

 Jack

 

 

[Crimea River]

Hi Jack. Try this link for 443 Squadron ORBs. The link starts at March 45: https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c12320/1396?r=0&s=1

 

Andy

 

PS: No Spit IXs shown for April.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Crimea River

[JackG]

Andy, thank you for the Heritage Canada link, much easier on the eyes.  Found the exact page I had last posted as a screen capture, and the questioned smudge was a lone number '8'.  Agreed,  no Mk IX's on the roster for April '45, and the lone one listed in the previous month of March can easily be read as MK392.   Cross referencing the serial with the Spitfire production page, and again it does not quite match the entire time frame:

MK392 LFIXCBAFM668MU 12-2-44 441S 13-3-44 443S  27-7-44 403S 23-11-44 416S 11-1-45 401S Engine caught fire on take-off hit pole on approach and crashlanded Wunstorf CE 20-4-45

 

Is it possible IWM incorrectly captioned the photo?  

 

 

regards,

Jack

[gingerbob]

Note that the Spit on the left in that photo has a serial, if anybody can play with the image enough to make it (or part of it) out... or has someone already done that and I didn't catch on?  (I just gave it a go, and the best I can make out is a rounded top that suggests (but isn't necessarily) a 9. [Edit: actually now I'm thinking a 2 is more likely.] To its left is a line that might possibly be a 1, but I really don't have confidence in that, and I certainly can't make out enough to suggest a matching [sic] serial.)

Edited November 21, 2020 by gingerbob

[gingerbob]

On 11/12/2020 at 7:45 PM, Orso said:

I have the Airfix 1/72 scale Spitfire Mk.22 kit but I would like to build it as a Mk.24.

 

I looked at the instructions of the Airfix 1/48 kit and noticed that one need to drill out a hole in the bottom of the fuselage and add a clear part.
The kit has also different guns for the 22 and 24 but that seems to be it when it comes to the 1/48 kit.

 

I tried to go through the two large Spitfire threads and my conclusion came to this:
The propeller in the kit is to small (like a Mk.XIV) but looking at my XIV from Sword it seems to be to large so I'm thinking of a swap between them.
I saw a note that the Airfix guns are to short for a Mk.22 and more right for a Mk.24. If that is so, it is one thing less to fix.
What about the hole drilling of the hull? Is that something needed for a Mk.24? If so, wher is it positionet and what size should it be?

Is that what is needed to build a Mk.24?

 

I wanted to reply to this so it didn't get lost- already two pages back.

 

1) I've got a vague thought that a radio hatch changed position between 22s and "built-as" 24s (some 22s were brought up to 24 standard, so they may differ).

2) I've got a slightly less vague memory that I just recently saw a comment that the belly clear part is actually only on Seafires, and Airfix made a mistake with the Spit instructions.  (EDIT: see this thread)

3) Yes, two different Hispanos (II vs V)- as always, best to choose a subject you've got a photo of, because I don't think it is quite as simple as "22: long, 24: short", though that is the generalized answer- perhaps it goes back to that "built as" question.

4) The 24, I think, had the aft fuselage fuel tank (thus a filler spout under the hood), while the 22 did not?

5) Prop diameter is, if I remember right, 11'.  I know there's been a lot of discussion about this, but I don't remember the details.

 

There, that at least gives you some leads to check up on- or to remind me to!

 

bob

 

(Edit: p.s. This build thread (not Airfix) at least supports my vague idea about the hatch and the guns.)

Edited November 21, 2020 by gingerbob

[Graham Boak]

One of the conversion sets available comes with a template to scribe the moved hatch.  (Possibly this goes back to the Airkit Mk.22 complete kit.)

 The Airfix prop is the same size as for the Mk.XIV and too small for the Mk.22/24.  See Freightdog for a replacement.

The Freightdog conversion also came with replacement wheels (for both).

There's something odd about the Airfix guns but I don't recall what - perhaps their longer ones are too long?  I have seen suggestions that some Mk.22s had the shorter guns but it is difficult to tell from photos.

I hadn't read about the rear tank being reinstated, but I don't see why not.  But not fitted and then reinstated?  Odd.  Or was it there from the start but removed under the general ban?

[gingerbob]

rear fuel: I think it was a case of "planning to have it" but then not being ready, for whatever reason.  But I'm on very thin ice with this, so should investigate more.

 

OK, from the 22/24 pilots' notes:

Quote

Some early Mk. 22 and all Mk. 24 aircraft have rear fuselage tanks, use of which is, however, prohibited in Mk. 22 aircraft.

 

and: "The cock control for the rear fuselage tanks is to the left and forward of the seat."  So there's another difference!

Edited November 21, 2020 by gingerbob

[Johnson]

Hi Björn  @Orso

According to Spitfire the History by Eric B Morgan and Edward Shacklady, the Mk.24 had a Rotol R14/5F5/2 5-blade Jablo propeller of diameter 11ft 10 inches. Mk.22 had an 11 ft propeller. I used the Freightdog prop and spinner for my Mk.24 and it was fine.

The starboard radio hatch side was moved closer to the cockpit on the Mk.24.

According to the Mark 1 Guide; 'only some of them [Mk.24s] were equipped with the new short-barreled Hispano Mk.V cannons, having the same calibre and ammunition stores as the Mk.II guns'. So you need to check photo sources for a Mk.24 if you want to get it right.

Cheers,

[gingerbob]

That Spit the Hist comment about different diameter prop comes up all the time, but I think it is wrong.  I'd stick with 11', or as near as you can get in your scale.

[Gomtuu]

@JackG I just noticed something......

