Spit IXc

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by TDeacon
So you guys are saying that the following is wrong?

"The final letter in a Spitfire's designation (eg Spitfire F.VC) denoted the type of wing the aircraft was fitted with, a function of its installed armament.  The basic Spitfire elliptical wing had four derivatives - A, B, C, and E, while the Mark 21 and later models had an entirely new wing with a standard armament and no designation suffix.  In the case of a model which was always fitted witht the same wing, again no suffix was applied.  An example is the Spitfire VIII... "

Yes it is wrong at least in terms of the IX.    Note it mentions there was no designation to the Spit VIII.  Same principle.The Spitfire V used the A, B, C designations because they were using all three.

The Spitfire IX went into production with only the Universal wing.  This was called the C wing on the Spitfire V.  There was no inclination to use the A or B wing on the Spitfire IX so there was no seperate C designation.  They did, upon introduction of the E wing of 2 20 and 2 .5MGs add the E designation so Spitfire LFIXE would be correct.  But there was no official Spitfire FIXc.

It is purely a product of historians carrying on the idea from the Spitfire Vc

If you look at the maintenence manuals they don't refer to the C wing at all with the IX.  I have the XII maint manual and it too does not refer to the C wing.  It refers to the Universal wing as used on the Spitfire Vc.

I've posted this link before, but it's to a debate I started on the Flypast forum.  At that point I was of the C wing club on the IX.  Mark12 is Peter Arnold who is THE Spitfire historian out there.  By the end, we'd gotten it down to that there was no C wing designation for the Spit IX and he posts the images from the manuals to prove it.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20000

[TDeacon]

Interesting link; I will have time to absorb it properly when I get home.  

So, I guess the issue is (a) whether the IX existed with multiple types of wings (thus theoretically justifying the suffix to distinguish between them), and (b) whether this nomenclature was actually used in WWII, regardless of this theoretical justification.  

My answer to (a) appears to be yes, as some early Spit IXs were converted from production Spit Vs (which had different wings), and as there are photos of early Spit IXs with what appear to be "b" wings.  

My answer to (b) is that I need to read Guppy's link.  :-)

[1K3]

Originally posted by Karnak

Spitfire Mk Vb (two 20mm (60 rpg) and four .303s, Merlin 45 at +12lbs boost)

The spit 5 screenshot cockpit shows the spit 5 has 240 rounds of cannon ammo.

[Skuzzy]

1K3, would you please stop going on about that.  It is just artwork and does not neccessarily reflect what the loadout actually is.

[1K3]

then new spit 5s will have 120 rounds of cannon ammo?

[TDeacon]

No, Skuzzy is being noncommital.  It could be 120.  It could be 240.  They will tell us later; this artwork is just to fill us in on how the planes will look.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by TDeacon
Interesting link; I will have time to absorb it properly when I get home.  

So, I guess the issue is (a) whether the IX existed with multiple types of wings (thus theoretically justifying the suffix to distinguish between them), and (b) whether this nomenclature was actually used in WWII, regardless of this theoretical justification.  

My answer to (a) appears to be yes, as some early Spit IXs were converted from production Spit Vs (which had different wings), and as there are photos of early Spit IXs with what appear to be "b" wings.  

My answer to (b) is that I need to read Guppy's link.  :-)

The Spit IX was essentially a Spitfire Vc with a Merlin 60 series engine.  The early ones were converted Spitfire Vc.  That being said, they started with Universal wings not the early B wing of the Spitfire Vb.

You will see some images of Spitfire IX without the cannon plug next to the cannon.  This has sometimes been misinterpreted as a B wing.  That gets covered in that link I posted.  It was because of MH434, which has a Universal wing, but no blanked off cannon plug that I asked the question.  Initially it was argued that it was a B wing, but in fact it's internals are a Universal wing.  It just happened to not have the second opening.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Bruno
No it won't be @ 18lbs boost. Where did you see a picture of the boost gage with the engine running?

Anyway, a Spitfire F.IX with a Merlin 61 has maximum of 15lbs boost just like the current F.IX, just like Karnak said.

D'oh.. Never mind, I was thinking of the wrong spit

[TDeacon]

OK, I've read Dan's link more carefully, and reviewed my limited library.  My current personal conclusion is that:

1)  The major participants in that thread have concluded that it is not correct to refer to IXc armament, based on lack of evidence available to them that this designation was used in WWII.  While this conclusion is probably correct in many contexts, I am not sure it is correct for all contexts.  In particular, note the following specific statement in the Price book:  

"Later in the year..." (1943) "... the Ministry of Aircraft Production introduced three new official designations for sub-variants of the Mk IX in an attempt to resolve the position.  They were as follows:  FIXC..." "...LF IXC..." "...HFIXC...".  

This statement refers to an alleged historical event, and is not merely a carrying-over of Spit V terminology without explanation.  

2)  Until the above is resolved, I feel that it is not unreasonable to refer to IXCs, especially as this term is useful to distinguish them from IXe/IXEs.  

3)  Also, many hobbies dealing with historical events (like ours) develop terminology which was not used when the events occured.  That does not necessarily mean that the terminology should be prohibited, if it is otherwise useful to the hobbyiests.