Author Topic: Spitfire IX Armament (Read 13976 times)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #45 on:** January 11, 2004, 09:38:20 AM »

The MH series production:

F MkIX, Merlin 63

#312 - 29.7.43
#999 - 5.9.43

" Yes, but it's worth noting that the MH serials came fairly early in the Spitfire IX production run, and that the vast majority of Spit IXs built afterwards still had the 4 cannon stubs."

The first BR series came off the line 9.6.42, so yes the MH series was closer to the beginning than the end of MkIX production.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 11, 2004, 12:33:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan

Yes, but it's worth noting that the MH serials came fairly early in the Spitfire IX production run, and that the vast majority of Spit IXs built afterwards still had the 4 cannon stubs.

No question it was an early production run and no question that the C wing with the second cannon bay and plug was the norm. As I'd said earlier, the first XIVs came off the production run in 44 with C wings with that plug. The Majority of IX's with C wings had the plug as well.

The C wing came as a result of an RAF requirement for a 4 cannon Spit. It had nothing to do with the type of Spit.

Dan/Slack

2bighorn · « **Reply #47 on:** January 11, 2004, 01:18:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
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.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 11, 2004, 11:21:05 PM »

No question that the 2 250 pounders and 1 500 pounder was used extensively pre and post D-Day. 453 RAAF Squadron and 602 Squadrons were doing this pre-D-Day and many of the IX and XVI squadrons on the continent were flying ground support in this configuration.

One of the problems at the time was if the bomb did not seperate from the plane. Spits were losing wings that way.

I talked to an old Spit XII pilot who finished up flying XVIs in this role until he was shot down and made a POW. He was still ticked off that they'd been sent to dive bomb sub pens with that load out of bombs as they just bounced off the thick concrete. He said that at that point of the war it was like they didn't know what to do with some of the squadrons and came up with missions like bombing sub pens, just to keep them busy.

Dan/Slack

mipoikel · « **Reply #49 on:** January 12, 2004, 04:37:06 AM »

Make your own A-36!!:D

Download A36 PDF

MiloMorai · « **Reply #50 on:** January 12, 2004, 08:59:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35

One of the problems at the time was if the bomb did not seperate from the plane. Spits were losing wings that way.

I

Yes for sure would be a problem trying to pull out of a 60* dive with a bomb still attached.

And some say the Spit had weak wings, never mind the weak u/c.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #51 on:** January 12, 2004, 09:31:59 AM »

Nashwan,

I think you should first decide wheter the picture shown to you is either a model...

Isegrim, you are aware those photos are of a model, aren't you?

Or it does show a real aircraft, MH 434...

To back up the claim, Isegrim, perhaps you could find some pictures of Spit IXs with 2 cannon and no extra stubs fitted? I can't, apart from MH434.

or it`s just a restored aircraft (given the counterevidence posted vs. this claim of yours, I doubt that even you would try to force that story further...)...

Perhaps you shouldn't take a model maker's site as a reference for aircraft.

Perhaps I should take your 3 different versions instead of it...? Frankly, why should I? As usual, you just made up 3 conflicting versions, none of them seem to me to bear the slightest resamblance to RL.

As it stands now, we haven`t seen a single photo of a Spit IX using the mentioned 500+2x250 lbs figure (I have some concern why exactly is the whole tail section is missing on bighorn`s picture.. is that a wartime Mk IX? I can post pics of 109s with 1000 kg external load w/o caption, still it doesn`t make it a service configuration), no single manual that would list 500+2x250, not a single photo of Mk IX with four Hispanos... Naswhan, you want me to prove things with "many-many photos" I haven`t claimed (cannon stubs on Spit wings), yet you can`t even remotely show me anything similiar of that bomb config you claim to be "widespread" etc. BTW, the last time you promised to show something about the u/c bulges, which u claimed to be nonexistent - you never posted those.. I have told you quite a few times that you will need much more than the long-drawn theories based on something totally different. At least ell me if u had understood the part about why is external load and internal load is different.. But forget all that! Just show me ONE primary source that lists 500+2x250 as a service load. That`s should be enough. Considering all the evidence, the opinion of knowladgable guys at that site, the Spit`s manual and limitations, I am fairly sure that the u/c and tires were the limiting factory in the Mk IXs. Unsurprising, knowing how the Seafire`s accidents in 1943, and the fact that on the Spit it was the wings that carried the weight. As for the flamer`s ranting about the wing`s strenght - offtopic, but for anyone interested, it`s fairly well covered in Spitfire The History, as brokenclaw showed a good while ago. I would rather stick to the topic about the inability to mount those extra Hispanos, though. A lot more interesting than the unneccesary chestpounding and flaming of some.

