Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Wizer on January 07, 2004, 06:29:07 PM
-
The Spitfire IX is basically a re-engined Spitfire Mk V and came equiped with" B", "C" and "E" wing armament packages. The "C: Wing armament package consisted of four .303 machine guns and two 20 mm. Hispano cannons. The "E" wing armament package consisted of two Hispano 20-mm cannons and two Browning .50 caliber machine guns. The "E" wing could also be configured with four instead of two Hispano 20 mm cannons and two .50 caliber machine guns. The Spitfire IX in Aces High has the "C" and "E" wing armament, but the "E" wing package only has the two 20-mm cannons and two Browning .50 caliber machine guns. What about upgrading the configuration to the four .20 mm cannons and two .50 caliber machine guns.
wizer
:)
-
That'd be swell, except for the fact that no operational plane had 4 20mm and 2 .50's. 4 20mm, yes. 2 20mm and 2 .50's, yes. 4 20mm and 2 .50's, no.
-
excellent call urchin....so lets get them 4 cannons in the spit!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
That'd be swell, except for the fact that no operational plane had 4 20mm and 2 .50's. 4 20mm, yes. 2 20mm and 2 .50's, yes. 4 20mm and 2 .50's, no.
Urchin,
that is an extremely broad statement that is impossible to back up. I can show you a picture of a 38 with 8 .50 cals in the nose, that was flown operationally, but there are those that argue it never happened. Or better yet the pics of us 51d's outfitted with 4 20 mm that were flown in group strength. The important thing to remember is that a lot of different things were tried in WW2, we will never know the full magnitude of it all, but for us to say something never did, is just plain absurd, especially consdiering hardly a one of us were ever there.
-
I think the original poster meant that the E wing could have two 20mm cannon and two .50 calibre machine guns or four 20mm cannon.
He just worded it poorly.
That said, I don't think so, not at all.
The Spitfire F.Mk IX with the Merlin 61 engine (thr AH Spit IX's engine) only carried the B wing of two 20mm cannon and four .303 calibre machine guns. That is what ours should be limited to.
Either that or keep its current options, but remodel the performance as a Merlin 63 powered Spitfire F.Mk IX.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Urchin,
that is an extremely broad statement that is impossible to back up. I can show you a picture of a 38 with 8 .50 cals in the nose, that was flown operationally, but there are those that argue it never happened. Or better yet the pics of us 51d's outfitted with 4 20 mm that were flown in group strength. The important thing to remember is that a lot of different things were tried in WW2, we will never know the full magnitude of it all, but for us to say something never did, is just plain absurd, especially consdiering hardly a one of us were ever there.
Can we see a pic of the P-51D with 4 20mm cannons. What Group?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Can we see a pic of the P-51D with 4 20mm cannons. What Group?
I've only seen pics of Mustang Mk.IA (P-51A - Allison engined) and P-51B (Merlin Engined) that were equipped with 20mm hispano. The Allison engined P-51s were designated another variant and used for armed reconnaisance. The P-51B with cannon was just a prototype IIRC but I know of no P-51Ds fitted with cannons.
-
The A-36 Apache (P-51A) was fitted with 4 20mm Hispanos and dive flaps and used for strafing and dive bombing...I know this because I've stood next to one ...
The A-36A dive bomber was the first AAF version of the "Mustang" developed for Britain in 1940. The A-36 fist flew in Oct. 1942; production of 500 A-36As was completed by March 1943.
There is one on display at the USAF Musuem, however the pics and website hasn't been updated as this one is fitted with 4x 20mm cannons now.
-
Originally posted by DYGCaps
The A-36 Apache (P-51A) was fitted with 4 20mm Hispanos and dive flaps and used for strafing and dive bombing...I know this because I've stood next to one ...
There is one on display at the USAF Musuem, however the pics and website hasn't been updated as this one is fitted with 4x 20mm cannons now.
The standard armament for the A-36A was four .50 in the wings, and two synchronised .50 in the lower cowling, so a 20mm fit sounds like a 'one-off'.
The only Mustangs fitted with cannon as standard AFAIK were the Mustang Mk.1A (93 built) and the first P-51s (57 built).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Tony, the P-51(no letter) were originally part of the British order. These were FD418/FD437, FD450/FD464, FD466/FD469, and FD510/FD527. The corresponding serial numbers assigned by the USSAF for the British a/c were 41-37320/37469.
DYGCaps, are you sure? What is the serial number on the a/c? Is it in this range, 42-83663-84162?
-
Wizer, the Mk V. with C wings could indeed carry 4 Hispanos (it was rare though, IIRC there was a lack of Hispano supply), even though 2x20+4x7.7mm was more common. Indeed you are right that the Mk IX was basically a reworked Mk V structure, however you forget that the Mk IX was much heavier, and the tires/undercarriage could not support the extra weight of the Merlin 60 series AND the extra Hispanos. I have never ever seen evidence of any operational Mk IX ever carry 4 cannons. In fact it seems that the wing structure and u/c could not support that until the redesign occuring w. the Mk 2x series.
BTW, AFAIK Mk IXs were either built with C or E type wings (the latter appearing in 1944) with either 2x20mm+4x7.7mm or 2x20mm + 2x12.7mm . Besides, I don`t think there would much gain adding another two Hispanos with their powerful recoil, grouped 4 meters apart into the wings into such a light fighter as the Spit. Remember the Hispano was originally developed as an engine cannon, where the whole weight of the engine could bear the recoil forces, plus it would in the centre of thrustline, = no sideway forces..Those two were already a bit too much for it IMHO, I read that when one jammed aiming become an impossibibilty because of the assymetric recoil.. I always wondered why didn`t the Brits put the MK V Hispanos into the Spits as they appeared, it would be much better suited for them. The Mk IIs were just too powerful in a wing configuration.
