AZmodel 'Ginger Lacey' Spitfire XIVe gun port patches

[Smudge]

Firstly I'll apologise for asking this, as I think it's been discussed before. But, after a couple of days of internet searching including using 'Britmodeller' I'm just as confused as when I started. 

 

So, basically the box top painting of the Spitfire XIVe shows red doped patches over outboard machine gun ports. Herein lies the problem. My thinking, backed up by Googling and reading a proper book, is that the XIVe did not have outboard gun ports, just the inner two, and the outboard leading edge of the wing contained additional fuel tanks.

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/az-model-az7604-supermarine-spitfire-fmk14e--1342725

 

So why the red patches? Is this just an artwork error?

 

There seems to be different thoughts on this, hence my confusion. Some sources state the openings were there but empty. and so patched over. But this observation does not fit with the leading edge fuel tank position.

 

I can't find any photos of the leading edge of the aircraft, RN135 in this late war finish, so no evidence either way. 

 

Were patches applied to give the impression of additional armament? and would these even be noticed by an adversary anyway? I've no idea 

 

What's the Britmodeller collective thinking on this one?

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott Hemsley]

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the XIV's serving in the SEAC theatre did have the two outboard guns, while those in the ETO & MTO, didn't, but since the box art depicts a scoreboard of German kits below the windscreen, I assume the kit decals depict an aircraft serving in the ETO.    It also doesn't have the expected yellow leading edge outboard of the guns. 

 

I'd say that AZ simply made an error with the boxart. 

 

Scott

[Beard]

It's an error by AZ, RN135 appears to have been a e-wing so no .303s in the outboard position.

 

There are a few thread on the subject on BM. Here:

 

 

[Giorgio N]

In any case the leading edge tanks were inboard of the inner cannon bays, so the outer MGs would have not interfered with this feature. MGs that were not present in the E winged aircraft anyway.

[Smudge]

21 hours ago, Scott Hemsley said:

 

I'd say that AZ simply made an error with the boxart. 

 

Thank you, Scott. I am leaning towards that.

 

19 hours ago, Beard said:

There are a few thread on the subject on BM. Here:

 

Thank you. I had found that thread, which confirms the e wing which is helpful, but still leaves a question mark over the gun port patches issue.

 

19 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

In any case the leading edge tanks were inboard of the inner cannon bays, so the outer MGs would have not interfered with this feature. MGs that were not present in the E winged aircraft anyway.

 

OK, thank you. I read that the E wing had leading edge tanks, but had assumed they were in the outboard leading edge, as in the D wing. 

 

 

Thanks, Guys.

[Chuck1945]

Ginger Lacey’s Spitfire XIVe wouldn’t have had wing leading edge stripes painted yellow since it was in SEAC, his victories were scored in Europe, hence the German a/c victory markings. I don’t have the AZ kit so can’t comment on rest of the box art, but the absence of yellow leading edges and the presence of a Luftwaffe victory board are not errors. Red patches on the non-existent outboard wing .303 gun ports would be an error.

[Giorgio N]

23 minutes ago, Smudge said:

 

OK, thank you. I read that the E wing had leading edge tanks, but had assumed they were in the outboard leading edge, as in the D wing. 

 

Thanks, Guys.

 

The E wing did not involve having leading edge tanks, these were on the Mk.XIV because they were originally present on the Mk.VIII, from which the XIV derived (and on the Mk.VII).

So a Mk.IX with E wing would not have the leading edge tanks, a Mk.XIV would have them regardless of having a C or an E wing, a Mk.VIII would have them with the C wing (only type of wing used on this variant).

The position of the leading edge tanks on the Mk.VII, VIII and XIV can be seen in this picture of the Eduard Spit VIII wing:

 

 

Notice the squarish panel lines just inboard of the inner cannon position, this is their location.

You can see the structure shown in this link

 

The D wing is of course very different, with tanks occupying the whole leading edges. The link below will show you the internal structure of both the D wing and of the VIII/XIV wings

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/2

[tonyot]

Even though the wing was configured as an e Wing,...... I was under th impression that it still used the universal wing,....... so the outboard holes for the 4 x .303in guns were still there,..... but doped over.  

Here is my model if it helps?

 

Not sure if these will help too?

Edited November 6, 2021 by tonyot

[Graham Boak]

Convinces me.  I believe that the Mk.XVIII was the first to blank the outer gun positions and may not have had the access panels either.  But it would be tempting to use them for something....

[warhawk]

13 hours ago, tonyot said:

Not sure if these will help too?