Nashwan · « **Reply #52 on:** January 12, 2004, 10:37:56 AM »

Quote

Just show me ONE primary source that lists 500+2x250 as a service load. That`s should be enough

The manual?

"When wing bombs are carried in addition to a fuselage bomb or drop tank, takeof must be made only from a smooth hard runway"

"When carried, the 90 (or 170) gallon drop tank must be jettisoned before any dive bombing is commenced"

"Except in emergency, the fuselage bomb or drop tank must be jettisoned before landing with wing bombs fitted"

Which should tell you several things

1. wing bombs and centre bomb/ drop tank was used.

2 landing with bomb or drop tank fitted was okay, providing wing bombs are not carried

3 landing with wing bombs fitted was okay, providing centreline bomb/drop tank was not carried

Quote

As it stands now, we haven`t seen a single photo of a Spit IX using the mentioned 500+2x250 lbs figure (I have some concern why exactly is the whole tail section is missing on bighorn`s picture.. is that a wartime Mk IX?

It's a wartime Spit IX. It's from 132 squadron, which according to the RAF ( http://www.raf.mod.uk ) joined 2nd TAF in March 44, flew fighter bomber missions until September, when it rejoined ADGB and flew escort missions. In December 44 it left for Ceylon (Sri Lanka), reformed in Ceylon in Jan 45, moved to Hong Kong after the war and disbanded in April 46.

The colours and markings should tell you it's not based in the far east at the time of the photo, as should the uniforms.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #53 on:** January 12, 2004, 12:48:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Nashwan,

As it stands now, we haven`t seen a single photo of a Spit IX using the mentioned 500+2x250 lbs figure (I have some concern why exactly is the whole tail section is missing on bighorn`s picture.. is that a wartime Mk IX? I can post pics of 109s with 1000 kg external load w/o caption, still it doesn`t make it a service configuration), no single manual that would list 500+2x250, not a single photo of Mk IX with four Hispanos... Naswhan, you want me to prove things with "many-many photos" I haven`t claimed (cannon stubs on Spit wings), yet you can`t even remotely show me anything similiar of that bomb config you claim to be "widespread" etc. BTW, the last time you promised to show something about the u/c bulges, which u claimed to be nonexistent - you never posted those.. I have told you quite a few times that you will need much more than the long-drawn theories based on something totally different. At least ell me if u had understood the part about why is external load and internal load is different.. But forget all that! Just show me ONE primary source that lists 500+2x250 as a service load. That`s should be enough. Considering all the evidence, the opinion of knowladgable guys at that site, the Spit`s manual and limitations, I am fairly sure that the u/c and tires were the limiting factory in the Mk IXs. Unsurprising, knowing how the Seafire`s accidents in 1943, and the fact that on the Spit it was the wings that carried the weight. As for the flamer`s ranting about the wing`s strenght - offtopic, but for anyone interested, it`s fairly well covered in Spitfire The History, as brokenclaw showed a good while ago. I would rather stick to the topic about the inability to mount those extra Hispanos, though. A lot more interesting than the unneccesary chestpounding and flaming of some.

Jeez, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to myself in this thread

I did post a photo of a Spit IX with 4 cannon long time ago this thread.

To quote Jeffrey Quill, Chief Supermarine Test Pilot: "The Spitfire Vc had a more advanced wing that was not only stronger but also made possible the installation of four cannon per aircraft or alternatively, two cannon and four machine guns. This was known as the 'universal wing' and was a major step forward, paving the way for the Mark IX Spitfire."

As for the configuration for the 2 250 pounders and 500 pounder on the IX.

Two more photos of bombed up Spit IXs in France. There is an off chance they are XVIs but since XVIs were the same airframe as the IX except with an American built Merlin, it's the same thing.

And to quote the 602 Squadron history "Lions Rampant" by Douglas MacRoberts.

