The elusive Spitfire Mk. XIII

[jonbius]

Hello all,

I'm doing research into the very elusive Spitfire MK. XIII. I have collected quite a bit of data, both from books and the internet. I'm now sorting through that information, and seeking other sources. My plan is to write as complete a report as I can, given the information available, covering both documented and non-documented information, along with suggestions for modeling the type.

One of the most elusive things to find is photos. I have photos of L1004, the prototype, as found in Shacklady's book. I also have two pics of the XIII in flight from Alfred Price's book. I found a few color profiles, as well as a few builds of the kit. (And this forum actually has quite a bit of data.

If you have any photos, data, notes or leads on this version of the Spitfire, I'd love to hear from you. I will of course share all the data I end up with online.

Thanks in advance for any information.

Jon

[Edgar]

Information is, to put it mildly, conflicting. "Spitfire the History" is less than forthcoming, Vickers' own figures say that there were 18, all conversions of the Mk.V., while a book, published in 1970, says that there were 26:- P8784 (converted IIa); L1004, P7505, W3112, W3135, W3831, X4615, AA739, AD354, AD389, AD501, AD556, AR319, BL378, BL446, BL526, BM350, BM447, BM591, EN902, EP229 (converted Va/b); R7308, R7335, X4021, X4660, X4766 (converted P.R.VII.)

Camouflage information is no less confusing:- Vickers' drawing 36764 sht.4 implies that the scheme was dark green/sea grey medium, with mauve undersides, while A.P. gives the low flying P.R. scheme as extra dark sea grey/extra dark sea green over mauve. Of course the former dates from November 1942, while the latter is October 1944, so things could easily have changed. Upper (none below) roundels were 40" (16" red centre,) fuselage roundels 30" (12" red centre,) fin flash 12" square (5" red, 2" white, 5" blue stripes,) and serials in 4" black letters. There were drawings for the sighting marks for oblique cameras, and for a ringsight on external or internal armoured windscreens, but I don't have those. Spinners were one of the upper surface colours, and no tail, or wing l/e, stripes were carried.

Mauve was 5 parts P.R. pink, 2 parts P.R. blue, and 1 part ident red.

Edgar

[jonbius]

Thanks so much for that information Edgar!

I'd identified the s/n of the aircraft, and your list is spot on with what I had.

Regarding the number 18 produced, which keeps popping up, I read something in a source this weekend (can't recall now where, though it's in my notes at the house) that said there were 18 PR XIIIs supplied to the FAA from the Mk. XIIIs used by the RAF, and I wonder if somewhere along the line that is where the number 18 was introduced. I'll check into that further.

Great information on the colors also. Do you happen to have copies of the Vickers drawing you mentioned? The colors are a bit mysterious, aren't they? Of course, I think that's why I'm enjoying this search so much.

I've realized that the article I am working on will have to have two distinct sections: one for what we reasonably know, and one for what we think we reasonably know.

[Giorgio N]

Camouflage information is no less confusing:- Vickers' drawing 36764 sht.4 implies that the scheme was dark green/sea grey medium, with mauve undersides, while A.P. gives the low flying P.R. scheme as extra dark sea grey/extra dark sea green over mauve. Of course the former dates from November 1942, while the latter is October 1944, so things could easily have changed. Upper (none below) roundels were 40" (16" red centre,) fuselage roundels 30" (12" red centre,) fin flash 12" square (5" red, 2" white, 5" blue stripes,) and serials in 4" black letters. There were drawings for the sighting marks for oblique cameras, and for a ringsight on external or internal armoured windscreens, but I don't have those. Spinners were one of the upper surface colours, and no tail, or wing l/e, stripes were carried.

Mauve was 5 parts P.R. pink, 2 parts P.R. blue, and 1 part ident red.

Edgar

Very interesting ! There's a picture of AD354 after transformation in a Mk.XIII in the Mushroom series Matusiak's book on the Spit V and the upper surfaces show a scheme with a contrast that is compatible with the use of dark green and sea grey medium. The insignia also match your description. The picture dates from 1943 and looks like it was taken before delivery

[jonbius]

Very interesting ! There's a picture of AD354 after transformation in a Mk.XIII in the Mushroom series Matusiak's book on the Spit V and the upper surfaces show a scheme with a contrast that is compatible with the use of dark green and sea grey medium. The insignia also match your description. The picture dates from 1943 and looks like it was taken before delivery

Wow! That's great, Giorgio. Could you possibly scan that photo and email it to me so I could take a look at it? My email is [email protected].

Thanks so much for that tip!

[Edgar]

Great information on the colors also. Do you happen to have copies of the Vickers drawing you mentioned?

I do, but I'd rather send it direct, rather than make it small enough to fit on here. The RAF Museum has dozens of original drawings, from the XIII, though most are of inconsequential "bits," like washers, etc. They do appear to have the drawings for the sighting marks, however. One oddity concerns the low-level camera blister, which was markedly bulged, and appears to have set the camera to fire to the rear quarter, and might even have been fitted on both sides of the fuselage.

Edgar

[Giorgio N]

Wow! That's great, Giorgio. Could you possibly scan that photo and email it to me so I could take a look at it? My email is [email protected].

Thanks so much for that tip!

No problem, give me a couple of days

[jonbius]

No problem, give me a couple of days

Thanks Giorgio! I truly appreciate it!

[jonbius]

I do, but I'd rather send it direct, rather than make it small enough to fit on here. The RAF Museum has dozens of original drawings, from the XIII, though most are of inconsequential "bits," like washers, etc. They do appear to have the drawings for the sighting marks, however. One oddity concerns the low-level camera blister, which was markedly bulged, and appears to have set the camera to fire to the rear quarter, and might even have been fitted on both sides of the fuselage.

Edgar

Thanks Edgar. I received that.

I wondered about the camera being on both sides. One of the photos in Price's book shows the starboard side of a XIII, and there clearly is some sort of dark, circular shape in the roundel, offset a bit, where the camera opening would be on the starboard site. Every mention in print of the side mounted cameras only talks of the port side. But that photo has something that is to much like a camera port to be just a smudge or blur.

[Giorgio N]

This is all becoming more and more interesting.... take a spit V, add two fuselage camera bulges and an unusual camouflage and the result would be a very interesting model ! Wonder if there's ever been any picture of a XIII in squadron service with the RAF ? Failing that, even a plane out of factory would look cool. At least if I can manage to reproduce the PRU mauve paint !

[Edgar]

And just to muddy the waters a little more, the XIII had provision for two vertical cameras, as well.

Edgar

[jonbius]

Hi fellas!

Giorgio- I'll be using the Airfix Mk. I/II kit for the project, and I have found a set of aftermarket decals. The only pics I have seen, so far, are the prototype, L1004, and two grainy photos of the Mk. in FAA service. (these are the birds the markings are for.) So it will be a quite different looking Spitfire. Although I have found a few examples of the type modeled through Google searches. I have information as to which RAF Squadrons the type served with in my research at home.

Edgar- You are exactly right- all of the sources I have documented agree on the two vertical cameras. Those, I'll assume, were configured much like all other PRU Spitfires, at least from the external standpoint, which, for the purposes of the model, will work good enough. Besides, who looks at the underside of a model?

Thanks again for your help in this!