Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Peter Roberts]

Some very comprehensive lists there! One other point is the lower signalling lamps - compared to the Mk IX, the Mk VIII had one in each lower wing and the belly light was moved further back. Sorry, I don't have references to hand as to the precise locations.

 

According to a post elsewhere by Magpie22, I believe the lower wing signalling lights were either red (port)/green (stbd) or the colour could be changed from the cockpit; IIRC the colours were red/green/amber (?). The belly light was amber.

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Peter Roberts

[Magpie22]

1 hour ago, Peter Roberts said:

According to a post elsewhere by Magpie22, I believe the lower wing signalling lights were either red (port)/green (stbd) or the colour could be changed from the cockpit; IIRC the colours were red/green/amber (?). The belly light was amber.

 

Did I really say that Peter? If so, I apologise for I have grossly misled you!

 

For later Spitfire VIII aircraft, that is basically true: red light under port wing, green light under starboard wing and amber light under the rear fuselage. The colours could not be changed from the cockpit! The pilot selected which lamp(s) to illuminate, and then keyed in the 'code of the day' using the morse key on the signalling switchbox mounted under the windscreen on the starboard side of the cockpit.

 

Early Spitfire VIII aircraft, (JF series), had a single unit fitted in the starboard wing. This consisted of a single clear bulb with a rotating colour disc having red, green and amber filters. The position of this disc was controlled from the cockpit by a selector lever situated just aft of the signalling switchbox.  The pilot then keyed in 'code of the day' using the morse key on the signalling switchbox, after having pre-selected the appropriate colour filter.

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

[Peter Roberts]

12 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

Did I really say that Peter? If so, I apologise for I have grossly misled you!

 

For later Spitfire VIII aircraft, that is basically true: red light under port wing, green light under starboard wing and amber light under the rear fuselage. The colours could not be changed from the cockpit! The pilot selected which lamp(s) to illuminate, and then keyed in the 'code of the day' using the morse key on the signalling switchbox mounted under the windscreen on the starboard side of the cockpit.

 

Early Spitfire VIII aircraft, (JF series), had a single unit fitted in the starboard wing. This consisted of a single clear bulb with a rotating colour disc having red, green and amber filters. The position of this disc was controlled from the cockpit by a selector lever situated just aft of the signalling switchbox.  The pilot then keyed in 'code of the day' using the morse key on the signalling switchbox, after having pre-selected the appropriate colour filter.

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

 

My humble apologies Peter and all - I clearly misread your previous post and didn't mean to mislead. Thanking you for correcting this Peter. I have amended my previous post.

 

Do you know if that first light fitting was in the same place as the later light position in the starboard wing?

Edited November 13, 2020 by Peter Roberts

[Magpie22]

6 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

 

My humble apologies Peter and all - I clearly misread your previous post and didn't mean to mislead. Thanking you for correcting this Peter. I have amended my previous post.

 

Do you know if that first light fitting was in the same place as the later light position in the starboard wing?

 

No apologies required, Peter. We've known each other long enough for that to be uneccessary. 🙂  Basically, I was just too lazy to try and find my previous post, to check what I had said. I've written enough tech pubs over the years to realise how easy it is to assume that the reader will understand what is in my brain and fail to express myself clearly enough. Always happy to accept corrections. Friends agaIn?? 😍

 

Anyone who has flown military A/C will tell you that pilot's notes are just a guide, definitely not holy writ. Additions and changes occured so often that issued ammendments had difficulty keeping up with the actual state of the cockpit and aircraft systems. It would appear that even H.M.'s Air Council did not always get it right.

 

A.P. 1565 

Pilot's Notes for Spitfire

Mark F.VII -Merlin 64 or 71 engine

Mark F.VIII - Merlin 63, 66, or 70 engine

Mark PR X - Merlin 64, 71 or 77 engine

 

gives the following description of the Identification lamp.

 

 

This quite clearly covers the installation that was fitted to early production aircraft, yet my copy of the pilot's notes incorpoates ammendments issued up to October 1945!

On the other hand, the photo of the cockpit, included in the notes, appears to show the later style of signalling switchbox (58 in the photo). There is no evidence of a "selector lever fitted just aft of the switchbox for operation of the colour disc". That space is occupied by the beam approach master switch. Beam approach equipment was not fitted to many Mk.VIII aircraft, certainly not those in RAAF service. 

 

It is also interesting to note that the photo shows the cabin pressure warning lights, (56), and the cabin altimeter, (57), that were fitted only to F.VII aircraft, not to the unpressurised cabins of the F.VIII and PR.X. The publication has tried to cover several types, with the contradictions that must folow that approach. Moral: Don't get too pedantic in detailing the cockpit in your model.

