Jump to content

Spitfire VIII cannon bulges


Seahawk

Recommended Posts

The Eduard Spitfire HF.VIII Weekend Edition has transfers for JF364 GZ-N of 32 Sq.  There are also the often-seen photos of JF404 GZ-M.  These have raised a nagging doubt in my mind.  Eduard depict JF364 with narrow cannon bulges.  These are quite early Spitfire VIIIs: should they have the wider cannon bulges or did all Mark VIIIs from the start of production have narrow ones? 

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, early VIIIs DID have the wide bulge.  Or so says my memory...

 

It is, of course, possible that the narrow ones were retrofitted eventually, so it might depend on when you depict.

Edited by gingerbob
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read references to the fact that the narrow bulges were introduced at some point on the production line. The Late Edgar Brooks mentioned December 1943 as a date for the introduction of this modification. However I'm not sure I've ever seen a picture of a Mk.VIII with the wide bulge.

Supermarine designed a specific panel with 2 narrow bulges for the 2 X 20mm armament but this was not adopted in the end. Spitfires armed with 4 cannons used of course the wide bulge

Edited by Giorgio N
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work with the assumption that F. VIIIs have wide bulges and LF.VIIIs the narrow ones, partly because I'm pretty sure that I have seen a photo.  The real point of the changeover, I don't know but expect it to be early in LF production rather than the other way. Ditto extended wingtips and Desert camouflage, but having them all happen together would be far too convenient to be true!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I work with the assumption that F. VIIIs have wide bulges and LF.VIIIs the narrow ones, partly because I'm pretty sure that I have seen a photo.  The real point of the changeover, I don't know but expect it to be early in LF production rather than the other way. Ditto extended wingtips and Desert camouflage, but having them all happen together would be far too convenient to be true!

 

 

The 54 Squadron/Australian one I was looking at* had had a 4 cannon fit and extended wingtips, so presumably wide bulges. Sadly it's a head on pic so no serial or codes

 

*In Osprey Aircraft of the Aces no 5 Late Marque Spitfire Aces p79

Edited by Dave Fleming
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depended on when the Hispano  Cannons went from using drum magazines to belt feed. The drum mag neeeded the bigger bulge for obvious reasons. You may find when the  belt feed was introduced the aircraft  was modified with different bulges?

 

Selwyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the drums went out with the 'B' wing.  On the 'C' wing, wide bulges were the original configuration, to allow for two cannon in each wing.  When it was decided (for the VII, for example) or realized (for the VIII, for example) that they would settle for only one cannon each side, the slimmer bulge was introduced to reduce drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

No, the drums went out with the 'B' wing.  On the 'C' wing, wide bulges were the original configuration, to allow for two cannon in each wing.  When it was decided (for the VII, for example) or realized (for the VIII, for example) that they would settle for only one cannon each side, the slimmer bulge was introduced to reduce drag.

 

The bulge was over the ammo rollers

0_fs.jpg

Edited by Dave Fleming
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

 

The 54 Squadron/Australian one I was looking at* had had a 4 cannon fit and extended wingtips, so presumably wide bulges. Sadly it's a head on pic so no serial or codes

 

*In Osprey Aircraft of the Aces no 5 Late Marque Spitfire Aces p79

 

The 4 cannon fit was used on a small number of Mk.VIII in Australia in 1944 and these would have had to use wide bulges, regardless of how they left the factory.

The subject was discussed here previously in this thread, that includes information on the specific aircraft so equipped

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave has just posted onto a thread with some answers to this: 

 

 

Peter Malone posted in there that the last known example with the broad bulge was JF351, suggesting less than 60 of the F.VIII line, whereas the last known with the extended wing tips was JF825, well into LFs.  All deliveries to Australia were LFs with the Merlin 66 except for one HF with a Merlin 70, which Caldwell claimed.  The broad bulge seen on RAAF 4-cannon aircraft came from stores.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Peter Malone precisely, he says, "Photos show JF351 and subsequent aircraft with the narrow bulge so it would appear that there would have been a maximum of less than 60 with the wide bulge." ie that the changeover had taken before JF351.  That gives me my answer for JF364 and JF404: happy to take Peter Malone's word for it!   Thanks everyone for your contributions to the debate.   I'm glad it wasn't such a simple open-and-shut case as I suspected it might be.  Nor do I need to cannibalise 2 sets of Eduard wings to model my chosen subject!

