Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sean_M

Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

Recommended Posts

I have a question about a specific aircraft if anyone can help.

I have settled on N3093 (QJ W) of 616Sqn at Leconfield in Jul/Aug 1940 for my B of B GB entry. I know that the aircraft would have been delivered in 1939 with a metal seat and no back armour, but I would like to know if the metal seats where replaced and if back armour would have been fitted by this time bearing in mind that the squadron was not in the 'front line'.

I know it's a long shot, but here's hoping.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before moving to Leconfield in June, 616 were based at Rochford, in 11 Group territory, and, from 21-5-40, 11 Group were given priority for the 100 available sets of seat armour, so they're likely to have got it.

The seat was (fairly, it takes three men) easy to exchange, so it's impossible to say what was fitted by mid-1940, since it had to be removed to gain access to the interior of the rear fuselage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your reply Gentlemen,

Edgar, I would like to know your opinion as to if the configuration of this Spitfire would be similar to a Mk VIII that I believe my grandfather flew...

JF274 VIII 3660 EA M61 FF 24-11-42 First prod VIII Hand Sqdn Hullavington 29-11-42 AST 21-6-43 VAWD 9-11-43 wts and CG load 82MU 11-5-44 Argyll 1-6-44 Casablanca 13-6-44 MedAAF 21-6-45 SOC 27-3-47

I have used his logbooks, as well as squadron diary records (kindly provided to me by a 145 Sqn historian). The serial JF274 appeared in a number of places, where my grandfather flew sorties in ZX-V.

Being the first production Mk VIII, I am aware that it would have had several things in common with the Mk VII, including the extending wing tips? If so, would it be safe to assume that JF274 and JF294 would be very similar in their configurations?

Here are two scans from photographs I found in his logbook/briefcase just after he passed away...

One is of a Spitfire Mk VIII, that he flew with 145 Sqn RAF in Italy,

002_zps28cmv3d2.jpg

And secondly... one of an SHF Spitfire IX, when he was with 9 Sqn SAAF. I believe this aircraft may be MA504

003_zpsjqsq1ejl.jpg

:goodjob: All is very interesting to read here- with help from online transletater, because my English is not good. A spitfire Mk.IX (or Mk.VIII with serail number MHxxx?)) with long tipped wings ... a fine template for a new model for me :popcorn:

For long time I know these website here and I think that is many stuff to read about Spitfire Mk.VIII from SAAF (see all threads!) - particularly spitfire in natural metal without armaments and long tipped wings

What is your opinion?

[C] "The SAAF Forum"

9-MA504MedGardner001.jpg

pd90.jpg.opt836x614o0%2C0s836x614.jpg

Can everyone show me with more detais what isl the different between underwing from Mk.VIII an Mk.IX, I have not found a good source for this is German or US books . :coolio:

Edited by BOBO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:goodjob: All is very interesting to read here- with help from online transletater, because my English is not good. A spitfire Mk.IX (or Mk.VIII with serail number MHxxx?)) with long tipped wings ... a fine template for a new model for me :popcorn:

For long time I know these website here and I think that is many stuff to read about Spitfire Mk.VIII from SAAF (see all threads!) - particularly spitfire in natural metal without armaments and long tipped wings

What is your opinion?

[C] "The SAAF Forum"

9-MA504MedGardner001.jpg

pd90.jpg.opt836x614o0%2C0s836x614.jpg

Can everyone show me with more detais what isl the different between underwing from Mk.VIII an Mk.IX, I have not found a good source for this is German or US books . :coolio:

From what i can see, these are different planes, top looks to MA504, the lower one maybe MH545.

a look here http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p063.html

has this as a possible?

MH549 LFIX CBAF M66 39MU 47MU 10-9-43 Ocean Rider 23-9-43 Casablanca 10-10-43 NAfricanASC 31-10-43 41SAAF 7SAAF SOC 15-5-45

There are no significant differences between a Mk VIII and Mk IX underwing that I know of, but a statement like this will bring out the Spitfire experts to confirm or deny such a bold statement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bobo, there were red and green (port and starboard) lights in the lower wing surfaces on the Mk VIII and the belly amber ID light was moved to a location further back in the fuselage.

My apologies, I am not able to post plans to show this detail, but I am sure someone will be along to do so, or a Google search may give this info (?). Otherwise, I beleive they were similar in detail.

PR

Edit - oops, sorry, the Mk VIII also had shorter ailerons and fuel tanks in the wing roots.

The Mk VIII had the 'C' wing as did the Mk IX - some IXs also had 'E' wings but I am not aware of any VIIIs having 'E' wings, so there would be differences with chutes and gun ports, etc there too

Edited by Peter Roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laser Monkey has posted a question about 64 Squadron Spitfires so I went looking.

Didn't find what he was looking for but I came across this from the RAF website. The picture is at the bottom of the page and shows a Vb with D Day stripes on the wings. Not unusual in itself but it's their application which is unusual.

http://rafmuseum.mobi/research/online-exhibitions/americans-in-the-royal-air-force/americans-in-the-british-flying-services-1914-1945/john-worthington-harder.aspx

Does anyone have more details?