-
Indeed you are right that the Mk IX was basically a reworked Mk V structure, however you forget that the Mk IX was much heavier, and the tires/undercarriage could not support the extra weight of the Merlin 60 series AND the extra Hispanos.
The Spitfire IX could also carry a 500 lb bomb on the centreline, and later 2 250 lb bombs under the wings as well, so the extra weight of the cannon was hardly that much of an issue.
4 303s and ammunition weighed 205 lbs. 2 Hispanos and ammunition weighed 444 lbs, so the difference was 239 lbs. Not much compared to 1,000lbs of bombs, or even a 90 gallon drop tank, which weighed in excess of 650 lbs.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I always wondered why didn`t the Brits put the MK V Hispanos into the Spits as they appeared, it would be much better suited for them. The Mk IIs were just too powerful in a wing configuration.
I've wondered that too, the Spitfire seemed to need them more than the Tempest (which I believe was the only wartime plane to make extensive use of the Mk V).
However, the Mk V wasn't significantly less powerful than the Mk II. The muzzle velocity was reduced a bit because of the shorter barrel, but the gun fired faster.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
The light gunboat 109s and 190s must have had some problems aiming when the MG151s jambed.
-
Originally posted by DYGCaps
The A-36 Apache (P-51A) was fitted with 4 20mm Hispanos and dive flaps and used for strafing and dive bombing...I know this because I've stood next to one ...
There is one on display at the USAF Musuem, however the pics and website hasn't been updated as this one is fitted with 4x 20mm cannons now.
From what I can see the A-36A was only fitted with 6 x .50 cal MGs, 2 in the cowling. I saw one a few years ago at Duxford flying - see pic below. Fitted with airbrakes and bombs.
(http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow02/legends/a36andp51.jpg)
The RAF originally ordered 150 P-51s fitted with 20mm cannon (Mustang Mk.IA) but the USAAF requisitioned some back for Hawaii defence. These kept the cameras in the side and was known as something like F6?????
-
4 Hispanos were all Mustang IAs not A-36s.
"Indeed you are right that the Mk IX was basically a reworked Mk V structure, however you forget that the Mk IX was much heavier, and the tires/undercarriage could not support the extra weight of the Merlin 60 series AND the extra Hispanos."
Well thats odd because there were Spit VIIIs with 4 x 20mm and they are almost identical to a IX (merlin 60). They could easily have 4 x 20mm on the Spit IX E, but the RAF chose not to arm them so. It was an operational decision, not a design problem. By definition the "E" wing could mount 4 x 20mm, it was designed for just that, as an option. The other option was 2 x 20mm and 2 x .50 caliber. It also had a bomb rack.
Should the IX E in AH have it? No. Why? Because it was not so armed. Thats my opinion, but the "it couldnt mount them" stuff is not correct.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Spitfire IX could also carry a 500 lb bomb on the centreline, and later 2 250 lb bombs under the wings as well, so the extra weight of the cannon was hardly that much of an issue.
Never seen any primary reference mentioning that 500 lbs + 2 x 250 lbs configuration. The Spitfire`s IX/XVI manual of 1946 (that`s quite late) only lists the following:
Add: Checked Mk XIV`s manual, the same types are listed.
1 x 500 lbs AN/M 58
or
1 x 500 lbs AN/M 64
or
1 x 500 lbs AN/M 76
or
1 x 500 lbs SAP bomb
or
1 x 65 lbs nickel bomb Mk II
or
1 x 10 lbs practice bomb
Could you please list the reference to the 500 + 2x250 lbs config carried at the same time, not as alternate loadouts ?
Other than that, in every publication I have seen that deals why the 4x20mm config was never fitted to Mk IXs the problem with the increased weight is mentioned. If that was not true, I don`t see why no single subtype until the wing`s redesign employed the 4 cannon config again.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Well thats odd because there were Spit VIIIs with 4 x 20mm and they are almost identical to a IX (merlin 60). They could easily have 4 x 20mm on the Spit IX E, but the RAF chose not to arm them so.
It was an operational decision, not a design problem. By definition the "E" wing could mount 4 x 20mm, it was designed for just that, as an option.
I don`t see why you find that odd. The Mk VIII was a new airframe, different from the Mk IX, being 300 lbs heavier in the same config, period. The E or C wing could carry the cannons, there was enough space for that, another thing is that the u/c couldn`t cope with carrying such a burden on every mission if weight is not decreased by other means. It`s just not as easy as "they could have mounted it, no problem at all". Saying they could is what all easy. They had a slightly modified Mk V airframe, that was designed to cope with 6500 lbs takeoff weight. When they made slight modifications to accept the much heavier two stage Merlins, they had 7400 lbs at their hand. Adding another extra 250 lbs w/o redesigning the tires, strenghtening the undercarriage was simply not an option, especially on a plane that was meant to be an "interim solution". As for the "RAF just didn`t want to add 4 cannons"... hmm... they wanted that in 1941-43 with the Mk V, and they wanted that 1945+ with the Mk 2x series. I just wonder why the different thinking only in regardwith the Mk IXs, which are hastily converted old airframes designed for MUCH less weight..
-
Spifire, The History pg 309
"Later loadings could consist of 2 x 250lb wing, plus 1 x 500lb fuselage bomb, no overload fuel or rear tank, auw 9059lb; or 2 x 250lb wing bombs plus 90gal overload tank, no rear fuel, auw 9250lb; or 1 x170gal overload tank only, auw 9500lb"
normal TO weight for the IXE, 7181.5lb
A 1946 manual??? After the defeat of Nazi Germany all a/c had their loads reduced.
tare weights
XIII - 5806lb
IXE - 5816lb
max permisable weights
VC - 7300lb
VIII - 8000lb
IXE - 9500lb
XVI - 9500lb
tires
VC - Dunlop IJ 12, 13, or 17
VIII - Dunlop IK 13 or 17
XVI - Dunlop IJ 13 or 17, or IK 13 or 17
XIV - Dunlop IK 13 or 17
-
A 1946 manual??? After the defeat of Nazi Germany all a/c had their loads reduced.