Edited by Seahawk
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitfires VIIIs arriving in Australia after August 1944 were, with one exception, HF.VIII in the MT and MV serial ranges for a total of 157 aircraft. The exception was A58-731 (NH614) which was an LF.VIII.

 

Prior to that there were 242 LF.VIII & 9 F.VIII delivered between Oct 1943 and Aug 1944.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EwenS said:

Spitfires VIIIs arriving in Australia after August 1944 were, with one exception, HF.VIII in the MT and MV serial ranges for a total of 157 aircraft. The exception was A58-731 (NH614) which was an LF.VIII.

 

Prior to that there were 242 LF.VIII & 9 F.VIII delivered between Oct 1943 and Aug 1944.

Ewen,

 

I don't know the source of your numbers you give, but I would suggest you check them. The RAAF did receive 251 Spitfire VIII aircraft up to and including August 1944. However, these consisted of 250 LF.VIII and one HF.VIII. The lone HF.VIII, (Merlin 70), among the pre Aug 44 aircraft was A58-528, (MT675).

 

The RAAF did not receive any F.VIII aircraft. Are you referring to some of the JF serialled aircraft? The RAAF recorded the first 19 of these, (A58-300 to -318), as having "Merlin LXVI" engines, and the last 13, (A58-321 to 325, A58-327 to 331, and A58-354 to 356), as having "Merlin 66" engines. To me that makes them all LF.VIII aircraft. There is no record of any RAAF Spitfire having the Merlin 63.

 

As you state, post August 1944 deliveries were HF.VIII. A58-731, (NH614), is listed in "the bible" as being an LF.VIII, but the RAAF records it as "MK.VIII H.F." and the engine as "Merlin 70". A clerical error? Perhaps. But where? The RAAF ?, Supermarine ?, transcription of records? It is of little interest, however, as NH614 was never erected in Australia and went directly into storage.

 

Peter M

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

 

The 54 Squadron/Australian one I was looking at* had had a 4 cannon fit and extended wingtips, so presumably wide bulges. Sadly it's a head on pic so no serial or codes

 

*In Osprey Aircraft of the Aces no 5 Late Marque Spitfire Aces p79

Dave,

 

That aircraft was modified for S/L Sidney Linnard, CO of 54 Sqn RAF, as an experimental 'Dinah' hunter. It was not modified for ground attack purpose. Churchill would not allow RAF personnel to be involved in the liberation of Dutch territories, so the RAF squadrons had to remain in Darwin and try to chase the odd "Dinah", rather boring for them. 

 

I believe the aircraft in that photo may have been A58-355, (ex JF965). Another photo shows it carried no codes. It was modified locally by No. 7 RSU to fit the extended tips, (DTS Inst/42). This was an approved mod and helped overcome a shortage of standard wingtips. The fitting of  two extra cannon was not regarded as a modification as the Mk.VIII was designed to carry four cannon and had all the required fittings. Presumably, it was hoped the extended tips would increase climb and altitude performance and the extra cannon would increase the chance of inflicting fatal damage. The .303s were regarded as wasted weight anyway. There is no record of the aircraft being used operationally and, I suspect, that the hoped for improvements failed to meet expectations.

 

Giorgio, we know of four Mk. VIII Spitfires that were fitted with four cannon. They were:

The aircraft for Linnard, mentioned above.

A58-431 for W/C Wilkinson, Wing Leader, No. 1 Fighter Wing, RAAF.

A58-482 for S/L Watts , CO of No. 548 Sqn RAF.

A58-484, for G/C Caldwell, Wing Commander, No. 80 Fighter Wing, RAAF.

 

In every case, the aircraft were soon returned to standard configuration after a short time. Caldwell had envisioned having more aircraft modified for ground attack work but, after brief trials, he abandoned the plan. He told me that he considered the aircraft, so fitted, to be too dangerous for the average pilot, particularly in tight manoeuvres near the ground.

 

Peter M

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Quoting Peter Malone precisely, he says, "Photos show JF351 and subsequent aircraft with the narrow bulge so it would appear that there would have been a maximum of less than 60 with the wide bulge." ie that the changeover had taken before JF351.  That gives me my answer for JF364 and JF404: happy to take Peter Malone's word for it!   Thanks everyone for your contributions to the debate.   I'm glad it wasn't such a simple open-and-shut case as I suspected it might be.  Nor do I need to cannibalise 2 sets of Eduard wings to model my chosen subject!

Seahawk,

 

You don't need to take my word for it. Photos of JF351, below, clearly shows early rudder, extended wingtips, and small fairing over cannon feed.