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubtful they're D-day, because there are none under the fuselage; possibly an earlier set of markings for a large-scale exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i can see, these are different planes, top looks to MA504, the lower one maybe MH545.

a look here http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p063.html

has this as a possible?

There are no significant differences between a Mk VIII and Mk IX underwing that I know of, but a statement like this will bring out the Spitfire experts to confirm or deny such a bold statement!

I know this serial numberlist. I have linked these also too in my own walkaround from pre-war-Spitfire (only for privatly use!)

The Mk VIII had the 'C' wing as did the Mk IX - some IXs also had 'E' wings but I am not aware of any VIIIs having 'E' wings, so there would be differences with chutes and gun ports, etc there too

Well, I have see thie in the additinal rersin and brass parts von Eduard, but I have never seen these the different in a book or website dokument. Therfore I hope to get more in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laser Monkey has posted a question about 64 Squadron Spitfires so I went looking.

Didn't find what he was looking for but I came across this from the RAF website. The picture is at the bottom of the page and shows a Vb with D Day stripes on the wings. Not unusual in itself but it's their application which is unusual.

http://rafmuseum.mobi/research/online-exhibitions/americans-in-the-royal-air-force/americans-in-the-british-flying-services-1914-1945/john-worthington-harder.aspx

Does anyone have more details?

Trevor

Hi

Looks more like the operation starkey scheme and it has been captioned wrong

http://www.ipmsgreatplains.org/Starkeyimages/StarkeyComp2.jpg

cheers

jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone please tell me how were Spitfire Mk IXs distinguished from Mk IXcs. Was it, among other things, the size (width) of the wing cannon blisters? Were all of the Mk IXs factory converted MkVcs? Is it known just how many such conversions were done? Were any of the Mk IXs factory built as such.

I will be grateful for any advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolls-Royce converted 285, two of which started life as Mk.Is, the rest were Vs; Vickers converted 9, all from Mk.V. The IX was a IXc, at least until 1944, when the "E" wing made its appearance.

Gun bulges, rudders, elevator horns are/were no indication of wing type, just signs of how the Mark was continually updated and improved. Conversions are likely to have had the short carburettor intake, but it isn't known if that was the sum total, or if it continued until the tropical intake, as fitted to the VIII, became available; Eisenhower asked for the IX, for the "Torch" landings, but had to be refused, due to the lack of the filter.

Vickers' figures, including conversions, for IX production are 561 produced by Supermarine, and 5104 produced by Castle Bromwich (by rights, Castle Bromwich's 1054 XVIs should probably also be taken into consideration.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top notch as usual Edgar. Thank you.

The reason for my asking the question was because I have encountered references to Mk IXs and Mk IXcs. Are they synonymous ? Or were the Mk IXs conversions from Mk Vcs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolls-Royce converted 285, two of which started life as Mk.Is, the rest were Vs; Vickers converted 9, all from Mk.V. The IX was a IXc, at least until 1944, when the "E" wing made its appearance.

Gun bulges, rudders, elevator horns are/were no indication of wing type, just signs of how the Mark was continually updated and improved.

Top notch as usual Edgar. Thank you.

The reason for my asking the question was because I have encountered references to Mk IXs and Mk IXcs. Are they synonymous ? Or were the Mk IXs conversions from Mk Vcs ?

The IX didn't need a suffix, until the E wing became available, so a IX is a IXc.

The Vc conversion have no special term AFAIK, but there are the cowling differences.

The British didn't use a system like the US, who had block numbers to differentiate between progressive upgrades, so pinning down the exact appearance of a Spitfire IX, or for that matter a Typhoon Ib or a Lancaster I/III can be tricky!

The Spitfire site has some very useful detail on this matter.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html

I'll quote a bit, but the pages are very informative, and illustrated. I know this has been posted before but things can get a bit lost.

INTRODUCTION1.

(i) The variants of the Spitfire IX,XI and XVI are distinguished by prefix letters denoting the general operating altitude or role and the suffix letter (e) is used where .5-inch guns replace .303-inch guns. The aircraft are all essentially similar, but the following table shows the main features that give the various versions their distinguishing letters:

F IX , Merlin 61; 63 or 63A; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns

LF IX, Merlin 66; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.

LF IX (e), Merlin 66; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.

HF IX, Merlin 70; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.

HF IX (e), Merlin 70; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.

PR XI, Merlin 61; 63, 63A or 70.

F XVI, Merlin 266; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.

Semi-officially, however, other suffix letters have also been used to describe these aircraft. The use of the “c” suffix is fairly established today to distinguish aircraft with the universal wing and the standard armament of two belt-fed cannon and four .303-calibre guns – typically carried by series production Mk. IXs, although the intended “c” type was four cannon and no machine guns.

More rarely seen are the suffixes A and B. These have caused some confusion, as these letters in earlier Spitfire marks define eight-gun and two drum-fed cannon and four machine gun armament configurations, respectively.

