Conflicting Spitfire References 111 Sqn useage

[JohnT]

Hi Guys

Can anyone tell me who is right? The 111 Sqn history "Adstantes" states the squadron flew the Mk IXc as does Squadrons of the RAF and a profile publication Famous Fighter Squadrons of the RAF. They make no mention of the IXe at all

On the other hand Wikipedia and another RAF web site refer only to the IXe and not the IXc

Anyone know which they flew or both?

Thanks in advance as always

John

[Graham Boak]

They got their Mk.IXc in June 1943 which was before the e armament was introduced. The squadron was operating in Italy, so any deliveries of Mk.IXe will have been very late on. Fighter Squadrons gives a selection of serials, most of which predate the e fit. It might be worth checking the build standard of the last two given, PL168 and RR239, which first flew after June 1944. I can't point to any direct guide: this isn't part of the information given in Spitfire The History.

[JohnT]

Thanks Graham

On Wikipedia they have a black and white photo of a Spit IX with the caption that its an "e". I am no good with the posting pics thing but here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._111_Squadron_RAF#/media/File:Royal_Air_Force-_Italy,_the_Balkans_and_South-east_Europe,_1942-1945._CNA4029.jpg

JU - R looks quite well worn and I can't see any serial number on her. Also there is an odd paint demarcation line around the fuselage just at the tail section. I don't know enough to say if that's really an "e" or a "c".

I found the same photo and caption on the Spitfire Site here

http://spitfiresite.com/2014/02/no-111-squadron-in-sicily.html

and figure given their enthusiasm for the subject that those guys would know!!

Interesting photo on Flicker too but not sure if one is allowed to post - its taken from an IWM source. The caption says

Supermarine Spitfire Mark IXs of No. 111 Squadron RAF taxy past a line of Spitfires of No. 72 Squadron RAF at Anzio, Italy, before taking off on a beachhead patrol. In front of them on the airstrip, a Cessna UC-78 Bobcat of the USAAF begins its take-off run.

Googling away I also found that barney barnfather 's biography has a passage saying that among the units in Austria at the wars end were the following from 324 Wing - and he mentions 111 as having the Spitfire IXe in his list of units. Klagenfurt 16 May to 12 September 1945.

I wonder if they got the c and then as time went by e's were introduced. Would they fly a mix of types at any time?

[AWFK10]

If the date given in the captions is accurate, it can't be a IXe. It has to be a IXc with the 'stub' in the outboard cannon position removed.

[Edgar]

The cannon barrel is far too long for a IXe; the middle parallel section was removed, leaving just the tapered section, because the cannon was further back in the wing.

During 1943, a modification, to remove the outer cannon mounting, was introduced on the Vc & IX; it was eventually rescinded, in late 1943, when the E wing was likely to appear, but it's probably been responsible for many misidentified (especially alleged "Vb" & "IXb") airframes.

[JohnT]

Thank you AWFK 10 and Edgar for the responses. Along with Graham that's been very helpful.

I do wonder if the identification of Spitfire IXe as 111 equipment is a misidentification for IXc 's and that 111 was never equipped with the "e" at all?

"Adstantes" has in an appendix aircraft types and sample serials/codes used by 111. Under Spitfire IXc it lists serials JL353 (JU-T); MA529 (JU-Z); MH884 (JU-P) and PT416 (JU-H) all as IXc's. No mention of any "e" types though.

I might just do the one in the photo with no serial at all - was that common by the way?? And why is the serial missing? Of course I will be banging my head over the colour scheme. At least we wont have the argument over the colours as they were in Sicily and not Malta. Or is that a whole new bun fight?

[Edgar]

Judging by the (presumably) Sky spinner, and the painted-out "N" beside the "R," it looks as if it's been transferred from another Squadron, maybe even sent out in a hurry, straight from the U.K. (at the end of 1942, Park was pleading for IXs, to cope with the 109G.) There's a hint that the tail band has been painted out, as well, which could explain the lack of the serial.

[JohnT]

Judging by the (presumably) Sky spinner, and the painted-out "N" beside the "R," it looks as if it's been transferred from another Squadron, maybe even sent out in a hurry, straight from the U.K. (at the end of 1942, Park was pleading for IXs, to cope with the 109G.) There's a hint that the tail band has been painted out, as well, which could explain the lack of the serial.

Thank you Edgar - that's very helpful and insightful. Now you have made me take a second look at the codes and they do not look like a lot of time has been spent painting them on carefully. Slapped on a bit rather like my brush painting. The right hand upright on the "U" is decidedly rough. That would fit well with the proposition that it was from another squadron and transferred in a hurry

She looks a bit tatty I think but she has a certain charm all the same.

