Dan - The 'E' wing

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Squire
"Apparently the first true 'e' wings"

I suppose, im not sure I would word it like that myself. I think you could say "early" and "late" E wings.

Im sure the reason for the 1944 E wings including the 303 panels was they didn't see a need to delay production by redesigning it any further, or burdening the servicing commandos with a varient that had special parts, ect.

Late war, or post war, it could be revisited.

OK how about -
Universal wings converted to 'e' wings, and later factory 'e' wings built as 'e' wings.

What little there is suggests -
1) Field mod kits to fit 'e' armament to universal wings.
2) Aircraft being built with fully converted universal wings (ie not just the bits to hold the 'e' armanent and ord, but included stiffer main spar etc)
3) Wings coming from the factory built as 'e' wings from the start, no .303 panels. (fitted to XVIII).

Not sure where this leaves the XIVe though (prob cat 2), IXe falls into cat 1 or 2, the XVI is cat 2.

[pipz]

heheheh Kev sounds like you've already covered the wheel well bulges.I build 1/48th scale plastic models.I had a spit9,14 and a 8 sitin there.I read some modeleres say the bulges wernt suppose to be there.I did some research and noticed sometimes they were there and sometimes not.Corky and I are in the same squad and I know hes big on spits so I asked him.We canvased over it..asked people..looked in all the books we had.Basicly we decided they could or couldnt be there ...Soooo to even things out in the modelin world...the spit 14 kit didnt have bulges so I left it,the 9 had them but I sanded them off..I think I got a good look at that particuler plane I was modeling and didnt see them on there...I didnt have any clear pictures of the spit 8s upper wing that I was buildin..so to even it up I left the bulges on there.......modelers can be a fusy bunch when it comes to accuracy but I dare the world to prove me wrong on this!!!!

Pipz


Pipz

[Kev367th]

I 'believe' the wheel bulges were added when the Spits started operating off hard runways.
The undercarriage alignment was changed (to stop excessive tyre wear and nose overs) and this needed the bulges adding to stop the tyres hitting the under surface of the top skin.
Aslo co-incided with larger tyres being fitted.

So I suppose depending on when the aircraft flew it could be seen minus the bulges early on, then with them after the undercarriage alignment was changed.

The mod was just cutting a hole in the skin and rivetting the bulge on (basically).

For AH2
I - No
Vb - No
IX - No (as its supposed to be the early one)
VIII - ?
XVI - Yes
XIV - Yes
Seafire IIc - No

[Squire]

"3) Wings coming from the factory built as 'e' wings from the start, no .303 panels."

I would have to ask what evidence you have of that. I have seen none, that wartime Spits were ever delivered from the factory without the 303 panel on the E wing.

Its fine as a theory, but you need proof, you cant just assume it.

The photo Guppy showed of the factory floor clearly looks like a brand new Spit XVI to me, with an E wing, with the panels.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Squire
"3) Wings coming from the factory built as 'e' wings from the start, no .303 panels."

I would have to ask what evidence you have of that. I have seen none, that wartime Spits were ever delivered from the factory without the 303 panel on the E wing.

Its fine as a theory, but you need proof, you cant just assume it.

The photo Guppy showed of the factory floor clearly looks like a brand new Spit XVI to me, with an E wing, with the panels.

Only the Mk XVIII had the wings built exclusively as 'e' wings.
Prior to this they were converted universal wings, hence the .303 panels.

I did say that the XVI would fall into this category -
2) Aircraft being built with fully converted universal wings (ie not just the bits to hold the 'e' armanent and ord, but included stiffer main spar etc)

Little bit on it here -
http://www.ipmscanada.com/threads/th29-Spitfire%20c%20vs%20e%20wing-01.html

[Squire]

"The true "e" wing appeared on the Mk.XVIII with no provision for a "c" armament at all and a much different construction of the spar"

They basically say in that thread that the XVIII would have been the 1st version to have an E wing without the panels, any IX, XIV or XVI would have had the panels, wether converted or not.

Thats my point, all wartime E wings had the panels.