I wouldn`t swore on that, especially as the 1944 Mk XIV manual says the same loadout, ie. 500 lbs bombs, it rather seems like your own hypothesis born in the spite of events... Not really something to be trusted over a primary source! Still, I would like to see some source or at least a photo of a 500+2x250lbs config. I wouldn`t be surprised if the Spitfire book would be in error, it confronts the manual itself, not to mention they are dead wrong in the normal TO weight which they claim for the IXE, 7181.5lb, and is simply wrong, see :
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ab197wl.gif )
Also:
2......Weight Summary.
*Load 1. 2.
'TARE' Weight (including 5 standard ballast weights of 17.5 lb. in tail 5749 5719
Service load 1008 798
Fuel 85 gallons @ 7.2 lb./gall. 612 612
Oil 8.5 gallons @ 9.0 lb./gall. 76 76
Flying weight 7445 7205
See 7445 lbs as Flying weight for IX, not mentioning that the E was even heavier if there were .50s installed...
-
How about TB232, a Spit XVI (which was a IX with a Packard built engine) tested with 2 250 lbs bombs, 1 90 gallon drop tank (in excess of 650 lbs, and therefore heavier than a 500lb bomb) AND a rear fuselage fuel tank?
How about MJ823, tested with 2 250 lb bombs and 90 gallon drop tank? AUW with 2 250 lbs and 90 gallon tank 8,435 lbs. "All trials satisfactory"
Remember Isegrim, your initial claim was
however you forget that the Mk IX was much heavier, and the tires/undercarriage could not support the extra weight of the Merlin 60 series AND the extra Hispanos.
You claimed the extra 240 lbs of Hispanos would be too much for the Spit IX, whereas it carried 500 lbs of bombs, or 600 lbs of drop tanks routinely, and later in the war 1,000 lbs of bombs or 500 lbs of bombs and 650 lbs of fuel.
As to pictures, try p75 of Osprey's "late mark spitfire aces" which shows a Spit Ix of 132 squadron being bombed up with 2 250lbs and 1 500 lb. P 76 shows a Spit IX of 74 squadron with two rockets (weight 80 lbs each) and a 500 lbs bomb. Note both these aircraft have "E" armament, which weighed 110 lbs more than the standard "B" armament anyway.
-
The fifties on the Spits IX were mounted in the empty inner twenty bays.
-
"I don`t see why you find that odd. The Mk VIII was a new airframe, different from the Mk IX, being 300 lbs heavier in the same config, period."
Same "C" or "E" wing, and 300 lbs is not big # for a/c that have loaded weights of 7500 lbs. You make it sound like the IX could barely lurch airborne under its huge weight.
"The E or C wing could carry the cannons, there was enough space for that, another thing is that the u/c couldn`t cope with carrying such a burden on every mission if weight is not decreased by other means. "
There is no source that states that, thats just conjecture. Thats like saying it had to have wing guns removed to perform a fighter-bomber mission.
"It`s just not as easy as "they could have mounted it, no problem at all". Saying they could is what all easy."
Well, sorry, talk to Supermarine, they built it. It could carry 4 cannons.
"They had a slightly modified Mk V airframe, that was designed to cope with 6500 lbs takeoff weight. When they made slight modifications to accept the much heavier two stage Merlins, they had 7400 lbs at their hand. Adding another extra 250 lbs w/o redesigning the tires, strenghtening the undercarriage was simply not an option, especially on a plane that was meant to be an "interim solution"."
Again, what does the undercarriage have to do with the price of tea in Bejing? Give a source that states there was any problem with the undercarriage and a 4 x 20mm mount???
"As for the "RAF just didn`t want to add 4 cannons"... hmm... they wanted that in 1941-43 with the Mk V"
Some Mk VCs had 4 x 20mm cannon...if they wanted that as a standard option, it was no problem. They chose not to. The Spitfire VIII could also have 4 x 20mm and they chose not to, the Spitfire XIV could have it and they chose not to. Why? I dont know, ask the RAF. It was probably a decision based on production, the need for the heavier armament, cost, ect. for whatever reason they decided to go with mounting the browning .50 in the second cannon port instead of a 20mm.
If they wanted 4 x 20mm so bad why did the XIV not have it with a 2000hp RR Griffon engine then? was it too heavy for it too?
Interim solution. Again, what does that have to do with anything? Do you think the P-51, 109 or 190 went through WW2 as the designers originally envisioned them? I can tell you none of them did.
-
Some of you guys are making this way too tough.
The Spit Vc did carry 4 cannon armament. The bunch launched off the USS Wasp for Malta in April of 42 all had 4 cannon.
But because of the weight penalty etc, most if not all had one set of cannon removed once on Malta. Often times they were left in the outboard cannon bay too like the E wing later.
To paraphrase someone's sig, "if you can't hit the enemy plane with 2 cannon, you aren't going to hit it with 4"
Were 4 cannon Spit Vc used in combat? Yep, in the ground attack role late in the war in Italy for one, while with 2 Squadron SAAF. One 500 pound bomb, 4 20mm cannon. But this was for ground attack and not air to air. Once again the impact on turning ability etc was the difference.
Keep in mind, that a number of pilots had the outboard 303s removed and relied only on the 2 20mm cannon as they felt like it made them faster and turn better.
Image is of a flight of 2 Squadron SAAF Spit Vcs late in the war over the Adriatic. All 4 cannon Spits.
I can post images of Spit IX with 4 cannon including one of the converted Spit Vcs very early in 42, and Spit VIII if anyone wants as well as the mock up for a 6 cannon armament that was test flown in the first Griffon Spit IV in 1942.
So it's all about performance, not whether the Spit Vc, IX or VIII could carry the armament.
