Spitfire Mk XIVe question

[Tail-Dragon]

I'm trying to find a definitive answer to this.

On the wartime Spitfire Mk XIV (Griffon engine) with the 'E' wing (no wheel well bulge), were the ailerons full span, or the shorter span ailerons (as on the Mk VIII)?

It seems that the 'C' wing had the shorter ailerons, but what about the 'E' wing (2x20mm, 2x .50cal)?

 

Thanks all,

Colin 

[MikeC]

Shorter ailerons: the suffix referred to the armament fit.   The Mk XIV was based on the Mk VII/VIII, and therefore had the short-span ailerons, regardless of armament or wingtips (clipped or full).

[neilfergylee]

As @MikeC says, it has short-span ailerons.  The differentiator is that the Mk.XIV was derived from the Mk.VIII.  This and the Mk.VII were Supermarine's improved Merlin powered Spitfires and one revision was the provision of short-span ailerons to reduce flutter.  However, the more numerous Mk.IX was derived from the earlier Mk.V and retained the original long-span ailerons.  Think of this as Supermarine being the craftsmen wanting to build a better engineered airframe and Castle Bromwich building the rather less sophisticated Mk.IX on production line principles.

 

The wing type was not related to the aileron type, so Mk IX airframes would have long-span ailerons and type 'C' or 'E' wings, the Mks. VII and VIII only had 'C' wings and the XIV had 'C' or 'E' wings with short-span ailerons.  Just for completeness, the type 'D' "Bowser" wing retained long-span ailerons.

 

Best wishes,

 

Neil

[MikeC]

8 hours ago, neilfergylee said:

Just for completeness, the type 'D' "Bowser" wing retained long-span ailerons.

True: which is why the PR19 had said long-span ailerons.

[Graham Boak]

More CB being the subcontractor providing the mass orders whereas Supermarine were the design team improving the breed.

 

The suffixes apply to the armament not the wing type.  The Mk.VIII/XIV line did not have the same wing, not just the ailerons but wing root fuel tanks.  The Mk.VIII never had the e armament. 

[neilfergylee]

34 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

More CB being the subcontractor providing the mass orders whereas Supermarine were the design team improving the breed.

 

The suffixes apply to the armament not the wing type.  The Mk.VIII/XIV line did not have the same wing, not just the ailerons but wing root fuel tanks.  The Mk.VIII never had the e armament. 

 

CB may have been a subcontractor but a better description would be 'independent manufacturing organisation'.  The suffixes do indeed apply to armament type and you are correct that the VIII series wing included the wing leading edge fuel tanks inboard of the cannon.  By default, these were inherited by the VIV and XVIII.  

 

As aside, if one examines Spitfire production, one can see how Supermarine gradually replaced Mk.VIII production wit that of the XIV.  This explains why the VIII never used the 'E' wing.

[Graham Boak]

Not vey independent: it produced variants already established by Supermarine.  There are (of course) some qualifications: the Mk.II was a CB product but was basically a Mk.1 with a Merlin XII, little changed from the Merlin Mk.III..  It never produced any of the Mk.VIII/XVI/XVII series, The Mk.XVI was purely CB (basically just a Mk.IX with a Packard Merlin with (as far as I know) the only other technical innovation being the simplified  engine cowling top on the Mk.IX which was disliked by Supermarine test pilots who found it destabilising.  I suspect there were will have been a fair number of "invisible" differences in the way of minor production changes.  Following this pattern, it began production of the Mk.22 when Supermarine was intended to change to the Spiteful - which of course never happened,

[neilfergylee]

I'm stepping out of this conversation before it descends into some form of appendage measuring contest.

[Type 40]

So... I guess this means I can't use the spare E wing in the 1/48 Eduard Mk.XVI kit with the new Laminar Flow conversion to make a Mk.XIVe? I'm assuming that since the XVI was essentially a Mk.IX with a Packard Merlin, it'll have long-span ailerons too?

 

Please tell me I'm wrong! 😢

 

 

 

[Tail-Dragon]

1 hour ago, Type 40 said:

So... I guess this means I can't use the spare E wing in the 1/48 Eduard Mk.XVI kit with the new Laminar Flow conversion to make a Mk.XIVe? I'm assuming that since the XVI was essentially a Mk.IX with a Packard Merlin, it'll have long-span ailerons too?

 

Please tell me I'm wrong! 😢

 

 

 

OK, your wrong!

The only mod you have to do is scribe one short 1/4" line at the outboard end of the aileron, and fill the last bit of aileron leading edge line out board of it.  2 minutes work.

 

See the difference at the aileron outboard side between the HF VIII and the IXe below. This is to illustrate the aileron only,  the HF VIII isn't an 'E' wing, it has outboard 2 machine guns with cartridge ejection slots, etc. The XIVe is a true "E" wing with 2 x 20mm, and 2 x .50cal  in the canon bays, and no outboard guns...

 

 

Edited September 18 by Tail-Dragon

[Type 40]

2 minutes ago, Tail-Dragon said:

OK, your wrong!

The only mod you have to do is scribe one short 1/4" line at the outboard end of the aileron, and fill the last bit of aileron leading edge line out board of it.  2 minutes work.

 

See the difference at the aileron outboard side between the HF VIII and the IXe below ...

 

 

 

Being naturally lazy (!), I had hoped that the XVI's wing would be a drop-fit without modification; of course, I forgot about the ailerons. 🙄 

 

I hoped I might be able to modify the XVI's wing to short-span ailerons doing something like you've described, but hadn't actually looked at the plastic yet... your advice makes it look easy.