It would seem that the designations IXA / IXB were used ad-hoc by the RAF units during the early part of the Mk. IX’s operational career, to distinguish the low-altitude-optimized Merlin 66-equipped LF IX (called Mk. IX B ) from the initial Merlin 61/63/63a-equipped F IX (called Mk. IX A). These designations are sometimes seen in pilot’s log books, squadron Operational Record Books, etc.

The IXB has been the cause of some confusion especially, and a few odd models of IX with b wings grafted on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there chaps,

Have not checked in to this thread for quite some time...

Regarding the SHFs flown by the SAAF, I wish we could positively identify the long winged Spitfire. I have gathered up a number of pics of the SHFs but, to be honest the only one I am interested in, is MA504.

With regard to the pics I posted of the SHF, I am starting to believe that the aircraft is not MA504, as it does have the extended wing tips, where as various shots of MA504 show her to have a normal set of wing tips.

There may some reposted shots...

This aircraft may have the extended wing tips, but we cannot see its serial number

41SqnSHFIXatStJeanin1944_zps9ktvj4zl.jpg

These two shots are of the same aircraft, at different angles, interesting is the lack of weapons on the nearest machine, MH946

10SqnSHFMkIXatIdku_zps3oqsuuc8.jpg

10SqnSHFMkIXMH946_zpslhkeaxmt.jpg

32056395_zpsm0jvg6lj.jpg

This aircraft appears to have no weapons, but the serial does no appear to be MH946

10069071_zpsgpppu0gv.jpg

I am fairly certain that we have photos of all four of the modified SHF Spitfires here, however it is quite difficult (at least to my eyes), to see which one, if any had extended wing tips....

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been searching, without success, for images of the earliest spitfire IXs i.e. the ones with "a bit added at the back" of the engine cowling as cobbled by RR during conversion from Vcs. I would also like to know the shape and dimensions (including thickness) of the "plate" ? on top of the cowling in front of the windscreen.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Cheers

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been searching, without success, for images of the earliest spitfire IXs i.e. the ones with "a bit added at the back" of the engine cowling as cobbled by RR during conversion from Vcs. I would also like to know the shape and dimensions (including thickness) of the "plate" ? on top of the cowling in front of the windscreen.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Cheers

John

There are a few pics here, of the Vc to IX conversion,

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html

including a full scheme, below.

Anyone know the full serial? AB???

spitfireixz.jpg

A fragment of a rather well-known photo showing Spitfires Mk. IX of No. 611 Squadron over London. Careful scrutiny reveals that the FY-R in the background has the earliest type of cowling with add-on bulges and is therefore one of the early converted Mk. Vs produced before production jigs for the longer Mk. IX cowling became available.

[Maxwell AFB archive]

There may well be more, but you'd need the proper Spitfire buffs for those.

By 'plate' in front of the cockpit do you mean the thin sheet of armour over the fuel tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More interesting pictures you can find in the book "Polish Wings" #13, Supermarine Spitfire 1942-1943.

I have used it for one of my last spitfire models- a Mk.IXc early version- a Mk.V-conversion.

Vorlage.jpgSQoQ_316Squadron1943_.jpg

Kabine03.jpg

Ferig01.jpg

Ferig05.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

Many thanks for the info. As a matter of fact I had already looked at The Spitfire Site but decided that the image of FY-R was not clear enough to be certain of its pedigree. However your question

Anyone know the full serial? AB???

prompted me to look at the Production Site where I found - Page 18 - Serial No AB508 Vc - Cv IX M61 611S 28 - 11 - 42. I looked through all the others but nothing else came close to AB508. Hope this might answer you question.

I suspected that the "plate" might be armour but could not be sure. Now, thanks to your reply and BOBOs response above I am satisfied.

BOBO

Thanks for your response and the tip about the Polish Wings book - a very worthwhile acquisition. I am impressed by your early Mk IX build - what kit did you use ? And how thick was the plastic used for the armour plating ?

Incidentally People

I have just noticed that the Eduard Early Mk IXc kit illustrates the idiosyncrasies of the early Mk IX cowling. It depicts a converted Vc (EN354) fitted not with the RR initial cowling - as might be expected - but the newer cowling - usually associated with production Mk IXs. I had been advised earlier that such oddities did exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cover over the top fuel tank was known as "deflection armour," but was actually an extra thickness of aluminium, chamfered at the front, and reaching back to under the windshield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cover over the top fuel tank was known as "deflection armour," but was actually an extra thickness of aluminium, chamfered at the front, and reaching back to under the windshield.

Didn't realise that it was aluminium - thought it was steel. Was it a single piece or in two parts ?

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents, I have a question regarding smaller size B roundels on some MTO Spitfires.

Several Spifires, f.eg. Gleed's Vb trop show a smaller B roundel ( 50in? 49in as in Hurricanes?). My google-fu is too weak on this subject, and I can't find anything in the books I have. Was this official or an MU level repaint?

352 (Y) Sq Spitfires have both big and small roundels modified with red stars, the smaller ones are quoted to be 50in dia.

Regards,

Vedran

56in

news_06262008_5.jpg

obviously a smaller diameter:

SpitfireVb_601Sqn_Djerba1943.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...