Ask those cannon boot 109 pilots how they liked to dogfight with one of those birds vs one without them. I kinda doubt they'd take the heavier plane and armament over the better performer :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073601900.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073601932.jpg)
-
I think in the end it was a case of #1 some weight would be saved, and #2 4 x 20mm was not deemed as needed, so they went with the .50 in the outer port as the definitive armament.
-
What the heck. One of the first converted Spit Vcs to IX in early 1942.
Note the 4 cannon armament.
Once again, rarely used. No we don't need it in AH :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073603174.jpg)
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I wouldn`t be surprised if the Spitfire book would be in error, it confronts the manual itself, not to mention they are dead wrong in the normal TO weight which they claim for the IXE, 7181.5lb, and is simply wrong,
Well it is not first, or last, time a typo will be made.:) Notice on the num pad that the 1 and 4 are next to each other.
One should not include pilot weight as that weight can vary by 50-70lb. Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 engine(JL165) had a TO weight of 7400 lbs(2 x 20mm, 4 x .303"). What prop was fitted has also to be considered(Dural or Rotol) in the weight.
OBW, we all miss you over at Ubi Ise, especially Gibbage.
........
Nashwan, notice the MkVIII with 4 long barrel cannons on pg 79 that was photographed in April 1944. How much did those beer barrels weigh?
-
Many later versions of the Spitfire Mk. IX's used the "E" configuration. With that being a said yes they were capable of a 2x 20mm MkII and 2x12.7mm(.50) Browning configuration or a 4x 20 mm MkII configuration.
How many actually flew with this configuration would be a better question and as of right now I've only found a few pictures with the 4x 20mm configuration. One of those pictures was a formation of 3, 2 aircraft being the old style canopies and 4x 20mm and the other being the newer bubble style canopy and a 4x 20mm configuration.
Is there anything out there that states also the reason that not all were not fitted with 4x 20mm's? Also is there anything that says specifically about this configuration and that it's armament effectiveness wasn't enough to out weigh the performance decrease if there was one? Anyone got a link to every Spitfire Mk. IX squadron and there typical loadout configurations? I'd assume it'd be a production issue of the MkII when it comes to why they didn't retrofit all Mk. IX's with this config. Mass production of the Browning from the U.S might have something to do with it too. I'd prefer the 4x20 over the 2x2 anyday. Cause when it comes down to it and all you got left is .50's your looking for the next available exit. Having the extra cannon rounds would come in handy to finish off that last pesky fighter so you don't have to bob and weave all the way home.
I myself can see many reason for having the 4x 20mm configuration even as an A/A config. One being during the BoB with so many bomber waves coming in the higher lethality of a 4x20mm compared to a 2x2 config would definately be a bonus. The second thing would be even though the rate of fire was slower on the 20mm than the .50 it'd only take a few hits to disable an enemy aircraft and the high rate of fire of the .50 would be a mute point. Plus a loadout of 480 cannon rounds isn't to shabby.
-
Cobra,
The photo of the three Spits you refer to are two Spit 21s and a Spit 22 with the bubble canopy. The Spit 21 saw very limited action with 91 Squadron just before the end of the war. The 22 didn't see WW2 service. The 21,22,24 had a completely different wing design and were Spits in name only.
They DID NOT use the 4 cannon wing with the IX in any numbers or total squadron service. The ONLY squadron I can definately say used 4 Cannon Spit Vcs in squadron strength is 2 Squadron SAAF late in the war as an air to ground support aircraft in Italy.
The weight gain was far more detrimental in an A to A environment then the extra set of cannon was worth. As I said earlier a number of pilots got rid of their 303s and relied totally on the 2 cannon as they figured if they couldn't hit with the cannon the 303s were pointless. The loss of that weight improved speed and turning ability in the pilot's eyes.
Trust me I love Spits but there is no reason to push for a 4 cannon Spit. A clipped wing, late war LFIXE or LFXVIE yes, but not 4 cannons :)
Dan/Slack
-
The Spitfire definately carried two 250lbers and one 500lber.
Funked (IIRC) posted a document from one of the Polish squadrons in the RAF that showed the armament for each mission and most of them carried that loadout.
Furthermore there are many photos of Spits bombed up in said fashion.
What we are actually missing (if it were an E winged Spitfire) is the option for four rockets. I do have a photo of that.
-
Oh I'm not pushing for a 4x20 config though it'd be nice. I'd rather have the other variants of the Mk IX and powerplant setups first and foremost. I don't ever take a shot if I'm more than 300 hundred out and majority of my shots are within 150 out. And at that range massive pings with the .50's do just fine though it does take considerably longer to kill with. But most of the time I'm not trying to kill but more to mame them.
As far as that photo is concerned they must have labeled it wrong then. I'm still looking for a very indepth book on the Spitfire. I'm not too knowledgable when it comes down to them. Only what I've read or found online. Here's a link for Spitfires that I've found. Hope this find wasn't all for not afterall.
Spitfire Page (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/supespitfire.html)
-
If you'll notice, I said that 4 20mm were used. I said that 4 20mm AND 2 .50 cal's were NOT used, and I don't believe it was even possible to use that loadout. Possibly there was a mockup or something, but I don't think the wing was equipped to take that.
-
well then i'd like the ability to *remove* them 4*.303's on a spitV.
but i also want a .45 and coding to open the canopy so i can still shoot chutes.
;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Spitfire definately carried two 250lbers and one 500lber.
Funked (IIRC) posted a document from one of the Polish squadrons in the RAF that showed the armament for each mission and most of them carried that loadout.
Furthermore there are many photos of Spits bombed up in said fashion.
What we are actually missing (if it were an E winged Spitfire) is the option for four rockets. I do have a photo of that.
Where'd you see the 4 rocket set up? I've only seen photos of the 74 Squadron Spits late war with the 500 pounder and 1 rocket rail on each wing. Any chance you could post that photo? Was it an operational setup or a test rig?
