Turkish AF recce Spitfire Mk.V/R

[ReccePhreak]

In my never-ending search for more esoteric recce planes to build, i found some intriguing info in the description for Tigerhead decals sheet 48009. I mentions the Turkish AF getting 3 recce version Mk.V/R Spitfires in February 1945. According to the description on the decals: "The Mk.V/Rs were used with the "High Altitude Photo-Recce Unit". These models were distinguished with their four-blade propellers. According to the TuAF sources they were equipped with Rolls Royce Merlin-20 engines with an output of 1500 HP. " 

Does anybody have any more info on these aircraft, in particular the camera arrangement?

 

Larry

[gingerbob]

I find it highly doubtful that this is correct.  The only Spitfires fitted with 20-series Merlins were the two Mk.III prototypes (and they didn't use 4-blade props).  If we accept that this part is wrong, then we're left interpreting/guessing about the other elements.

[Seahawk]

Somewhere in the dim (and dimming) recesses of my mind there’s a recollection that some of the Spit  Vs modified by 103 MU to counter high-flying Ju 86s ended up in Turkish hands.  Once redundant in their designed role, they were modified for PR work (and redesignated Spitfire V (PR)) and used by 680 Sq over the Aegean and Eastern Med.  I’m away from my references at the moment so can’t check: BR114 was one of the 103 MU conversion.  They were certainly Mk Vs with 4-blade props: no idea what Mark Merlin they had.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Seahawk

[ReccePhreak]

2 hours ago, gingerbob said:

I find it highly doubtful that this is correct.  The only Spitfires fitted with 20-series Merlins were the two Mk.III prototypes (and they didn't use 4-blade props).  If we accept that this part is wrong, then we're left interpreting/guessing about the other elements.

Okay, I already accepted the fact that they probably did not have the 20-series Merlins, since that was mentioned in the description. I am mainly interested in what camera installation they would've had and what the markings would've been.

Larry

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

Somewhere in the dim (and dimming) recesses of my mind there’s a recollection that some of the Spit  Vs modified by 103 MU to counter high-flying Ju 86s ended up in Turkish hands.  Once redundant in their designed role, they were modified for PR work (and redesignated Spitfire V (PR)) and used by 680 Sq over the Aegean and Eastern Med.  I’m away from my references at the moment so can’t check: BR114 was one of them.  They were certainly Mk Vs with 4-blade props: no idea what Mark Merlin they had.

Thanks for the input on the probable code. I already figured that they did not have the upgraded Merlins. Now I just need to find out what camera installation they carried and what their markings would've been.

Larry

[gingerbob]

The problem is that Turkish Spitfires is one of the least documented areas.  No doubt there is still documentation in Turkey, but when they'll ever let anyone have a really good sift through it is another question.

 

Seahawk did jog my own memory and drive me to consult "Spitfire International".  I found a bit more information there:

Given Turkish serials 5801-5803, and according to the book these tie-ins are known (already a rare bit of clarity!)

5801 was VbTrop (Merlin 45) AB345 (apparently delivered to Turkey in Sept '44, while the other two were Feb '45)

5802 was VcTrop (Merlin 46) JK190

5803 was VcTrop (Merlin 50) JL240

 

Now, the engines could readily be changed [Edit: between suitable Mk.V engines, that is], but I offer that detail just because information was given.  It is possible that the Turks fitted 4-blade props, since they had plenty of Mk.IXs.

My guess, and that's all it is, is that they'd have just had the oblique camera in the radio compartment.  I saw no immediate evidence that they'd already been serving in a TacR unit, but Spitfire use details in the Med are generally sparse.  (I'll look a bit further.)

 

While the unit they served in, Yuksek Irtifa Foto Kesif Kitasi, translates as "High Altitude Photo Recce Unit", or such is the implication of the book, it also states: "Formed as a Liaison and high level Photo-Recce detachment of the Turkish Air Force HQ..." and that reinforces my suspicion that the Mk.Vs were performing Tac, not high altitude, work.

 

Interestingly, two "Spitfire PR.G" (or PR.VII) force-landed in Turkey and were interned (one in Sept '43, other date unknown).  Their subsequent fate is unknown, and there is no suggestion that they entered Turkish AF service.

