Author Topic: AH Spitfire Mk. IX Engine and Armament (Read 778 times)

funkedup · « **on:** June 29, 2001, 03:14:00 PM »

As Pyro has stated, and as supported by some performance test comparisons, the AH Spitfire Mk. IX has a Merlin 61 engine.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the Merlin 61 aircraft were built in 1942 and carried the C wing with .303 guns. These included the first 100 or so Mk. IX aircraft which were actually modified Mk. Vc airframes. The C wing was standard on the Mk. IX until after the Merlin 61 was phased out and replaced by the Merlin 66 or 70.

Spitfire C or E wings had a pair of closely-spaced gun tubes in each wing, which were originally intended for a pair of 20 mm cannon. C wing aircraft (e.g. Mk. Vc) usually had a cannon in each inboard gun tube, with each outboard tube blocked off, and a pair of .303 guns in the outboard part of each wing. E wing aircraft (e.g. Mk. IXe) had a cannon in each outboard tube, and a single .50 gun in the inboard tube.

Furthermore the E wing aircraft generally had the enlarged rudder as used on the Mk. VIII and pictured below on a Mk. XVIe.

Spitfire LF Mk. XVIe Note enlarged rudder and cannon in outboard tubes.

Problem:
The AH Mk. IX has a Merlin 61 and the short rudder. This means it is an F. Mk. IXc. But a C wing should not have a 0.50 cal option. Therefore the 0.50 cal option should be deleted in the game.

The E wing was used only on LF Mk. IX (Merlin 66), HF Mk. IX (Merlin 70), and Mk. XVI (Merlin 266). If HTC want to put 0.50 cal on a Merlin Spit, they need to model one of those.

Disclaimer:

The Mk. IX/XVI was probably the most varied Spitfire mark. There are so many combinations of armament and engine type and airframe details that almost any combination seems possible. I don't think it would be any great chore to field-modify a C wing Spit to carry a 0.50 cal in the vacant gun tubes. But I've never seen any report of this occuring.

Citabria · « **Reply #1 on:** June 29, 2001, 04:32:00 PM »

I agree

clarify the labeling on the spit IX to read that it is the F variant, remove 50 cal from the spitIX F....

and add the Spit LF IX with the option for either 50 cal or 30cal

this would be a much more representative wouldnt it?

after all there were 3000 Lf ix spits

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** June 29, 2001, 06:49:00 PM »

The rockets should also be removed as a loadout option and the droptank should be changed from a German 300 litre tank to the apropriate British tank.

I agree that it should be listed a s a Spitfire F.Mk IXc, not simply as a Spitfire Mk IX. Doing so implies that there is a generic Spitfire Mk IX when in fact there was not.

It would be like labeling the Bf109 as a Bf109G

The Luftwaffe fans would be up in arms about that.

The F, LF, HF, a, b, c and e type designations that the British used are just as vital and inportant as are the German designations such as the 6 in G-6.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #3 on:** June 29, 2001, 09:03:00 PM »

So the one you guys really really want is Spitfire LHFLFX Mk.IXabcdefgq with clipped wings and Merlin 64.5 engine but not under any circumstances the 63.45, right?

funkedup · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2001, 04:03:00 AM »

I want 'em all.

And if we can't get 'em all then let's at least get 'em correct.

Robert · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2001, 04:11:00 AM »

I made up some charts for the spit IX's climb and speed. Here is the link http://rwy0.tripod.com/ahfilms/spitix.html .
You can also reach this page from my home page. http://home.midsouth.rr.com/rwysairwar/
RWY

Tac · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2001, 11:02:00 AM »

just gimme a 12X .303 hurricane. The "Tracermaker"

I agree with Cit. Split the versions if they are not representative.

Pongo · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2001, 12:05:00 PM »

What we need is
Spitire TB891
LF Mk XVI
Call numbers DN A
Tall tail black nose no fueselage band
Bubble canopy

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2001, 12:20:00 PM »

Mk.XVI is the most akward looking spitfire of them all, the bubble canopy just doesnt go with the smaller Mk. IX and/or VIII tail.

Pongo · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2001, 03:12:00 PM »

what ever.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2001, 03:27:00 PM »

It is true Pongo.

Just compare how a Mk. XVI looks around the rear fuselage, tail and canopy to a Mk.XIVE or a Mk.XVIII. There is really no comparison. The XVI especially if fitted with the Mk.VIII style pointy rudder simply looks awful, like some sort of dork, it just doesnt look very "right".

Anyway Merlin spits are really ugly, they just cant help but be that way. Griffon spits, on the other hand, look very nice with the Mk.XVIII and Mk.22 being the nicest.

So it seems appropriate to say that the Spitfire Mk.XVI is one of the ugliest planes ever made, almost on par with the Fairey Barracuda and Gannet.

Well, OK, maybe not that far, but its really awfully akward.

Nashwan · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2001, 05:18:00 PM »

Just for Grunherz

I suppose when you're absolutely terrified of something you always think it's ugly

Freelancer · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2001, 07:13:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tac:
just gimme a 12X .303 hurricane. The "Tracermaker"

I agree with Cit. Split the versions if they are not representative.

The Huricane Mk. IIB, which I have a 1/72 scale model of sitting on my desk before me, did indeed have 12 .303s, but the reason they created the Mk. IIC is because they were STILL inadequate. The original 8 guns are by the wheel wells, but the additional 2 guns per were were put way way out on the wings, past the landing lights. One problem was that the firepower just wasn't concentrated in the same spot. It didn't have the punch of the high power guns. It probably was weak against Luftwaffe bombers, also, because for a while that was the main RAF concern.

What I'd be interested in seeing is the Hurricane Mk. IID. It was reported to have 30mm cannon and in some cases 40mm, for exclusive use in ground attack as the Hurc became more obsolete during the war. The Mk. IIDs served in the mediterrainian theater, if I recall.

One ought to mention, the Mk. IIB has bomb racks. It can hold 2 bombs, I forget which poundage. But to hold these, you lose two guns. That's right. The hardpoints are directly below a gun on each wing. Probably blocks the shell ejector chute, or something.

More information about the model can be found at http://lancer.raptor.nu/model

*ed: fixed typo*

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Freelancer ]

funkedup · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2001, 07:28:00 PM »

Remember not all the XVI's had the bubble canopy. The one in my first post for example.

I do like the French one pictured above though!

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2001, 08:15:00 PM »

You see it looks awfuly akward, compare that ugly ugly thing with a late bubble Mk.XIVe or a MK.XVIII- those are beutiful planes.

BTW Funked I know not all XVI are bubble, but thats what I was reffering to. The non bubble XVIs are only just as ugly as the IX.

Oh yea I really do think Spits are really ugly in most forms. Besically I see them getting better looking as they go through progressions. The I and II are very ugly and dull, the V is just too damn bubly and characterless plus the least competitive spit of all vs contemporary fighters, the IXs get a bit better as they get some sharper lines in the nose and spinner, but still suiffer from lack of real looks and interest. The Griffon spits with their motor bulges and wider tails really begin to look good. My favorite is the Mk.XVIII and the Mk.22, also to me the 22 is better over the 24 because the 22 has the long gun tubes and looks meaner. Anyway I think most Merlin spits are ugly and characterless and I think you all know that deep down inside.