They most definately carried the 500 pounder and 2 250 pounders although they did have some wing failures with this. The wing was beefed up as a result of this as I understand it.
Carrying bombs on Spits was another of the Malta experiments in 42 with Spit Vc. The resulting Spit being labeled a Bombfire :)
Once again we're talking about LFIXEs and LFXVIEs with the clipped wings and tall tail. I'd take one of those please :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Oh I'm not pushing for a 4x20 config though it'd be nice. I'd rather have the other variants of the Mk IX and powerplant setups first and foremost. I don't ever take a shot if I'm more than 300 hundred out and majority of my shots are within 150 out. And at that range massive pings with the .50's do just fine though it does take considerably longer to kill with. But most of the time I'm not trying to kill but more to mame them.
As far as that photo is concerned they must have labeled it wrong then. I'm still looking for a very indepth book on the Spitfire. I'm not too knowledgable when it comes down to them. Only what I've read or found online. Here's a link for Spitfires that I've found. Hope this find wasn't all for not afterall.
Spitfire Page (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/supespitfire.html)
If I was starting at ground zero on Spits I'd track down a copy of "Spitfire-The History" by EB Morgan and EdwardShacklady. It's considered the Spit bible by most.
If you can track down a used copy of Bruce Robertson's book "Spitfire-The Story of a Famous Fighter", That's probably second best, although it's been out of print for years.
Personally I like Robertson's better, but Spit the History has a ton of photos, development history and individual histories on all the Spits built etc.
The 3 Spitfire photo you are referring to is on the cover of Alfred Price's "Spitfire-A Documentary History".
Dan/Slack
-
Guppy35,
I don't have a scanner, but the photo in question is on the bottom of page 326 of "Spitfire-The History" by Eric B Morgan and Edward Shacklady.
Now that I look at it again it is labeled as "SAAF Mk IX with 100 lb head RPs" so it is likely post war.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Guppy35,
I don't have a scanner, but the photo in question is on the bottom of page 326 of "Spitfire-The History" by Eric B Morgan and Edward Shacklady.
Now that I look at it again it is labeled as "SAAF Mk IX with 100 lb head RPs" so it is likely post war.
I checked my copy of Spit the Hist. I've seen that photo before and I'd bet the house it's a trials aircraft at Boscombe Down. It's got dummy warheads on the rockets, so I'd bet it was for testing.
The one HUGE disappointment with Spitfire-The History, is the horrible job they did on correctly captioning the photos. There are many misidentified photos in that book which is really too bad.
Including a photo of a 74 Squadron Spit LFIXE on the continent 1945 armed with rockets and bombs.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073637888.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
How about TB232, a Spit XVI (which was a IX with a Packard built engine) tested with 2 250 lbs bombs, 1 90 gallon drop tank (in excess of 650 lbs, and therefore heavier than a 500lb bomb) AND a rear fuselage fuel tank?
How about MJ823, tested with 2 250 lb bombs and 90 gallon drop tank? AUW with 2 250 lbs and 90 gallon tank 8,435 lbs. "All trials satisfactory"
What about it? Test configurations? Great ! I can show you Bf 109s in test configurations carrying an 500 kg bomb, plus two 300 l droptanks of about 250-300 weight each, for a total load 1100 kg or 2420 lbs external load... And "all trials were satisfactory", too... yet these tests don`t prove anything about the standard configuration, and even less about the airframe`s ability to mount barrel armament (if you hadn`t notice that was the question)... Bah! Why do I even have to explain that?
Remember Isegrim, your initial claim was
however you forget that the Mk IX was much heavier, and the tires/undercarriage could not support the extra weight of the Merlin 60 series AND the extra Hispanos.
I remember that extremely well, it`s you who don`t realize we are talking about BARREL ARMAMENT loadouts, not the external stores, which only you brough into view. Unless you tell me how does a claim from Nashwan about the possible external loads connects to the airframe`s ability to cope with extra internal load... we are talking something whole different here.
You claimed the extra 240 lbs of Hispanos would be too much for the Spit IX, whereas it carried 500 lbs of bombs, or 600 lbs of drop tanks routinely, and later in the war 1,000 lbs of bombs or 500 lbs of bombs and 650 lbs of fuel.
Apart from the fact that you still did not provide any serious proof of the "routine" nature of the 500+2x250 config, which frankly I believe was extemely rare, if not only a test config, you still miss the point. We are talking about FIXED CANNON ARMAMENT, not external, JETTISONABLE LOADS. Do you what`s the difference? Seems not, so I tell you.
Bombs, droptanks etc. are dropped, jettisoned before landing. Fixed internal armament cannot be. And do I need to mind you that the critical factor is the maximum permissable landing weight, where the greatest shock to the u/c comes during the touchdown, and not the smooth takeoff run ? A Spit might be able to takeoff w/o much trouble with the said 1000 lbs external, but could definietely not land with it (apart from the obvious hazard of landing with bombs). There`s a limit what the u/c, tires can take during landing. (No wonder that on the 109s the wheel struts were strenghtened, the tires replaced by bigger ones with almost every upgrade. Increasing weight makes it neccesary, on every plane). IF you would kindly read the Spit`s manual, it clearly states the restrictions regarding operation with that the associated take off weight that equals the 1000 lbs load. Clearly not "routine".
Now, if a Spit takes off with a 250 lbs bomb under each wing, does it it also have to land with this burden after the mission? Does the u/c have to be able to take that stress? No. But if you carry that extra 240 lbs in a form of Hispanos, you can never get rid of their weight, and the extra shock they mean during landing is unavoidable. Try looking up "Seafire carrier operations" if you would like to know how the Spit`s undercarriage worked under extra shock conditions.. You probably already know, disasterous; they lost most of the fighters during carrier landings, far more than to enemy fighters, effectively paralyzing the unit in a month or two.