"Max (Max Sutherland 602 CO) discovered that the Spitfire XVI-Basically a Mark IX with a Packard built Merlin-had permanent bomb shacles under the wings, and had been stressed to take heavier loads. Having found his aircraft, he made sure 602 got the first batch available. They could sling 1000 pounders under the fuselage and a pair of 250 pounders under the wings..."

Quoting F/L Raymond Baxter

"Our usual force on a typical anti-V-2 mission consisted of 4 to six Spitfires loaded with a single 500 and two 250 pound bombs.."

Hope this covers it

Dan/Slack

Guppy35 · « **Reply #54 on:** January 12, 2004, 12:59:06 PM »

Since a Picture is worth a 1000 words. Here are two more of 74 Squadron Spitfires on the continent in 44/45 with 2 250 pounders and a 500 pounder on the centerline.

To be honest, this is the Spit I wish we had in AH. Clipped wing, tall tail, 3 hard points, E wing, best at Medium to low alt etc etc.

Dan/Slack

Guppy35 · « **Reply #55 on:** January 12, 2004, 01:11:28 PM »

Funny that they'd be testing a 6 cannon installation in 42 in a heavier still Griffon engined DP845 when they couldn't carry 4 in a Spit IX?

No they never used it operationally but RAF requirements were looking at potentially 6 cannon armament for fighters at the time.

And Jeff Quill and Clive Gosling both flew this bird in that configuration.

Dan/Slack

MiloMorai · « **Reply #56 on:** January 12, 2004, 03:33:32 PM »

Guppy, one has to understand that Barbi, aka Isegrim, hates the Spitfire (and all things British) and will do anything to put it down. Maybe he will believe now with more pics of Spits with the 3 bombs and the quotes you posted. Don't hold your breath though.

Guppy, why is it that Spit IX in the pic you posted with 3 bombs is able to taxi with an airman sitting on the wing. All that extra weight most surely would have collapsed the u/c or at least had flattened tyres, would it not?

Barbi, bighorn's photo is of MH486.

Nashwan, notice the Spit IX of #317 with 2 bombs and a fuselage tank above the pic you referenced to in the Osprey book. Another case of an overloaded and weak u/c Spit.

..........

Can you tell me what the difference is between the Dunlop IJ and IK tyres.

HoHun · « **Reply #57 on:** January 12, 2004, 03:58:49 PM »

Hi Guppy,

>Funny that they'd be testing a 6 cannon installation in 42 in a heavier still Griffon engined DP845 when they couldn't carry 4 in a Spit IX?

Alred Price in "Spitfire - A Complete Fighting History" suggests that this installation was only a mock-up. No doubt with serious intentions, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #58 on:** January 13, 2004, 12:56:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,

>Funny that they'd be testing a 6 cannon installation in 42 in a heavier still Griffon engined DP845 when they couldn't carry 4 in a Spit IX?

Alred Price in "Spitfire - A Complete Fighting History" suggests that this installation was only a mock-up. No doubt with serious intentions, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

It was definately only a mock-up, but it was based on the potential requirement for up to 6 cannons in a fighter and this was in roughly May of 42. In 20+ years of researching Spits, I got to be good friends with a Supermarine service test pilot and he recalled dropping in on Tangmere with DP845 and the 6 cannon mock-up and the reaction he got from the operational pilots stationed there at the time. Needless to say they were a bit shocked

Dan/Slack

Guppy35 · « **Reply #59 on:** January 13, 2004, 02:10:31 AM »

Not to change the subject, but since we're talking Spits...

Why doesn't AH have a Merlin 66 LFIX or a Merlin 266 LFXVI version of the Spit? The LFIX was built in far greater numbers then the F or HF versions and was flying from 43 on.

Any pilot account read finds the pilots referring to what they called the Spitfire IXB (LFIX) as their favorite and the one that let them match up with the 190s.

Seems goofy that we'd be stuck with the Merlin 61 engined version that didn't match up as well. In fact testing against Arnim Faber's 190 and a Merlin 61 Spit IX lead to the development of the Merlin 66.

Hitech ever say why they chose to go the way they did?

Yeah I know, it's probably been asked a hundred times before, but I missed the answer if there was one.

Dan/Slack