 

Here's a link to this image, where it can be zoomed-in a bit more:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205207356

[112 Squadron]

13 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Convinces me.  I believe that the Mk.XVIII was the first to blank the outer gun positions and may not have had the access panels either.  But it would be tempting to use them for something....

 

That is correct. The kit in question, the recently re-released AZ 1/72 Spitfire Mk XIVe is basically their Spitfire Mk XVIII plus an additional fuselage. Therefore, the wings in that particular kit have no access panels for 303 guns:

 

https://www.super-hobby.de/products/British-IIWW-fighter-Supermarine-Spitfire-Mk.XVIII.html#gallery_start

Edited November 7, 2021 by 112 Squadron

[Smudge]

@tonyot Thanks for your input, and posting those pictures. 

 

I had actually found those pictures, but unfortunately they only really add to my confusion. I can't see any doped patches on the wings of RN133 in the first picture. However there is no denying that they are there on the aircraft in the lower picture. I'd like to know a bit more about that one. It is a clipped wing aircraft, and is on a ship possibly post war being shipped out?

 

I wonder if as @Graham Boak alludes to that possibly some local modification was used to fit guns in the outboard bays?

 

17 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

................................it would be tempting to use them for something....

 

Just Googling 'Spitfire XIV' will bring up lots of pictures of ETO XIV's with yellow leading edges and no sign of outboard gun ports. 

 

I think one of the issues I have with this is that I can't envisage that the aircraft would be built without the intention of fitting any outboard machine guns, and no ejection ports provided in the underside hatches, and yet have openings in the leading edge of the wing, which would then have to be patched over at local level to prevent dirt and water getting in. Not to mention the negative effect on aerodynamic efficiency of open holes in the leading edge. It just doesn't seem quite right.

 

Here's a XIV, admittedly an FR.XIV low back post war, but an E wing with no leading edge openings:

 

http://www.rafcommands.com/galleries/SEAC/151-OTU-KD-Griffiths/Spitfire-XIV-SM937-01

 

I think some of the confusion might come from the use of C wings on early production XIV's? I can see how these might have still had the openings.

 

I think that this might just be one of those things that will have to be left to personal preference and choice.

 

Thanks Guys.

[Graham Boak]

Thephoto is quoted as being the arrival of Mk.XIVs in the SEAC theatre in 1945, but not (quite) postwar.

 

No, I was imagining that the outer positions could be used for installing other equipment other than armament.  or even just pilots' baggage.

 

The E wing was just a C wing with modifications to the inner cannon bay.  However it is much easier to imagine a wing C or E, with plugs in the holes which were then painted over, then introducing changes on a production line..

 

 

[Ivor Ramsden]

In our archives is a series of photos of 17 Squadron aircraft including Lacey's YB-A which are dated January 1946. The aircraft are well-weathered and all are showing white SEAC identification bands on wings and tail.  Edit: The shots of YB-A are all close-ups of ground crew in the cockpit and don't show the white bands. There are several shots of YB-N "Miss Betty" which came to grief when it hit a drainage ditch. The serial number and outer gun access panels aren't visible but it clearly has patches over the redundant outer gun ports which are a different colour to the camouflage scheme.

 

Edit again! On close examination of our photo of YB-A, only the parts of the letter Y which are painted over the lighter camouflage colour are outlined in a dark colour on our photos. No outline is visible on any of the other aircraft.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Ivor Ramsden

[tonyot]

5 hours ago, Smudge said:

@tonyot Thanks for your input, and posting those pictures. 

 

I had actually found those pictures, but unfortunately they only really add to my confusion. I can't see any doped patches on the wings of RN133 in the first picture. However there is no denying that they are there on the aircraft in the lower picture. I'd like to know a bit more about that one. It is a clipped wing aircraft, and is on a ship possibly post war being shipped out?

 

I wonder if as @Graham Boak alludes to that possibly some local modification was used to fit guns in the outboard bays?

 

 

Just Googling 'Spitfire XIV' will bring up lots of pictures of ETO XIV's with yellow leading edges and no sign of outboard gun ports. 

 

I think one of the issues I have with this is that I can't envisage that the aircraft would be built without the intention of fitting any outboard machine guns, and no ejection ports provided in the underside hatches, and yet have openings in the leading edge of the wing, which would then have to be patched over at local level to prevent dirt and water getting in. Not to mention the negative effect on aerodynamic efficiency of open holes in the leading edge. It just doesn't seem quite right.

