Author Topic: Spit XVI - please reconsider (Read 3572 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #75 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:10:31 PM »

Excellent, ya like the Spit F.21, now that would be a monster in the MA ^^^^^^^^^

For all those who didn't reckon the Spit XVI would be worthwhile or needed heres a little snippet of information -
Its was the RAF's LAST mainstay Spit frontline fighter, kinda makes it important dont you think.

Dan can maybe narrow it down further TB863 is still a highback.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #76 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:14:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Excellent, ya like the Spit F.21, now that would be a monster in the MA ^^^^^^^^^
For all those who didn't reckon the Spit XVI would be worthwhile or needed heres a little snippet of information -
Its was the RAF's LAST mainstay Spit frontline fighter, kinda makes it miportant dont you think.

Had chance to correspond with some 91 Squadron Spit 21 pilots during the course of my XII research as they gone from XIIs to XIVs to IXs to 21. They flew em operationally.

A pretty bird, and of course with the 4 20mms it would be a beast

Image of a 91 Squadron 21 that I got from a former pilot

Dan/CorkyJr

Kev367th · « **Reply #77 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:17:28 PM »

I suppose if you allow the fact that F.21's strafed a midget submarine that counts as combat.
So they did see aciton of sort, although I believe only 120 out of the 3000 ordered were actually delivered.
Still an evil looking beast

Guppy35 · « **Reply #78 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:18:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Panic over found one, even starred in the movie BoB

Just wanted to make sure everything was spot on.

Interesting site
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/spitregistry/spitregistry.html#mk16

LOL hate to break it to ya, but the guy who restored that bird TE184 actually took it from it's original low back and changed it back into a high profile again. No idea why other then he liked the look

Dan/CorkyJr

Kev367th · « **Reply #79 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:18:52 PM »

NOOOOOOOOOO. lol
Get ye behind me satan, and get ye back to doing profiles

.

Tell ya what is funny, I know exactly why you would like VIII.
You'll be wanting UP-S redone I guess?

Quick few questions-
How much did the retractible tailwheel add to max speed on VIII?
Did the bubbletop affect speed in anyway?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #80 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:31:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
You guys have to understand that the E wing was the standardized fighter-bomber wing with 3 hardpoints and the .50 cal + 20mm loadout.

All the XVIs were "Universal" or "E" wing armed.

"C" wings had one hardpoint only...it was never used on the XVI.

The 1st XVIs had regular canopies. Later ones had the bubble. Many (most?) had clipped wings.

Not surprising since the 1st XVI entered service in October 1944, by which time the E wing was standard on Spit IXs and XIVs. The RAF wasnt bothering with C wings anymore by then.

The XVI was a standardized version of the LF IXe with a Packard Merlin. 3 hardpoints, 20mm and .50 cal., broad rudder.

Just to mess things up a bit

Spitfire Society founder David Green in his 73 Squadron Spitfire LFIX with universal "C"wings and bombs hanging underneath

Those guys in the MTO tended to mess with their birds a bit more. Note that his IX is clipped wing while the guy behind him has full span and two bombs.

No it wasn't standard to have wing bombs on a Universal "C" winged Spit IX

Dan/CorkyJr

Karnak · « **Reply #81 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:35:03 PM »

I don't know about speed, but it did reduce stability. It was like the vertical stabilizer was reduced.

Krusty · « **Reply #82 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:41:29 PM »

Same thing as the P47 and P51... The early razorback models are a bit more stable. The bubble models lack a little something (usually it's made up for with a larger stabilizer, but that doesn't always help in every situation)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #83 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:42:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
NOOOOOOOOOO. lol
Get ye behind me satan, and get ye back to doing profiles .

Tell ya what is funny, I know exactly why you would like VIII.
You'll be wanting UP-S redone I guess?

Quick few questions-
How much did the retractible tailwheel add to max speed on VIII?
Did the bubbletop affect speed in anyway?

Nothing I've seen says the bubble top helped or hurt speed. Not sure on the benefit of the retractable tail wheel on the VIII. BUT!

