Info - The Silver Spitfire G-IRTY

[rob Lyttle]

Right chaps. Total confusion! 

Because it's a current civilian plane topic! 

 

The Mk IX Spitfire currently doing a round trip of the globe is the subject of my endeavour. 

First up.... No guns and cannons, but I'm not sure about the blisters on the wings. 

Also wheel well mod that shows on the wing surface. 

Extra tanks added for range, and apparently it's a tank from a PR Spitfire that is installed behind the cockpit. 

With a filling tube exiting at the port side fixed window. 

Is that standard on PR marks?? 

What does the tank look like? 

 

Insights appreciated 

Edited August 22, 2019 by rob Lyttle
Title change

[Graham Boak]

They certainly look like the cannon blisters on top of the wing.

 

Something a bit odd about the fuel tank behind the pilot - surely the PR aircraft had cameras in that position and fuel tanks in the leading edge of the wing?  However late in the war there were arrangements for two fuel tanks behind the pilot, one (44 gallon?) behind the tear-drop canopy and another (30 gall?) above it on the high-back variants.  They weren't very popular because they destabilised the aircraft when full, and post war they were removed.  So if this aircraft has a tank behind the pilot it could be a rare survivor of this practice?

[bentwaters81tfw]

When Spencer Flack had his MkXVI restored, he had new wing tanks designed for the gun bays. Gave a range of 1000 miles. Don't know what else these guys have done.

[Work In Progress]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

So if this aircraft has a tank behind the pilot it could be a rare survivor of this practice?

I can't see any evidence of it having that tank during WW2 - as an October 1943 delivery it didn't have it from new - but I can't rule it out as a late-war retrofit. It certainly didn't have the rear tank fitted in its post-war Dutch air force service, unsurprisingly given the well known stability and control problems associated with use of that tank and the absence of wartime emergency.  Yet a tank of that configuration is evident in some of the down-route photos - but was clearly not fitted in much of the photography taken of the aircraft in its current colours before it departed on its current mission.  So I think I'd describe it as a mod rather than something that's a return to originality.

 

Presumably it has been considered and found acceptable as a ferry-range exemption from normal practice, given suitable restrictions to the manouevring envelope, a pair of suitably calm and experienced pilots, and a guarantee that no requirement for aerobatics or combat will occur with the tank filled.  I imagine that during the complete restoration that took place in preparation for this round-world mission, HFL also made suitable decisions about the disposition of other equipment - avionics, oxygen and so on - so as to minimise the rearward CG problem.

 

Incidentally I've just noticed that they've also put a pointy rudder on. That's another mod: it wasn't original fit nor is it evident in the pics I've seen of its Dutch post-war service.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Work In Progress

[Graham Boak]

The story in Spitfire The History is somewhat ambiguous on just how much fuel was permitted in the rear tank before exceeding stability limits/creating stability problems.  Quill implies that it would be possible to fight the aircraft with one tank at least partially full but not the other, although this does not seem to have been addressed by 11 Group in their rejection of the rear tanks.  Their particular combat requirement, linked to a specific range, should not have meant an overall rejection of the benefits by the entire RAF.  As was standard practice with the P-51, it was permitted to fly the fighter with full rear tank(s), just not to fight, the aft tank being used first after takeoff.  So there is no overwhelming argument against using such a tank in non-combat situations, such as this flight.

 

This dos not consider any reduction in the permissible cg range for peacetime operations, which presumably was behind the removal of these tanks postwar.  If this aircraft has been fitted with leading edge tanks then the cg will have been brought forward anyway.  A better comparison might be the PR aircraft which flew quite happily with leading edge tanks and a large heavy camera behind the pilot.

 

I'm absolutely sure you are right that this will all have been very properly discussed by the team (and the CAA) well before the flight.  Such details just don't get into the publicity material.

 

Changing the subject slightly, the Mk.VIII Spit had a larger front fuselage tank and small leading edge tanks: it would seem to have been capable of coping with aft tanks up to a total fuel capacity more than twice that of the standard Mk.IX.  Which would have removed much of the criticism of lack of range levelled against the Spitfire, particularly from US sources.

[Work In Progress]

Yes. The VIII really is the proper article. Not that I would turn down a nice IX of course.

 

On G-IRTY I haven't been able to spot the usual fillers for leading edge tanks and there's a reasonable-sounding post on Key saying "extra fuel is in the gun bays as per the TR.IX", which would not surprise me given the absence of guns and the large number of two-seater conversions / restorations done in recent years - all that plumbing is presumably available off the shelf.

[Bedders]

Photos I've seen indicate no cannon bulges but what appear to be two dark-coloured fuel fillers on the upper surface of each wing. Not in the usual PR/bowser wing positions, but they might be the right fit for the TRs. Also no radio mast (a shaped whip instead) and the Union Jack on the right hand side of the fuselage is upside-down/the wrong way round.

 

Justin

[rob Lyttle]

2 minutes ago, Bedders said:

and the Union Jack on the right hand side of the fuselage is upside-down/the wrong way round.

That's a good spot, Justin. 

Are they imagining the flagpole in front of the flag, and it's blowing rearward in the slipstream, so to speak? 

The formality for flag illustration is blown to the right and that suits the port side perfectly. 

So if you look at the Union Jack from the other side - so that it is blown to the left- does that give you the "wrong way round" effect....? 

Anyway, I'll bear it in mind when the time comes. 

 

The high polish makes it difficult to read some of the pictures, with all the reflections going on. 

I sometimes think I can see the skinny cannon covers, not the ones I have on the Eduard kit. 

But by all accounts the gun bays are fuel tanks. I read somewhere that there are 8 tanks in all. 

Pictures of the refuelling process would be pretty useful. 

[Graham Boak]

8 minutes ago, rob Lyttle said:

Are they imagining the flagpole in front of the flag, and it's blowing rearward in the slipstream, so to speak? 

The formality for flag illustration is blown to the right and that suits the port side perfectly. 

So if you look at the Union Jack from the other side - so that it is blown to the left- does that give you the "wrong way round" effect....? 

 

Exactly.  Not the first time this has been represented correctly somewhere but criticised.  Easy mistake to make.

[Bedders]

No they have made a mistake. I doubt HM Flying Club helicopter painters have.

 

https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38464&mobile=off

 

Justin

[Graham Boak]

The habit with civil airliners in the 30s (and even sometimes afterwards) was to raise a flag to fly as they taxied in.  The habit of therefore representing the flag in paint as if it was a flag flying, and thus reversed, is far from unheard of, or inaccurate.  It is one way of representing the ensign.  If the RAF choose to display it differently that's their decision, not one of right/wrong.  (I would not be the slightest surprised to find examples of RAF aircraft with reversed flags, nor civil ones with identical ones on each side.)

 

PS  If the owners of this aircraft didn't intend to paint it this way, then it could be a mistake, if a highly unlikely one to make.  They do have an entirely acceptable excuse ready.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Graham Boak

[rob Lyttle]

Here's a view of the rear fuselage tank... 

..... and several other items of interest. 

 

The flag thing is a sideshow but an interesting one. 

For the UK it's a subtle issue as the two sides are very similar and most of the population don't even know what to look for. 

But a more asymmetric flag presents the designer with a starker choice. 

And it looks like either way is OK and it's down to the designer. 

So, TWA opted for the flagpole and slipstream style.... 

.... While Air France kept the formal layout.... 

I think both interpretations make visual sense within the respective design briefs. 

The US flag would look wrong fluttering into a 300mph headwind, and the French Tricolour may even be somebody else's flag if the colour bars are reversed!?