 

Here's a XIV, admittedly an FR.XIV low back post war, but an E wing with no leading edge openings:

 

http://www.rafcommands.com/galleries/SEAC/151-OTU-KD-Griffiths/Spitfire-XIV-SM937-01

 

I think some of the confusion might come from the use of C wings on early production XIV's? I can see how these might have still had the openings.

 

I think that this might just be one of those things that will have to be left to personal preference and choice.

 

Thanks Guys.

The photo is on a ship, the RN Escort Carrier HMS Vindex and 132 Sqn was en route to Hong Kong to carry out garrison duties, the carrier was also carrying some Stinson`s too. 

[FinnAndersen]

15 hours ago, Smudge said:

... I think one of the issues I have with this is that I can't envisage that the aircraft would be built without the intention of fitting any outboard machine guns, and no ejection ports provided in the underside hatches, and yet have openings in the leading edge of the wing, which would then have to be patched over at local level to prevent dirt and water getting in. Not to mention the negative effect on aerodynamic efficiency of open holes in the leading edge. It just doesn't seem quite right...

No, that would be silly and interfere with performance and to the best of my knowledge did not happen.

 

Otherwise, you will be surprised to know what lengths the Supermarine design office went to, when it came to keeping the factory building Spitfires without interrupting the production with changes.

In the case of the E wing, they kept the wing structure constant because it did not matter much if there was an unused gun bay.

Another example was the changed gear geometry with the increased forward rake of the strut on the C wing. This was done with wedges instead of redesigning the pivot assembly.

 

The reason behind this was, to my knowledge, MAP desire to avoid delays in the production, even it if meant the the airplanes produced was not 100% optimized.

 

/Finn

[EwenS]

10 hours ago, tonyot said:

The photo is on a ship, the RN Escort Carrier HMS Vindex and 132 Sqn was en route to Hong Kong to carry out garrison duties, the carrier was also carrying some Stinson`s too. 

132 squadron (and the Stinsons) was shipped from Ceylon to Hong Kong on HMS Smiter, a US built escort carrier, and not the British built Vindex. It had been intended for Malaya as part of Operation Zipper, but following the Japanese surrender was diverted. It disembarked at HK on 15 Sept 1945.

 

Vindex had arrived in Brisbane, Australia on 11 August 1945 with a load of aircraft from the U.K., then took a load of stores to Hong Kong arriving 8 Sept.

 

132 squadron disbanded in HK on 15 April 1946. The squadron’s aircraft ended up in Japan. I have a note that Vindex was involved in moving some of them in Jan 1946. I have the squadron ORB on my other computer but can’t access it just now. Given the seemingly worn nature of the paintwork in the photo, I suspect it was taken during the later movement on Vindex. The aircraft had been issued new to 132 in May 1945 having only arrived in India a short time before.

[tonyot]

10 hours ago, EwenS said:

132 squadron (and the Stinsons) was shipped from Ceylon to Hong Kong on HMS Smiter, a US built escort carrier, and not the British built Vindex. It had been intended for Malaya as part of Operation Zipper, but following the Japanese surrender was diverted. It disembarked at HK on 15 Sept 1945.

 

Vindex had arrived in Brisbane, Australia on 11 August 1945 with a load of aircraft from the U.K., then took a load of stores to Hong Kong arriving 8 Sept.

 

132 squadron disbanded in HK on 15 April 1946. The squadron’s aircraft ended up in Japan. I have a note that Vindex was involved in moving some of them in Jan 1946. I have the squadron ORB on my other computer but can’t access it just now. Given the seemingly worn nature of the paintwork in the photo, I suspect it was taken during the later movement on Vindex. The aircraft had been issued new to 132 in May 1945 having only arrived in India a short time before.

OK,.... got the carrier wrong,.....  I was in two minds between the two as there are conflicting stories,...... and I thought that the deck looked steel and not wooden as per a US built carrier,.... but looking again,..... it could be the dock side. To be fair,..... I wasn`t all that bothered to look deeply into it,...... I just know that they were deployed from Ceylon to Hong Kong,..... after the invasion of Malaya was cancelled at the end of the war.

 

Just trying to help out!

[Smudge]

1 hour ago, tonyot said:

OK,.... got the carrier wrong,..... 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

As you're an ex Pongo and I'm an ex matelot, I was going to let that one go 

 

My thoughts were they are on a barge or lighter being ferried to/from the carrier which was maybe moored off-shore. 