Edited March 2, 2020 by gingerbob

[Seahawk]

My Turkish is zero but I am wondering whether we’re getting misled by a dodgy translation.  Does the “high-level” bit  perhaps apply to the level of military subordination (ie direct to AF HQ) rather the altitude they operated at, a sort of Turkish equivalent of Aufklaerungsstaffel des Oberbefehlshabers der Luftwaffe?  Maybe one of our Turkish members can help.

 

Either way, gingerbob seems to have knocked the ex 103 MU idea conclusively on the head.

[Graham Boak]

57 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

Now, the engines could readily be changed, but I offer that detail just because information was given. 

I know what you meant, and the idea does seem to have been discounted already, but just to keep things clear it is NOT possible to change to a Merlin 20, as this was a 2-gear engine and so longer.

 

Given a bit of effort, it wouldn't be too difficult to fit a vertical camera behind the cockpit, particularly as other PR Spitfires (admittedly low-level variants) were present in Turkey.  I would also suggest that as the ex-103MU aircraft had been involved in PR work, then they were likely to have been refitted with vertical cameras anyway.  If they went to Turkey at all.

[gingerbob]

Additional phrase added for clarity- thanks Graham.

 

Interestingly (well, it was to me!), BR113 was listed as going to Turkey, but not (that I noticed) BR114.  Which reminds me that I didn't look up the serials in my other files... I'll be back (but banana bread has also just come out of the oven, so perhaps not VERY soon).  EDIT: Nope, not much added by looking up the aircraft.  The banana bread is good, though!

Edited March 2, 2020 by gingerbob

[Chuck1945]

3 hours ago, gingerbob said:

... I'll be back (but banana bread has also just come out of the oven, so perhaps not VERY soon).  EDIT: Nope, not much added by looking up the aircraft.  The banana bread is good, though!

Totally OT but... yummm, banana bread 😋 Unfortunately we usually eat fresh bananas before they reach the ‘well, time for banana bread’ stage 

[303sqn]

Three reconnaissance Spitfire Mk V of the TuAF served with  the HQ Liaison and PR-detachment "Yuksek Irtifa Foto Kesif Kiasi" [High Altitude Photo Recce Unit] from 1945 to 1948, these being Spitfire MK Vb/c trops with special equipment; they became TuAF serial numbers 5801-5803.

 

5801 - AB345 F.Vb trop Merlin 45. Selected for Turkey 5.9.44.

5802 - JK190 F.Vc trop  Merlin 46. Arrived Turkey 22.2.45.

5803 - JL240 F.Vc trop Merlin 50. Arrived Turkey 22.2.45.

 

From Spitfire International.

[ReccePhreak]

1 hour ago, 303sqn said:

Three reconnaissance Spitfire Mk V of the TuAF served with  the HQ Liaison and PR-detachment "Yuksek Irtifa Foto Kesif Kiasi" [High Altitude Photo Recce Unit] from 1945 to 1948, these being Spitfire MK Vb/c trops with special equipment; they became TuAF serial numbers 5801-5803.

 

5801 - AB345 F.Vb trop Merlin 45. Selected for Turkey 5.9.44.

5802 - JK190 F.Vc trop  Merlin 46. Arrived Turkey 22.2.45.

5803 - JL240 F.Vc trop Merlin 50. Arrived Turkey 22.2.45.

 

From Spitfire International.

Now if I could just confirm what camera(s) was/were installed and in what position.

Larry

[Ed Russell]

Translation by a native Turkish speaker

 

🙂 High altitude as in the altitude they operate at.

 

A little summary of Spitfires in the Turkish Air force;

 

During the 2nd World War, a total of 280 Spitfire aircraft of different models were given to the Turkish Air Force as a result of a bilateral agreement between the British and Turkish Governments. Among these aircraft, there were 39 Spitfire Mk Vb model and 71 Spitfire Mk Vc model aircraft (delivered to the Turkish Air Force between 1944-1948); and 170 Spitfire MK IX model aircraft (delivered between 1947-1954).