 

MK392 was the personal aircraft of Wing Commander Jonnie Johnson. It was flown by another pilot later in March ORB says he had just been on sick leave. Stands to reason the wing cos mark IX lingered a bit

Edited November 21, 2020 by Gomtuu
Forgot to quote

[Johnson]

59 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

That Spit the Hist comment about different diameter prop comes up all the time, but I think it is wrong.  I'd stick with 11', or as near as you can get in your scale.

 

Interesting that you say that Bob as the Mark 1 Guide to the Spitfire F Mk.22/24 gives no distinction to the different Mks, just states that they 'turned a Rotol five-bladed airscrew of 11' (3,350mm) diameter fitted with Jablo blades'.

 

And when you think about it, they were virtually the same aircraft with the same Griffon 61 engine 'or 64 for some Mk.22s'. So why would they bother fitting a larger diameter prop on the Mk.24?

 

Someone needs to go to the RAF Museum at Hendon (or Solant Sky, or IWM Duxford) with a tape measure. And even then we wouldn't be certain they hadn't swapped the props, unless it really did measure 11' 10"! 

[Graham Boak]

So what was it about the Mk.24 that changed the stability?  (Aerodynamicist's hat on...)

 

A 10" bigger prop is an awful lot, especially remembering that it already gone up from the Mk.XIV.

[Johnson]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

So what was it about the Mk.24 that changed the stability?

I'm certainly no aerodynamicist, but there was the extra fuel and relocated radio (?) to contend with?

[Graham Boak]

The aft tank would be destabilising, hence the question.  Just how far was the radio moved, and in which direction.  It would have to  be forward.

[Orso]

Thanks for the inputs.

Now I filled the radio hatch and moved it forward. I will go for the shorter guns just to get the plane a little different if I would build a Mk.22 later.

It will have a larger prop but not a 11' 10". The kit seems to have the 10' 5" prop while one of my XIV kits have a 11' so I'll swap those two.

So what about the new fuel tanks. Are there visible filling caps for them?

[Johnson]

50 minutes ago, Orso said:

Are there visible filling caps for them?

Yes for Mk.24, behind the headrest. I think that there may be a pic in the Spitfire Mk.24 walkaround;

 

[Orso]

OK, think I found it: https://igor113.livejournal.com/667851.html

[nicholas mayhew]

On 11/19/2020 at 11:19 AM, nicholas mayhew said:

Good morning,

 

I recently came across this pic described as "Spitfire LFIXe RCAF 443Sqn 2IW 2IT at B114 Diepholz Germany" (credit IWM MH6851).

 

I am interested in 2I-W as it is a clipped wing IX with a normal / rounded tail - something quite rare I think?

 

Does anyone have any more information on this aircraft eg serial (which I appreciate was probably obscured in part when the the sky fuselage band was overpainted), and what the inscription on the cowling says?

 

Also interested of any other 2TAF Spitfires with clipped wings and round tail - it's a look I really like.

 

Any help much appreciated.

 

Nick 

 

 

I believe I have found the identity of 2I-W 

 

In "Squadrons! No.29 - Spitfire XVI The Dominions" on p28 there is the above picture and it says 2I-W is SM512 'Klondike' usually flown by F/O M.J. Clow

 

 

 

[JackG]

Right on.  Also the caption identifies a different  airfield - B.90 Petit Brogel, Belgium.

 

 

[72modeler]

7 hours ago, Orso said:

It will have a larger prop but not a 11' 10"

Just now read this discussion. According to the web sources and references I have, the Mk XIV had a 10' 5" 5-blade prop; the Mk 21 that was fitted with a 5-blade prop used an 11' diameter unit, and the landing gear struts were increased by 4" in length to maintain ground clearance, and the rake was also increased; at the same time a shrink strut was fitted that shortened the gear leg by that amount, as there was no room to enlarge the wheel bays to accept a longer strut. The wheel was also changed to a wider, three-spoke hub. The Mk 22 and 24 used the same 11' diameter prop. I also saw in a Boscombe Down performance report dated 10 October, 1945 that the Mk 21 was indeed fitted with an 11' prop during the test. Hope this helps. (There's no way an 11/10" prop would  have enough ground clearance on a Spitfire without drastic changes in the strut length and/or geometry. I would think!)

Mike

Edited November 21, 2020 by 72modeler
added text

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, nicholas mayhew said:

I believe I have found the identity of 2I-W 

 

In "Squadrons! No.29 - Spitfire XVI The Dominions" on p28 there is the above picture and it says 2I-W is SM512 'Klondike' usually flown by F/O M.J. Clow

the photo is  via @Chris Thomas  who maybe able to add more on this.  

[Chris Thomas]

On 11/21/2020 at 11:47 PM, Troy Smith said:

the photo is  via @Chris Thomas  who maybe able to add more on this.  

The caption in 'Spitfire XVI The Dominions' reflects what I wrote in 2ndTAF Vol 3 when I used the same photo.  I knew the photo was captioned as postwar in the IWM collection but had my doubts; the IWM photo is a copy of an RCAF photo.  I went back to RCAF records and established an approximate date for the photo as late March or early April 1945 - which indicated the base was B.90.

CT

[bigbadbadge]

Hi all 

I am building a model of Mk Vb EN951 RF-D and have a question re the light on the fuselage spine just aft of the radio aerial mast.

Ther is a cracking image on Wikipedia  when searching for this aircraft and it is in colour and in flight which shows theight as fuselage colour.   Is this correct or is it a colourised  image and been filled in by mistake ?

I apologise if this has been asked before.

Thanks 

Chris

[303sqn]

It is darker than the fuselage.