 

I see your interests include FAA and RAF. Here's a link to some info on HMS Smiter which has some great photo's of the two subjects working together, and seemingly it all went quite well! Hope you find them interesting.

 

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/Galleries/SMITER_Gllery_2.htm

 

I found this whilst Googling around the net in relation to the various post's that people have chipped in with on this subject. So thanks to All.

 

Cheers.

 

[tonyot]

17 minutes ago, Smudge said:

 

Thanks Tony,

 

As you're an ex Pongo and I'm an ex matelot, I was going to let that one go 

 

My thoughts were they are on a barge or lighter being ferried to/from the carrier which was maybe moored off-shore. 

 

I see your interests include FAA and RAF. Here's a link to some info on HMS Smiter which has some great photo's of the two subjects working together, and seemingly it all went quite well! Hope you find them interesting.

 

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/Galleries/SMITER_Gllery_2.htm

 

I found this whilst Googling around the net in relation to the various post's that people have chipped in with on this subject. So thanks to All.

 

Cheers.

 

LOL,.....and yeah you may have a point about the lighter there. I was basically knackered and too tired to go into great detail or double check in this case,...... but at least I remembered the main facts. A boat is a boat after all😉😀,..... to us Pongoes😉🤔,...... just the grey funnel line to us!😉🤪 ,...... you know we love you really!

 

Great pics on that link,..... I actually own a copy of the one which also features the Stinson L5 Sentinel ,..... which isn`t a Reliant as per the caption. 

 

Cheers

          Tony

Edited November 8, 2021 by tonyot

[EwenS]

1 hour ago, Smudge said:

 

Thanks Tony,

 

As you're an ex Pongo and I'm an ex matelot, I was going to let that one go 

 

My thoughts were they are on a barge or lighter being ferried to/from the carrier which was maybe moored off-shore. 

 

I see your interests include FAA and RAF. Here's a link to some info on HMS Smiter which has some great photo's of the two subjects working together, and seemingly it all went quite well! Hope you find them interesting.

 

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/Galleries/SMITER_Gllery_2.htm

 

I found this whilst Googling around the net in relation to the various post's that people have chipped in with on this subject. So thanks to All.

 

Cheers.

 

Careful with the history that accompanies the photos on that site for Smiter. It contains errors for the period after her departure from HK. I had communication with the the webmaster about 3 years ago but they remain uncorrected.

[Phoenix44]

Came across these two images which clearly show patches on Mk.XIVs I believe. 

 

[steh2o]

Hello Phoenix44,

those pictured are C-winged Mk.XIVs and they had .303 gun bays, so the patch is justified.

Thanks for posting!

Stefano

[Phoenix44]

5 hours ago, steh2o said:

Hello Phoenix44,

those pictured are C-winged Mk.XIVs and they had .303 gun bays, so the patch is justified.

Thanks for posting!

Stefano

I'm still confused by the C and E wings. According to some sources there's no mention of an E wing as such in production records (e.g. Castle Bromwich) and it's not obvious that there was a change to the C wing at the factory other than what armament was put in it. It is clear that the low back XIVs and XVIs had equipment relocated from the cut-down fuselage to the outer gun bays but not clear if the gun ports were blanked over even then. Edgar Brooks says that the AM didn't like changing the armament to a single machine gun per wing until the gyro gunsight was available as pilots shooting was so bad (!) And the date of installation of the new gunsight is another can of worms. If there are pictures of units with mixed C and E armaments maybe some pilots switched back to C? My best guess is that high-back Spitfires all had standard C wings but once the new gunsight was available they were produced with "E armament" but without the outer ports faired over (why make a universal wing no longer universal and delay production at the same time?). Low back versions were all E armament and maybe with those significant changes to the wings (e.g plumbing the O2 bottles) the ports were blanked off at the factory. But it's all conjecture. 

[steh2o]

Hello,

some people here has more knowledge than me about this matter so I may be mistaken but:

-The early high back Mk.XIVs were produced with C-wing, and I suppose they were uniformly used with 2x20mm + 4x.303

-At some point in the production the wing switched to the E-kind. The difference is evident in most photographs, both because the cannon was installed in the outward station and by the different shape and position of the cannon blister. I think that RM-serialled  a/cs had E wing and there were both high-backs and low backs. All the low backs were produced with E-wing.

Gyro gunsight arrived very late; recently I finished my rendition of RM787 , an E-winged high back a/c and by close observation of the existing wartime photograph, I'm sure it mounted the early reflector unit well after D-day, so it doesn't depend on wing type.

Edited November 23, 2021 by steh2o