 

Total breakdown of the final inventory of 291 Spitfires; 

Spitfire Mk.I: 3

Spitfire Mk.Vb: 39

Spitfire Mk.Vc: 71

Spitfire Mk.V(R): 3

Spitfire Mk.IX: 170

Spitfire PR.MK.XI: 1

Spitfire PR.MK.XIX: 4

 

Quote

Now if I could just confirm what camera(s) was/were installed and in what position.

 

I will ask her that next............

 

Edit - It looks like the 3 mentioned above are V(R) in Turkish service.

[fubar57]

Spitfire BR114

 

FF 12-3-42 39MU 14-3-42 Crosby Co 23-3-42 mods Alderamin 4-5-42 Takoradi Middle East 26-6-42 CB ops 13-9-42 mods 103MU Aboukir for high alt interception MedAAF 31-3-44 Armee de l'Air GR2/33 11-7-44 destroyed by Hak 31-8-44

[Seahawk]

7 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

Translation by a native Turkish speaker

 

🙂 High altitude as in the altitude they operate at.

Thanks: so that’s that nailed.  Does suggest other than a TacR fit, to me at least.

[gingerbob]

Did nobody notice my post #5?

[ReccePhreak]

4 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Did nobody notice my post #5?

I did, thank you. That will make the job  easier, just installing the left oblique camera.

[Ed Russell]

On 3/3/2020 at 1:23 AM, gingerbob said:

My guess, and that's all it is, is that they'd have just had the oblique camera in the radio compartment.

Yes, I looked at post 5 - it's a logical guess but, as you say, only a guess. There are probably pictures somewhere in Ankara. It remains to be seen whether they can be looked at.

[Graham Boak]

That would have been no use at all at high altitude.  They will have had either one singly downward camera or the two stereoscopic ones.

[ReccePhreak]

3 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

That would have been no use at all at high altitude.  They will have had either one singly downward camera or the two stereoscopic ones.

After spending most of my 24 year USAF career working on the cameras of various reconnaissance aircraft, I concur with that statement. 

Larry

[ben_m]

21 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

That would have been no use at all at high altitude.  They will have had either one singly downward camera or the two stereoscopic ones.

The split verticals were to give greater coverage (width of track covered), not to create a stereo effect. Two lenses inches apart don't create a stereo pair when you are 5 miles from the subject.

[Graham Boak]

I would not argue against the wide track use, but the existence of stereoscopic pictures in photo analysis is very well recorded. The Mosquito cameras are not that much further apart.   So presumably all such photos were taken by time lapse exposures taken down the flight?

[Andy Fletcher]

The overlap does allow for stereoscopic images. You wouldn’t think two images taken so close together would achieve much but   by using a stereoscope the results are impressive.

 

best regards 

 

Andy Fletcher 

[ben_m]

Andy: You cannot get a stereo pair from aerial cameras with exposures taken at the same time- the cameras have to be much further apart. As the aircraft is moving, this is achieved by time.  This page has a nice diagram.

https://www.stereoscopy.com/faq/aerial.html

 

Graham: Yes, all tracks for stereo were taken with interval timings. They set the timer to achieve a 60% overlap with the previous frame, so that any area of any given frame could be viewed in stereo when combined with either the next frame or the previous one.

[Andy Fletcher]

Hi Ben,

 

I was talking about consecutive frames which do produce stereoscopic images.

 

 

[ben_m]

Sorry Andy, I mistook you saying "two images taken so close together" to refer to the two camera positions, instead of in time.

 

I don't know what a typical interval was (it is calculated by altitude, field of view camera- dependent on the focal length and the film size- and ground speed), but the type 35 camera controller (I'm looking at the one I have on my desk here at work) goes from 2 second to 51 second intervals. I guess it couldn't go shorter than 2 seconds due to the film transport and shutter recocking time

 

I wonder whether this minimum interval ever became a limitation at lower altitude for stereo verticals (that would need very short invervals)? One way around that would be a camera configuration with two cameras covering the same area below the aircraft and alternating exposures between the two. I don't think Spitfires ever had this configuaration, but maybe Mosquitos (which I think have more than the one camera controller the Spitfire carried) might have had this type of arrangement?