 

 

The position of the single identification lamp under the starboard wing is the same as that used for the later three-lamp arrangement. It can be seen, in the shot below, of A58-315, (JF934), as a darker coloured circle, just outboard of the roundel. The shot under that of the Air Force Heritage Collection's VH-HET, ex A58-758, (MV239), shows the positioning of the three-lamp layout, just outboard of each roundel and under the rear fuselage.

 

 

[Peter Roberts]

Thanks Peter - very helpful shots! Much appreciated.

 

PS - friendship never in doubt  unlike my reading and understanding sometimes  

[nicholas mayhew]

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 

[Work In Progress]

Makes me wonder if the rudder is a retrofit spare from the back of the hangar, Something Nasty having happened to a pointy one.

[franky boy]

Are they definitely mkix’s and not xvi’s?

[nicholas mayhew]

1 minute ago, franky boy said:

Are they definitely mkix’s and not xvi’s?

 

fair question, but no idea without the serial

 

however, it is the configuration of clipped wings / round tail that i am intrigued by, rather than whether the marque is IX or XVI

 

 

[Work In Progress]

11 minutes ago, franky boy said:

Are they definitely mkix’s and not xvi’s?

Probably IX. ML417 is definitely a IX and was definitely with 443 Squadron. It was either one or the other: you did not mix Rolls-Royce engines and Packard engines within a squadron.

[gingerbob]

If Diepholz is correct, then the photo was taken from 13 April '45 to the end of the month and they are XVIs.  The ORB does not give an immediately apparent reference to what letter is what serial- they only list serials in the Record.

Edited November 19, 2020 by gingerbob

[Work In Progress]

Fair point, having looked a bit deeper I see that while their initial 2TAF deployment was with the IX they converted to XVI before reaching Germany

[Graham Boak]

443 Sq began receiving Mark XVIs in January 1945, which fits with the black spinner and painted out tail band.  I'm not sure whether the yellow outer rim implies a later date.  The clipped wings imply fighter-bomber missions, for either type.  A Mk.XVI with a round rudder would indeed be different, Mk.XIe less so, if still uncommon.

 

Incidentally, Chris Thomas has at least one  Mk.IX in action with the unit in March 1945.  This would certainly imply a mixed unit, however undesirable that would be for maintenance and logistics.  The squadron went on to paint yellow rings around their spinners, and carry the squadron badge on the cowling.  Presumably after May 8th.

[gingerbob]

Graham, During Feb they were using IXs and XVIs together while transitioning (according to the ORB Record), but by March they are showing only XVIs on ops.  [Edit: That is to say, "generally XVIs"- I didn't check the entire month for an exception!]

Edited November 19, 2020 by gingerbob

[Super Aereo]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

443 Sq began receiving Mark XVIs in January 1945, which fits with the black spinner and painted out tail band.  I'm not sure whether the yellow outer rim implies a later date.  The clipped wings imply fighter-bomber missions, for either type.  A Mk.XVI with a round rudder would indeed be different, Mk.XIe less so, if still uncommon.

 

2 TAF introduced the yellow ring as the same time as the black spinner and the Sky band deletion, much to the annoyance of the powers that be. And they kept using it regardless.

[nicholas mayhew]

Thank you for all the input so far gentlemen - I am pleased the picture has stirred interest. What a can of worms the Spitfire can be! 🙂

 

For those that think this may be a IX rather than a XVI, is the consensus this is an 'e' wing?

 

And do we think this picture is a wartime or post VE-day shot? 

 

I wish I knew what that inscription said! 

 

Kind regards,

Nick

 

[Graham Boak]

1 hour ago, gingerbob said:

Graham, During Feb they were using IXs and XVIs together while transitioning (according to the ORB Record), but by March they are showing only XVIs on ops.  

Sorry Bob, both Thomas (2 TAF vol 3) and Spitfire The History agree that 443's Mk.IX TB481 was lost on ops 24/3/45.  Flt. Lt. H C Charlesworth I = injured, e/f = enemy fire c/l = crash landed in circuit B.90.  What does the ORB say about this?

 

However the point was that they were in use together, though by April the strong likelihood was that they were all Mk.XVIs.  Proof perhaps needed for complete conversion - but if it isn't in the ORB?  Later losses in Thomas are Mk.XVIs (unless I missed one).

 

Another reason for not mixing the variants is that the Mk.XVIs had the aft fuel tank offering greater operational range.  But then some Mk.IXs did too...

 

I think the chance of it not being an e is very slim indeed.  Looks like one to me.

[gingerbob]

Well...

