Originally posted by Nashwan How about TB232, a Spit XVI (which was a IX with a Packard built engine) tested with 2 250 lbs bombs, 1 90 gallon drop tank (in excess of 650 lbs, and therefore heavier than a 500lb bomb) AND a rear fuselage fuel tank?
How about MJ823, tested with 2 250 lb bombs and 90 gallon drop tank? AUW with 2 250 lbs and 90 gallon tank 8,435 lbs. "All trials satisfactory"What about it? Test configurations? Great ! I can show you Bf 109s in
test configurations carrying an 500 kg bomb, plus two 300 l droptanks of about 250-300 weight each, for a total load 1100 kg or 2420 lbs external load... And "all trials were satisfactory", too... yet these
tests don`t prove anything about the
standard configuration, and even less about the airframe`s ability to mount
barrel armament (if you hadn`t notice that was the question)... Bah! Why do I even have to explain that?
Remember Isegrim, your initial claim was
however you forget that the Mk IX was much heavier, and the tires/undercarriage could not support the extra weight of the Merlin 60 series AND the extra Hispanos.I remember that extremely well, it`s you who don`t realize we are talking about BARREL ARMAMENT loadouts, not the external stores, which only you brough into view. Unless you tell me how does a claim from Nashwan about the possible external loads connects to the airframe`s ability to cope with extra internal load... we are talking something whole different here.
You claimed the extra 240 lbs of Hispanos would be too much for the Spit IX, whereas it carried 500 lbs of bombs, or 600 lbs of drop tanks routinely, and later in the war 1,000 lbs of bombs or 500 lbs of bombs and 650 lbs of fuel.Apart from the fact that you still did not provide any serious proof of the "routine" nature of the 500+2x250 config, which frankly I believe was extemely rare, if not only a test config, you still miss the point. We are talking about FIXED CANNON ARMAMENT, not external, JETTISONABLE LOADS. Do you what`s the difference? Seems not, so I tell you.
Bombs, droptanks etc. are dropped, jettisoned before landing. Fixed internal armament cannot be. And do I need to mind you that the critical factor is the maximum permissable landing weight, where the greatest shock to the u/c comes during the touchdown, and not the smooth takeoff run ? A Spit might be able to takeoff w/o much trouble with the said 1000 lbs external, but could definietely not land with it (apart from the obvious hazard of landing with bombs). There`s a limit what the u/c, tires can take during landing. (No wonder that on the 109s the wheel struts were strenghtened, the tires replaced by bigger ones with almost every upgrade. Increasing weight makes it neccesary, on every plane). IF you would kindly read the Spit`s manual, it clearly states the restrictions regarding operation with that the associated take off weight that equals the 1000 lbs load. Clearly not "routine".
Now, if a Spit takes off with a 250 lbs bomb under each wing, does it it also have to
land with this burden after the mission? Does the u/c have to be able to take that stress? No. But if you carry that extra 240 lbs in a form of Hispanos, you can never get rid of their weight, and the extra shock they mean during landing is unavoidable. Try looking up "Seafire carrier operations" if you would like to know how the Spit`s undercarriage worked under extra shock conditions.. You probably already know, disasterous; they lost most of the fighters during carrier landings, far more than to enemy fighters, effectively paralyzing the unit in a month or two.
As to pictures, try p75 of Osprey's "late mark spitfire aces" which shows a Spit Ix of 132 squadron being bombed up with 2 250lbs and 1 500 lb. P 76 shows a Spit IX of 74 squadron with two rockets (weight 80 lbs each) and a 500 lbs bomb. Note both these aircraft have "E" armament, which weighed 110 lbs more than the standard "B" armament anyway. Don`t have the Osprey book so I can`t look it up. But see below, in any case, the site worths a check :
(Pity the URL was left out in the first post)
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/12/stuff_eng_detail_spitfire_ix_03.htmThe streamlined fairing of the wing-mounted Hispano cannon.
In the initial production, all Mk. IXs were equipped with the "C"-type wing. This wing could carry both cannon and machine gun armament, and is often associated with four protruding cannon barrels often seen on the Mk. VC. However, because of the weight restrictions caused by the use of the more powerful - and heavier - engine, the Mk. IX could not carry the full complement of four cannon, and all production machines were equipped with two cannon (located in the inboard bays) and four machine guns.
The abandonment of four-cannon option on the Mk. IX had two consequences. First, the "leftover" wing cannon mount resulted in the short stub outboard of the cannon barrel, plugged with a solid rounded tip. Later on, as it has been realized that the the second cannon bay will never be used, the stub was removed altogether, as seen on this photograph.
The second consequence was the shape of the upper wing blisters. These blisters were introduced to provide sufficient room for the ammunition drums of the Hispano cannon. Initially the "C" wing used a single wide blister covering the twin cannon bay. As it was realized that only one cannon was necessary, a new blister was introduced to the Mk. IX production line. This blister was narrow and elongated, and can be seen on the wing photograph in The Airframe section of this essay.
Still later, the wing was modified to the "E" type. Structurally, this was identical to the "C" wing, but adopted to carry two 0,50" machine guns in place of the four 0.303" Brownings.