To give you an idea of the differences. Quoting Alfred Price's book "The Spitfire Story".

"In 1943 engineers at Farnborough carried out a series of trials on Spitfire Vb EN946. The aircraft underwent a series of minor modifications to improve performance and after each the increase in maximum speed at full throttle height was carefully measured. Initially the maximum speed was 357 mph. The fitting of multiple ejector exhausts in place of the previous "fishtail" type gave an increase of 7mph. The removal of the carburator ice guard gave 8mph. The fitting of a different rear view mirror with a fairing gave 3mph. The installation of a whip aerial in place of the early mast type gave 1/2 mph. Cutting the cartridge case and the link ejector chutes flush with the wings gave 1mph. Painting and polishing the leading edge of the wing gave 6 mph. Polishing the remainder of the aircraft with wax gave 3 mph. Together the small changes increased the speed of the Spitfire Vb from 357 to 385 mph."

Every little bit helps

Dan/CorkyJr

Squire · « **Reply #84 on:** August 04, 2005, 07:58:52 PM »

I have plenty of pics in my book of XVIEs with standard canopies, but I never did figure out how to post pics on the forum, so I often use links...

Actually models are usually very accurate, imho. but thats neither here nor there. They can be usefull for a quick pic.

The IXC designation is used in many, many books, as is the IXB designation. Both are considered proper ways of describing the type by historians. Model companies just use what are already historical ways of describing the a/c.

Actually, I just went through a source and it says the Ministry of AC Production introduced the F IXC, LF IXC, and HF IXC designations as "official", to put an end to the confusion. The IXA and IXB were designations the pilots came up with, but I guess either is ok.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #85 on:** August 04, 2005, 08:18:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Same thing as the P47 and P51... The early razorback models are a bit more stable. The bubble models lack a little something (usually it's made up for with a larger stabilizer, but that doesn't always help in every situation)

Usually a larger fin and/or rudder was used to get some stability back.

Squire · « **Reply #86 on:** August 04, 2005, 08:58:34 PM »

Ya no prob Kev, we all get a bit tired going at this, but its been a decent debate and conversation.

Guppy, there was an E wing conversion kit I have heard about that LF IXc squadrons got later in the war...I wonder if thats a result of those your showing. Odd. Do you have a date for that photo? Im assuming its Italy.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #87 on:** August 04, 2005, 09:33:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
Ya no prob Kev, we all get a bit tired going at this, but its been a decent debate and conversation.

Guppy, there was an E wing conversion kit I have heard about that LF IXc squadrons got later in the war...I wonder if thats a result of those your showing. Odd. Do you have a date for that photo? Im assuming its Italy.

It's late war in Italy. Guessing it was a field mod kinda like they did with the first "Bombfire" Spitfire Vcs back in the Malta days. It looks similar.

Image is from the Air Ministry Spit IX manual. There was no official designation for the C wing on the IX.

If you check that thread I posted from Flypast, we really hashed it out. It was an easy mistake for the historians to make, but only the Spitfire V carried the A, B and C designations for the wing. Otherwise it was the Universal wing for the IX until the E.

Technically there was never an XVIe either as there was only one wing type on the XVI so they didn't have seperate designations.

Dan/CorkyJr

Edited to add a page from the Spit XII maint. manual. Note how it doesn't refer to the Spitfire FXIIc but just the FXII. It does however refer to the Universal type main plain "as fitted to the Spitfire Vc".

So it's easy to see where the mistake got made in calling them IXc's or VIIIc's

Squire · « **Reply #88 on:** August 05, 2005, 01:14:08 AM »

Its pretty confusing to many, I only know the types because of so much exposure to reading up on them over many years.

"Spitfire Varients" could be a college course

justin_g · « **Reply #89 on:** August 05, 2005, 04:06:48 AM »

When the Spitfire Mk IX was fitted with the Merlin 66, it was called Mk IXB for a while. I believe it was an unofficial designation used by the pilots & mechanics?