As to pictures, try p75 of Osprey's "late mark spitfire aces" which shows a Spit Ix of 132 squadron being bombed up with 2 250lbs and 1 500 lb. P 76 shows a Spit IX of 74 squadron with two rockets (weight 80 lbs each) and a 500 lbs bomb. Note both these aircraft have "E" armament, which weighed 110 lbs more than the standard "B" armament anyway.
Don`t have the Osprey book so I can`t look it up. But see below, in any case, the site worths a check :
(http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/12/images/detail_spitfire_ix_24.jpg)
(Pity the URL was left out in the first post)
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/12/stuff_eng_detail_spitfire_ix_03.htm
The streamlined fairing of the wing-mounted Hispano cannon.
In the initial production, all Mk. IXs were equipped with the "C"-type wing. This wing could carry both cannon and machine gun armament, and is often associated with four protruding cannon barrels often seen on the Mk. VC. However, because of the weight restrictions caused by the use of the more powerful - and heavier - engine, the Mk. IX could not carry the full complement of four cannon, and all production machines were equipped with two cannon (located in the inboard bays) and four machine guns.
The abandonment of four-cannon option on the Mk. IX had two consequences. First, the "leftover" wing cannon mount resulted in the short stub outboard of the cannon barrel, plugged with a solid rounded tip. Later on, as it has been realized that the the second cannon bay will never be used, the stub was removed altogether, as seen on this photograph.
The second consequence was the shape of the upper wing blisters. These blisters were introduced to provide sufficient room for the ammunition drums of the Hispano cannon. Initially the "C" wing used a single wide blister covering the twin cannon bay. As it was realized that only one cannon was necessary, a new blister was introduced to the Mk. IX production line. This blister was narrow and elongated, and can be seen on the wing photograph in The Airframe section of this essay.
Still later, the wing was modified to the "E" type. Structurally, this was identical to the "C" wing, but adopted to carry two 0,50" machine guns in place of the four 0.303" Brownings.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The abandonment of four-cannon option on the Mk. IX had two consequences. First, the "leftover" wing cannon mount resulted in the short stub outboard of the cannon barrel, plugged with a solid rounded tip. Later on, as it has been realized that the the second cannon bay will never be used, the stub was removed altogether, as seen on this photograph.
The second consequence was the shape of the upper wing blisters. These blisters were introduced to provide sufficient room for the ammunition drums of the Hispano cannon. Initially the "C" wing used a single wide blister covering the twin cannon bay. As it was realized that only one cannon was necessary, a new blister was introduced to the Mk. IX production line. This blister was narrow and elongated, and can be seen on the wing photograph in The Airframe section of this essay.
Still later, the wing was modified to the "E" type. Structurally, this was identical to the "C" wing, but adopted to carry two 0,50" machine guns in place of the four 0.303" Brownings.[/i]
The photo is MH434 a restored Spit IX with out the extra cannon plug. Photo evidence suggests that the second plug may have been abandoned on a limited basis but later build IXcs had both plugs as did the early XIVcs.
That beings said, there is nothing out there to suggest the 4 cannon Spit IX was used on any sort of regular basis if at all operationally.
As the photos of the Vcs I posted show, they did use a 4 cannon Spit Vc in a ground attack role that carried a centerline bomb but not wing bombs at the same time.
The 4 cannon Spit VIII photos I've seen show an RAAF machine with extended wings that apparently was done on a one off basis to hunt high alt Japaneses recce birds.
Dan/Slack
-
im going to look at this from a game point of view
most aircraft in aces high that carry 3 or 4 cannons are high speed aircraft that most often only get short firing times and snapshots were the extra cannon was needed to ensure death to the target these boom zoom aircraft were high speed heavy armored and highwingloading because of the armor and guns and ammo
now aircraft like the spitfire were armor is light and heavy gun setups were not put in to ensure light wingloading and a light plane
and the slow speed dogfights were the firing times are long the 2 20mm setup on the spitfire is just perfect for its gun shots
but some aircraft got so heavy that it hurt the aircraft in a dogfight when they put heavy gun setups the hurr-c got more heavy and now only slighty outturns a spit-v in a dogfight
the spitfire should never have a heavy gunsetup if your looking for british firepower fly the typhoon or hurr-c
adding 2 more 20mms would almost be like adding Gondolas to the spitfire
by the way i would be more happy if the HURR-c only had 2 20mms:p
-
Put any twist you want on it Barbi, but you said "the tires/undercarriage could not support the extra weight of the Merlin 60 series AND the extra Hispanos". Well a 250 lb bomb plus carrier weighs more than a H-S plus ammo. So you are saying the tyres will go flat and the a/c will collapse if a bomb is hung under the wing.:D:D
The Spit Vc(trop) with the 4 cannons installed had external fuel tanks that had a weight higher than a normal TO weight of a Spit IX.
with 30gal - 7600lb
with 90gal - 8100lb
You still want to claim the u/c and tyres were weak?
What about it? Test configurations? Great ! I can show you Bf 109s in test configurations carrying an 500 kg bomb, plus two 300 l droptanks of about 250-300 weight each, for a total load 1100 kg or 2420 lbs external load... And "all trials were satisfactory", too... yet these tests don`t prove anything about the standard configuration, and even less about the airframe`s ability to mount barrel armament (if you hadn`t notice that was the question)... Bah! Why do I even have to explain that?
Oh yes, the G-1(W.Nr.14008) that had to have a 3rd u/c member added. Definately not a stock configuration unlike the Spit's which was a stock configuration.:eek: The trials were satisfactory???? Then why were these 109s not so used in combat?
-
Bombs, droptanks etc. are dropped, jettisoned before landing.