 

The ORB agrees that Charlesworth flew two ops in TB481 (peering through the watermarks online), ending with a forced landing.  The only thing is, they don't call it out as a IX, and my own datafile identifies it as a XVI.  Dare I suggest that 2TAF (not necessarily Chris) simply made a mistake?  I just looked at Spit the Hist and this aircraft is listed not in the IX chapter, but the XVI one!

 

And while Edgar and I never reached agreement on this, I see no reason to think that XVIs at this time had the aft fuel tank.  They were meant to, but 'there was many a slip between cup and lip'.  One of the many things that delayed this programme was that the handling was unacceptable, the solution being the metal-covered elevators that were, however, diverted to the Spit 21 as a higher priority to get its handling adequate.  Wojtek has shown me high-resolution photos of low-back XVIs with no filler spout in sight, which leads me to conclude that there is no tank there.  (They were eventually installed, in time for postwar pilots' notes to say, "Not to be used except if directly ordered!" or something along those lines.)

[JackG]

If the Spitfire coded 21*W is the mark IX, then it serial appears to be MK605 as found here:

https://www.rcafassociation.ca/heritage/history/rcaf-and-the-crucible-of-war/443-squadron/

 

Also some entries of claims:

https://www.rcafassociation.ca/heritage/history/rcaf-combat-claims/rcaf-combat-claims-1944-1-january-to-30-june/

 

Pilot's name is Donald Melvin Walz, but have have not discovered what the writing is forward of the cockpit.

 

regards,

Jack

[Graham Boak]

Ah.  Must have been drinking.  OK.  (But I will check tomorrow to see if the text changes back again!)

 

Re tanks - IIRC (now in doubt!) Quill considered the handling acceptable with the lower tank - as on the RV canopies.  Possibly this was with the metal-covered elevators?  Or at least with part-fuel, so you use the aft tank first as with the P-51.  Simples?  I recall an (later) Hawker test pilot who'd trained at Pensacola saying that US aircraft were all performance and no handling, British ones being all handling and no performance: it seems to have been a long-standing bias.  Me thinks he hadn't flown the Lightning.

[nicholas mayhew]

35 minutes ago, JackG said:

If the Spitfire coded 21*W is the mark IX, then it serial appears to be MK605 as found here:

https://www.rcafassociation.ca/heritage/history/rcaf-and-the-crucible-of-war/443-squadron/

 

Also some entries of claims:

https://www.rcafassociation.ca/heritage/history/rcaf-combat-claims/rcaf-combat-claims-1944-1-january-to-30-june/

 

Pilot's name is Donald Melvin Walz, but have have not discovered what the writing is forward of the cockpit.

 

regards,

Jack

 

Thanks Jack!

 

However, this website (I cannot vouch for the validity of the information) seems to say it was shot down on 16th June so therefore cannot be 'this' 2I-W?

https://www.worldnavalships.com/directory/aircraftprofile.php?AircraftID=1

 

although the information is less clear here:

https://allspitfirepilots.org/aircraft/MK605

Edited November 19, 2020 by nicholas mayhew

[Graham Boak]

Suggest an earlier 2I-W.  STH says 8th June for MK605 and from nearby photos probably a c wing.  (Checked twice.)

[JackG]

Yup, sorry- jumped the gun.  Don Walz was shot down twice, first in June, evaded capture and was back with the squadron by September.  Then again on the 24th of February, this time becoming a p.o.w.

 

 

IMW only gives a location and no date for the photo in question:

Supermarine Spitfire LF Mark IXEs, of 'B' Flight, No 443 Squadron RCAF, parked in a dispersal surfaced with pierced steel planks (PSP), at B114/Diepholz, Germany.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205207968

 

Will try searching some other avenues...

 

regards,

Jack

Edited November 19, 2020 by JackG

[JackG]

The French site http://www.cieldegloire.com/003_walz_d_m.php      provides a later serial for Walz as MK660:

 

 

Could be an error, as the Spitfire production page shows MK660 as being sent to the USSR 6-7-44.

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p071.html

 

Has to be a typo somewhere,  as it does look to be MK660  for Walz in December '44  from the squadron diaries:

 

 

Earlier December entry, looks to be MJ660:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D8405105

 

Diary does show a mixture of mark IX and XVI Spitfires with 443 during Jan. to Feb. of 1945.   For January, there is a listing for Walz flying a IX,  looks to be MJ66x?:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D8405106

 

All  monthly entries for 443 Sqaudron can be accessed here:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C2504525

 

 

Above all, no proof that Walz continued to fly with the W code.

 

 

regards,

Jack

 

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by JackG

[Work In Progress]

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

Edited November 19, 2020 by Work In Progress