The Me 410 jack of all trades

[Karnak]

The only difference between a Spitfire Mk V with the universal wing and a Spitfire Mk IX with the universal wing is the engine, so yes, they count.

[nrshida]

I always wondered, weren't some of the Spitfire Mark Vs essentially re-engined Spitfire Mark Is?

[Karnak]

I always wondered, weren't some of the Spitfire Mark Vs essentially re-engined Spitfire Mark Is?

Early Spitfire Mk Va with fabric ailerons and eight .303s, yes.

[nrshida]

Did any Mark Is end up as Mark IXs then?

[Karnak]

Did any Mark Is end up as Mark IXs then?

Absolutely not.  We're talking about a few hundred of the earliest Spitfire Mk Va and Mk Vb fighters with "a" or "b" wings. The vast majority of Spitfire Mk Vbs had metal ailerons and all Spitfires after them had metal ailerons.

There was no such thing as a Spitfire Mk IXa or Spitfire Mk IXb.

[FTJR]

There was no such thing as a Spitfire Mk IXa or Spitfire Mk IXb.

Yes and no.. According to "Late Mark Spitfire Aces, 42-45" when the IX was introduced there was no A, B, C however the planes came with different engines, so they became know as the IXa and the IXb by virtue of their particular engine the "A" having merlins either 61, 63 or 63a, and the "B" the 66. It was only much later that the Ministry came out with the official designations. the IXa became the L IXC, the IXb became the L IXc.  By the time the edict reached the squadrons, the pilots where too used to calling them by the a, b and logged them as such.

[Debrody]

The only difference between a Spitfire Mk V with the universal wing and a Spitfire Mk IX with the universal wing is the engine, so yes, they count.

Karnak,
i get your point, but still, generally refferring to "the" Spit IX is just not possible. As far as i can see, the Supermarine and the Rolls Royce constantly upgraded the Spitfires in production, as there is only a minor difference between the late Is and the early Vs, also the late Vs and early IXs, also even the XVI started its life as a modifyed version of the late IX... Correct me please if i am wrong, im not an expert.

Same as with the 109 Gs, the G-0 was a very early 1942 bird, essentially simmilar to the F, yet the G14 was completely different. And they were all Gustavs 

[Karnak]

The Mk XVI is an LF.Mk IXe.  No difference other than the American built Merlin 266, which is just a Merlin 66 with Imperial measurements and a critical altitude 1000ft higher, and the only reason there is any Mk differentiation between the LF.Mk IXe and the Mk XVI is because the Mk XVI's engine needed Imperial measurement tools and the LF.Mk IXe's engine needed Metric measurement tools.  The two came off the production lines side by side and which frame was going to be an LF.Mk IXe and which would be a Mk XVI wasn't determined until the engine was put in it.

The Mk XVI in AH is actually an LF.Mk IXe as its critical altitude is the same as the LF.Mk VIII we have, thus indicating it has a Merlin 66 in it, not a Merlin 266.

The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is powered by a Merlin 61, the version that first saw combat in July, 1942.

[Debrody]

Allright, just see what i meant, the late Spit IXs were different from the earlyer ones, even though they were running under the same number.
Only to avoid the misunderstandings and stuff about the XVI being a mid-war fighter.

[Karnak]

Allright, just see what i meant, the late Spit IXs were different from the earlyer ones, even though they were running under the same number.
Only to avoid the misunderstandings and stuff about the XVI being a mid-war fighter.

Yes, but in the context of AH the July, 1942 Spitfire Mk IX is not the contemporary Spitfire with the Me410.  The contemporary Spitfire to reference is the mid-1943 Spitfire LF.Mk VIII, hence my original post on the subject.  Imagine it is a Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the universal wing, also a mid-1943 Spitfire version.

[GScholz]

You're talking production dates, not service life. The Merlin 61 Spit IX ended production in March 1943, but served for far longer than that. The Spit VIII entered service in July of 1943, but the Spit IX would still be the most numerous fighter in the RAF (until the end of the war in fact). The early Spit VIIIs also used the Merlin 61 engine, so from a performance aspect the difference would be negligible.

[Karnak]

There were only 300 or so Merlin 61 Spitfire F.Mk IXs built.  I am talking about contemporary fighters.  The Me410 also entered service in 1943, correct?  So, like the Spitfire LF.Mk VIII and Spitfire LF.Mk IX, by far the most common version of each mark, the Me410's service life would be overlapping with the Merlin 66 Spitfires, not so much the Merlin 61 Spitfires.

As to the first Spitfire Mk VIIIs using the Merlin 61, no.  By the time the Spitfire Mk VIII was coming off the lines the engine put into it could have been a Merlin 61/63, Merlin 66 or Merlin 70, depending on its intended role.  They were all produced concurrently, though the Merlin 61/63 was not continued with for long.

[GScholz]

Late 1942 if we're counting converted earlier models (Spit Vc & Me 210).

[Karnak]

Late 1942 if we're counting converted earlier models (Spit Vc & Me 210).

Given the wing/airframe differences between the Me210 and Me410 were there conversions?  Or did late production Me210s incorporate most of the changes seen in the Me410?

[Charge]

All the late 210s were converted into 410s. Wings changed, the stuff.

One way do see if the plane was previously a 210 was the engine gauges in the inner engine wall (same as in 110). Those were eventually moved inside the cockpit and the holes covered.

-C+