 

Thanks very much! 👍

[Giorgio N]

The VIII and XVI wings do not only differ in the length of the ailerons, there's more

The Mk.VII/VIII and derivatives, that include the XIV, also featured tanks in the leading edge of the wing and the Eduard Mk.VIII wing correctly represent the panel lines associated with these and the relative caps (look on the leading edge just inboard of the inner cannon location in the pictures above).

The location of all lights on the lower surfaces was also different. Again Eduard got all these correct in their kits.

Now all these modifications can be introduced by the modeller if the goal is converting a Mk.XVI into a XIV... the question is if it's easier to convert the VIII wing to the E armament or converting the XVI wing to the VIII type

[Tail-Dragon]

You are correct, I forgot about the leading edge tanks. Thats another small scribing job.

The downward identification lights on the wings were apparently deleted in 1943.

From the 'Spitfire site - concise guide to wing types" ...

"Interestingly, both this and the subsequent drawing (produced by Supermarine) of the Mk. VII show the downward identification lamp. However, this item was deleted in the Mk. VII & VIII production, by modification No. 746 issued on 1 May 1943."

Edited September 18 by Tail-Dragon

[Giorgio N]

18 hours ago, Tail-Dragon said:

You are correct, I forgot about the leading edge tanks. Thats another small scribing job.

The downward identification lights on the wings were apparently deleted in 1943.

From the 'Spitfire site - concise guide to wing types" ...

"Interestingly, both this and the subsequent drawing (produced by Supermarine) of the Mk. VII show the downward identification lamp. However, this item was deleted in the Mk. VII & VIII production, by modification No. 746 issued on 1 May 1943."

 

The downward lamps under the wings were reinstated on the VIII and XIV with modification No,989. Dating this is tricky, the RAF first mentioned it in July 1943 but Supermarine documents have December 1944. In any case the downward facing lights are clearly visible in many pictures of Mk.XIVs

The amber light under the fuselage also needs moving: on the VIII, and hence on the XIV, it was located between frames 15 and 16, so farther to the rear compared to the position on the IX/XVI. You can see the original position in the XVI wing sprue, you can't see the position on the Mk.VIII sprue because the position of the light is moulded on fuselage halves,

[Phoenix44]

There's a lot of discussion about Supermarine vs Castle Bromwich but did they make their "own" wings? I was under the impression (no more than that) that parts such as wings were manufactured elsewhere in distributed locations? We're wings actually made on site?

[Work In Progress]

Yes. The largest airframe components, fuselages and wings, were built on site, though obviously included small items and sub-assemblies made elsewhere. I don't have a wing photograph to hand but here you can see workers with a pile of fuselage frames and other small components prior to assembly. This is Castle Brom...

 

... as is this... note the part built items in jigs at the front of shot... 

 

... and this is Supermarine's own factory - link rather than embed  due to Alamy being rather litigious https://www.alamy.com/mass-production-of-the-spitfire-1939-image501474849.html

 

Castle Bromwich would have needed much less square footage and employed far fewer people if it was not making the big airframe items, and transport of 36' one-piece constructed wings from all over the country would have been a severe problem. Things you can sling boxed or crated up into the back of a van, general-purpose lorry or a rail car are what you want to transport. It would have been far easier to move fuselages than to move wings, as the fuselage from Frame 19 to the firewall is quite compact, but even the fuselage at that length was reserved to the main factories.

Edited September 22 by Work In Progress

[EwenS]

You will find a lot of information about Supermarine, its post 1940 dispersed  production system and several hundred sub contractors (and what they produced) on this site.

 

https://supermariners.wordpress.com/supermarine/

 

 

[gingerbob]

2 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

transport of 36' one-piece constructed wings from all over the country would have been a severe problem. 

 

Just to point out that Spit wings were right and left panels, not one-piece.

[Phoenix44]

21 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Yes. The largest airframe components, fuselages and wings, were built on site, though obviously included small items and sub-assemblies made elsewhere. I don't have a wing photograph to hand but here you can see workers with a pile of fuselage frames and other small components prior to assembly. This is Castle Brom...

 

... as is this... note the part built items in jigs at the front of shot... 

 

... and this is Supermarine's own factory - link rather than embed  due to Alamy being rather litigious https://www.alamy.com/mass-production-of-the-spitfire-1939-image501474849.html

 

Castle Bromwich would have needed much less square footage and employed far fewer people if it was not making the big airframe items, and transport of 36' one-piece constructed wings from all over the country would have been a severe problem. Things you can sling boxed or crated up into the back of a van, general-purpose lorry or a rail car are what you want to transport. It would have been far easier to move fuselages than to move wings, as the fuselage from Frame 19 to the firewall is quite compact, but even the fuselage at that length was reserved to the main factories.

Thanks. Yes, I've seen the photos of fuselages and near completed airframes. I believe this is a photo of wings being made but at a satellite or dispersed factory, not the main Supermarine facility. 

[Graham Boak]

The Supermarine picture is prewar, judging from the fuselage roundels.  After the Luftwaffe raid there had to be considerable dispersal of production.  Castle Bromwich was a much larger site.  

[Work In Progress]

5 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

Thanks. Yes, I've seen the photos of fuselages and near completed airframes. I believe this is a photo of wings being made but at a satellite or dispersed factory, not the main Supermarine facility. 

Where do you believe this is?