Not in the RAF. From the Spitfire IX manual:
"Drop tanks should not be jettisoned unless necessary operationally" (The 90 gallon drop tank weighed 142 lbs empty. The 90 gallon tank empty + E armament is about the same as C armament anyway)
It also notes that landings should not be attempted (unless in an emergency) if more than 30 gallons remains in the rear tank. 30 gallons = 215 lbs or so, plus the weight of the rear tank, and therefore more than the difference between 2 20mm and 4 303s and 4 20mm. (The "unless in emergency" probably only refers to the unbalancing effect of the rear tank anyway, not the extra weight of more than 30 gallons)
Crucially, the manual notes: "Except in emergency, the fuselage bomb or drop tank must be jettisoned before landing with wing bombs fitted"
In other words, landings with either wing bombs or droptank/ 500lb bomb are considered normal.
Don`t have the Osprey book so I can`t look it up. But see below, in any case, the site worths a check :
Isegrim, you are aware those photos are of a model, aren't you?
The abandonment of four-cannon option on the Mk. IX had two consequences. First, the "leftover" wing cannon mount resulted in the short stub outboard of the cannon barrel, plugged with a solid rounded tip. Later on, as it has been realized that the the second cannon bay will never be used, the stub was removed altogether, as seen on this photograph.
Perhaps you shouldn't take a model maker's site as a reference for aircraft.
The configuration they show, with no extra cannon stubs, is a B wing. Some people believe some of the earliest Spit IXs, converted from Spit Vs, may have had the B wing, most doubt it. It's almost impossible to find a picture of a Spit IX with only two cannon stubs.
C and E wings, as fitted to all Spit IXs (with the possible exception mentioned above) had the cannon stubs. The plane they are basing their model off, MH434, is pictured in Spitfire the History on p314. It has no cannons or stubs fitted, and the caption notes that it was sold to the RNAF for use as a target tug. Obviously the guns (or dummys, probably) were fitted again during it's restoration in the 50s.
To back up the claim, Isegrim, perhaps you could find some pictures of Spit IXs with 2 cannon and no extra stubs fitted? I can't, apart from MH434.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The plane they are basing their model off, MH434, is pictured in Spitfire the History on p314. It has no cannons or stubs fitted, and the caption notes that it was sold to the RNAF for use as a target tug. Obviously the guns (or dummys, probably) were fitted again during it's restoration in the 50s.
To back up the claim, Isegrim, perhaps you could find some pictures of Spit IXs with 2 cannon and no extra stubs fitted? I can't, apart from MH434.
For what it's worth Nashwan, this image was turned up by Spit historian Peter Arnold, showing MH434 at Hornchurch in 1944 during its RAF frontline flying days. Note it does have the same cannon set up as the restored MH434. Also note that it does not have the tropical filter that was added to most Spit IXs post D-Day due to the dust found on the continental airfields.
I think there was a production run of Spits with C wings without the second cannon bay plug. Seafires also used this set up without the second cannon bay plug on the Seafire III, XV and XVII.
I can scan some photos of other Dutch Spitfires that were contemporaries of MH434 that also have that same wing set up. MH434 did fly operations with the Dutch in Java in 1949 and was damaged in a belly landing ending it's combat career.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073799315.jpg)
-
More for Nashwan.
MH850 a Spit flying with 411 Squadron RCAF at Tangmere, May 1944. Same serial range obviously as MH434 which again leads me to think it was limited to a small production run with that type of C wing.
Second photo of Dutch Spits postwar of with MH434 was a contemporary. No question that it is a C wing, with no cannon plug.
Dan/Slack
Longtime Spit fantic
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073805496.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073805532.jpg)
-
Oh, I've no doubt there were a few, I'm just waiting for Isegrim to come up with photographic evidence of this claim:
"Later on, as it has been realized that the the second cannon bay will never be used, the stub was removed altogether, as seen on this photograph."
ie lots of photos of late production Spit IXs with no extra cannon stubs.
I think there was a production run of Spits with C wings without the second cannon bay plug. Seafires also used this set up without the second cannon bay plug on the Seafire III, XV and XVII.
Yes, but it's worth noting that the MH serials came fairly early in the Spitfire IX production run, and that the vast majority of Spit IXs built afterwards still had the 4 cannon stubs.
-
The MH series production:
F MkIX, Merlin 63
#312 - 29.7.43
#999 - 5.9.43
" Yes, but it's worth noting that the MH serials came fairly early in the Spitfire IX production run, and that the vast majority of Spit IXs built afterwards still had the 4 cannon stubs."
The first BR series came off the line 9.6.42, so yes the MH series was closer to the beginning than the end of MkIX production.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Yes, but it's worth noting that the MH serials came fairly early in the Spitfire IX production run, and that the vast majority of Spit IXs built afterwards still had the 4 cannon stubs.
No question it was an early production run and no question that the C wing with the second cannon bay and plug was the norm. As I'd said earlier, the first XIVs came off the production run in 44 with C wings with that plug. The Majority of IX's with C wings had the plug as well.
The C wing came as a result of an RAF requirement for a 4 cannon Spit. It had nothing to do with the type of Spit.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Apart from the fact that you still did not provide any serious proof of the "routine" nature of the 500+2x250 config, which frankly I believe was extemely rare, if not only a test config, you still miss the point.
(http://homo-sapiens.info/images/01.jpg)
-
No question that the 2 250 pounders and 1 500 pounder was used extensively pre and post D-Day. 453 RAAF Squadron and 602 Squadrons were doing this pre-D-Day and many of the IX and XVI squadrons on the continent were flying ground support in this configuration.
One of the problems at the time was if the bomb did not seperate from the plane. Spits were losing wings that way.
I talked to an old Spit XII pilot who finished up flying XVIs in this role until he was shot down and made a POW. He was still ticked off that they'd been sent to dive bomb sub pens with that load out of bombs as they just bounced off the thick concrete. He said that at that point of the war it was like they didn't know what to do with some of the squadrons and came up with missions like bombing sub pens, just to keep them busy.
Dan/Slack
-
Make your own A-36!!:D
Download A36 PDF (http://www.teuton.org/dbarnett/A-36-1.pdf)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
One of the problems at the time was if the bomb did not seperate from the plane. Spits were losing wings that way.