 

ab4a2380-043d-412f-8b6c-fbe7fae946f0.jpg

 

d308df22-63d1-4135-b3d4-f082cf0d5676.jpg

 

Not sure how clearly this will reproduce, but the shot of JF364 below also shows the early rudder and the small fairing over the cannon feed. The cannon access panel is on the ground near the wing root, with the front of the panel nearest the camera. The small fairing is apparent on the original - hope it can be seen here.

 

46e4828c-214f-4a0e-8290-fc1609900c19.jpg

 

Cheers,

Peter M

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Magpie, following your comments, I’ve been back and checked my sources. Now it seems we are delving into the can of worms of Spitfire designations. Just what makes a Mk.VIII an LF as opposed to an F or an HF?

Yesterday I did a quick search in my library and dug out a table in Stewart Wilson’s “The Spitfire, Mustang and Kittyhawk in Australian Service” and quickly cross checked the data with the ADF website. These sources report 9 and 11 F.VIII respectively (I missed 2 of the latter yesterday and I’ll come back to that discrepancy later. That was the basis of my last post.

 

There were 9 LV serialled Mk.VIIIs delivered to Australia and noted in both sources as F.VIII.

http://www.adf-serials.com.au/2a58.htm

 

Having been back into the text of Wilson’s book he makes the following comment about the original 251 Mk.VIII delivered:-

“Ostensibly, the first 251 Spitfire VIIIs received by the RAAF between October 1943 and August 1944 (A58-1 to 550) were LF.VIIIs defined by their low blown Merlin 66 engines. This is where the some typical Spitfire “variants confusion” becomes apparent, because nine of these aircraft (A58-424 to 427, 453 to 455, 471, and 538) are listed by their manufacturer and the RAF as being F.VIII models, despite their not having an appropriate medium/high altitude Merlin fitted but the low altitude Merlin 66!”

 

These 9 all came from the LV serial batch – LV647,649,740,652,644,657,727,750,672 respectively.

 

I’ve now been back to Morgan’s “Spitfire - The History” and the batch heading for the LV batch (70 aircraft built between November 1943 and January 1944) is “F.Mk.VIII Merlin 66”. One airframe LV729 is however listed as an LF.VIII. These had originally been ordered as PR Spitfires with Merlin 61 engines.

 

Amongst the sources listed for ADF Serials are Wilson's book and the RAAF Status Cards.

 

So officially it appears they are F.VIII but in practical terms are identical to the LF.VIII being fitted with Merlin 66 engines.

 

Re A58-528 (MT675), Wilson lists it as an LF.VIII but ADF has it as an HF.VIII as does Morgan.

 

Re the discrepancy of 2 airframes between Wilson & ADF, these are the first 2 Mk.VIIIs delivered – A58-300 & 301 being JF620 and JF621 respectively. Looking at Morgan the heading for the batch indicates the batch was F.VIII “up to and including JF662, engines specified”. These 2 serials are then noted as LF.VIII with Merlin 66. From JF663 on they were built as LF.VIII and all the other RAAF JF serials are later.

 

Turning to A58-732 (NH614) it is interesting to note that Morgan has the NH batch heading as “all LF.VIII Merlin M66”. The first serial is then NH614 noted as an HF.VIII M70. Wilson & ADF both have this as LF.VIII. Can I ask for your source that the RAAF recorded it as a “Mk.VIII HF”?

 

I suspect that this difference in engine v official designation may also account for the confusion around these few odd cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ewen,

 

Much of the confusion over designations lies in the fact that Spitfires were often ordered as a particular model but, during the course of construction, different engines were fitted, and, effectively, they were completed as a different model, but what you call the 'official designation' often remained on the paperwork. As far as I am concerned, the designations, F, LF and HF relate to the engines fitted. If the RAAF records tell me an aircraft had a Merlin 66 fitted, to me that makes it an LF.VIII, regardless of what it may have been ordered as. Of course, I am looking at from a pilot's and engineer's point of view.

 

The RAF was quite clear in A.P. 1565 G & H-P.N., the pilot's notes for Spitfire F.VII, F.VIII, and PR.X. They give the designations and engines as follows:

F. MK. VIII    Merlin 63

LF. Mk. VIII   Merlin 66

HF. Mk. VIII  Merlin 70

 

I'll let you stick to your 'official designation', if you let me stick to my 'practical designation'. 😁

 

Peter M

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
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...