[gingerbob]

That spinner could be red, too- it seems to agree reasonably well with the roundel. It also seems like a clear change in "shade" at the tail break, at least below the stab.

bob

p.s. Of the serials you gave in #6 above, only the last was built at a time when 'e' might have been a possibility, and I think at the time of its delivery in July '44, any 'e's would have been headed for 2TAF, not the Med.

Edited March 17, 2015 by gingerbob

[Hornet133]

That is certainly not a Mk.IXe in the photo (JU-R). It is a quite early production F.IX (you can tell by the bulge behind the spinner - where the Caufmann starter bulge is on a Mk.II).

Steve

[Edgar]

Actually, looking at the photo (properly) again, it seems that the lack of serial might be due to the censor doing his mucky little job (again.) There's a mark, which might be the residue of the serial; the letters and numbers would be light, on the negative, so relatively easy to doctor.

Rawlings gives two JU-R airframes, RR239, which seems unlikely, and MJ927, though, of course, there might be others which he left out.

[JohnT]

Actually, looking at the photo (properly) again, it seems that the lack of serial might be due to the censor doing his mucky little job (again.) There's a mark, which might be the residue of the serial; the letters and numbers would be light, on the negative, so relatively easy to doctor.

Rawlings gives two JU-R airframes, RR239, which seems unlikely, and MJ927, though, of course, there might be others which he left out.

Thank you Edgar

I suppose if I did do a IXc and depict this bird then I could either leave off a serial or add MJ927 as a best guess. At least no one could argue with it !!!!

John

[XV571]

Hi John,

It looks as though the Imperial War Museum also got it wrong. Zooming in on the wing the cannon bulge looks like the early wide version; so would be another clue it's an early IXc.

The caption states the photo was taken at Comiso. According to Fighter Squadrons of the R.A.F, 111 Squadron were only based there during July 1943 having moved from Safi then transferred to Pachino later that month. Looking in 'Spitfire The History', MJ927 wasn't built until December 1943; both this and the airhistory website http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p068.html lists its details as:

MJ927 LFIX CBAF M66 39MU 24-12-43 222MU 7-1-44 City of Leeds 21-1-44 Casablanca 17-2-44 111S 'JU-R' SOC 28-4-45

So, it can't be MJ927 (or RR239 since this wasn't taken on by the RAF until October 1944). According to STH it would be part of the orders in the fifth to eighth contracts, giving the possible prefix letters as BS, BR, EN, JK, JL, LZ and MA (up to MA884).

The painted out 'N' is interesting. As part of 324 Wing, 111 Sqn (together with 43 Sqn) operated alongside three units with N as their second code letter (72 Sqn, RN; 93 Sqn, HN and 243 Sqn, SN). Here's the IWM photo you refer to, (BTW it's okay to post these providing you include the licensing statement). A cropped copy of this picture appears in Fighter Squadrons of the R.A.F.:

ROYAL AIR FORCE: ITALY, THE BALKANS AND SOUTH EAST EUROPE, 1942-1945.. © IWM (NA 14067)IWM Non Commercial Licence

As you can see 72 Sqn have placed their codes forward of the roundel, so it's possibly a hand me down from them since they converted back to the Mk IX in February 1943 . It might be coincidence but it would have been most convenient if all they had to do was to use white to add a J, modify the individual letter into U and overpaint the R! A possibility is EN291 as its history is:

EN291 IX 3736 EA M61 FF 11-12-42 9MU 14-12-42 47MU 28-12-42 Skeldergate 10-1-43 Gibraltar 6-2-43 NWAfrica 28-2-43 Malta 1-7-43 72S 111S 1435S 'V-Z' Italy 1-11-43 wrecked after attack by USAAF Lightning 20-4-44

As to whether 111 Sqn flew the IXe, my research into 43 Sqn's Spitfires has shown that they operated a mix of 'C' and 'E' winged aircraft, most probably after they reverted to operating Mk IXs in November 1944, until they were disbanded in 1947. For example in this photo taken at Klagenfurt in late April/May '45 FT-M is MK528 and is a IXc while FT-O is MH737 and is a IXe:

AUSTRIA UNDER ALLIED OCCUPATION. © IWM (CL 2983)IWM Non Commercial Licence

I would have thought that this was a practice used by all the members of 324 Wing, so 111 Sqn possibly did fly the IXe but without a photograph or other evidence there's no way of telling which were which...

Just to wrap this post up, Xtradecal have their 1/48 111 Sqn history sheet on offer and this includes JU-F one of the IXs in the top picture: http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/X48096

Jonathan