I
Yes for sure would be a problem trying to pull out of a 60* dive with a bomb still attached. ;) And some say the Spit had weak wings, never mind the weak u/c.:D
-
Nashwan,
I think you should first decide wheter the picture shown to you is either a model...
Isegrim, you are aware those photos are of a model, aren't you?
Or it does show a real aircraft, MH 434...
To back up the claim, Isegrim, perhaps you could find some pictures of Spit IXs with 2 cannon and no extra stubs fitted? I can't, apart from MH434.
or it`s just a restored aircraft (given the counterevidence posted vs. this claim of yours, I doubt that even you would try to force that story further...)...
Perhaps you shouldn't take a model maker's site as a reference for aircraft.
Perhaps I should take your 3 different versions instead of it...? Frankly, why should I? As usual, you just made up 3 conflicting versions, none of them seem to me to bear the slightest resamblance to RL.
As it stands now, we haven`t seen a single photo of a Spit IX using the mentioned 500+2x250 lbs figure (I have some concern why exactly is the whole tail section is missing on bighorn`s picture.. is that a wartime Mk IX? I can post pics of 109s with 1000 kg external load w/o caption, still it doesn`t make it a service configuration), no single manual that would list 500+2x250, not a single photo of Mk IX with four Hispanos... Naswhan, you want me to prove things with "many-many photos" I haven`t claimed (cannon stubs on Spit wings), yet you can`t even remotely show me anything similiar of that bomb config you claim to be "widespread" etc. BTW, the last time you promised to show something about the u/c bulges, which u claimed to be nonexistent - you never posted those.. I have told you quite a few times that you will need much more than the long-drawn theories based on something totally different. At least ell me if u had understood the part about why is external load and internal load is different.. But forget all that! Just show me ONE primary source that lists 500+2x250 as a service load. That`s should be enough. Considering all the evidence, the opinion of knowladgable guys at that site, the Spit`s manual and limitations, I am fairly sure that the u/c and tires were the limiting factory in the Mk IXs. Unsurprising, knowing how the Seafire`s accidents in 1943, and the fact that on the Spit it was the wings that carried the weight. As for the flamer`s ranting about the wing`s strenght - offtopic, but for anyone interested, it`s fairly well covered in Spitfire The History, as brokenclaw showed a good while ago. I would rather stick to the topic about the inability to mount those extra Hispanos, though. A lot more interesting than the unneccesary chestpounding and flaming of some.
-
Just show me ONE primary source that lists 500+2x250 as a service load. That`s should be enough
The manual?
"When wing bombs are carried in addition to a fuselage bomb or drop tank, takeof must be made only from a smooth hard runway"
"When carried, the 90 (or 170) gallon drop tank must be jettisoned before any dive bombing is commenced"
"Except in emergency, the fuselage bomb or drop tank must be jettisoned before landing with wing bombs fitted"
Which should tell you several things
1. wing bombs and centre bomb/ drop tank was used.
2 landing with bomb or drop tank fitted was okay, providing wing bombs are not carried
3 landing with wing bombs fitted was okay, providing centreline bomb/drop tank was not carried
As it stands now, we haven`t seen a single photo of a Spit IX using the mentioned 500+2x250 lbs figure (I have some concern why exactly is the whole tail section is missing on bighorn`s picture.. is that a wartime Mk IX?
It's a wartime Spit IX. It's from 132 squadron, which according to the RAF ( http://www.raf.mod.uk ) joined 2nd TAF in March 44, flew fighter bomber missions until September, when it rejoined ADGB and flew escort missions. In December 44 it left for Ceylon (Sri Lanka), reformed in Ceylon in Jan 45, moved to Hong Kong after the war and disbanded in April 46.
The colours and markings should tell you it's not based in the far east at the time of the photo, as should the uniforms.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Nashwan,
As it stands now, we haven`t seen a single photo of a Spit IX using the mentioned 500+2x250 lbs figure (I have some concern why exactly is the whole tail section is missing on bighorn`s picture.. is that a wartime Mk IX? I can post pics of 109s with 1000 kg external load w/o caption, still it doesn`t make it a service configuration), no single manual that would list 500+2x250, not a single photo of Mk IX with four Hispanos... Naswhan, you want me to prove things with "many-many photos" I haven`t claimed (cannon stubs on Spit wings), yet you can`t even remotely show me anything similiar of that bomb config you claim to be "widespread" etc. BTW, the last time you promised to show something about the u/c bulges, which u claimed to be nonexistent - you never posted those.. I have told you quite a few times that you will need much more than the long-drawn theories based on something totally different. At least ell me if u had understood the part about why is external load and internal load is different.. But forget all that! Just show me ONE primary source that lists 500+2x250 as a service load. That`s should be enough. Considering all the evidence, the opinion of knowladgable guys at that site, the Spit`s manual and limitations, I am fairly sure that the u/c and tires were the limiting factory in the Mk IXs. Unsurprising, knowing how the Seafire`s accidents in 1943, and the fact that on the Spit it was the wings that carried the weight. As for the flamer`s ranting about the wing`s strenght - offtopic, but for anyone interested, it`s fairly well covered in Spitfire The History, as brokenclaw showed a good while ago. I would rather stick to the topic about the inability to mount those extra Hispanos, though. A lot more interesting than the unneccesary chestpounding and flaming of some.
Jeez, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to myself in this thread :(
I did post a photo of a Spit IX with 4 cannon long time ago this thread.
To quote Jeffrey Quill, Chief Supermarine Test Pilot: "The Spitfire Vc had a more advanced wing that was not only stronger but also made possible the installation of four cannon per aircraft or alternatively, two cannon and four machine guns. This was known as the 'universal wing' and was a major step forward, paving the way for the Mark IX Spitfire."
As for the configuration for the 2 250 pounders and 500 pounder on the IX.
Two more photos of bombed up Spit IXs in France. There is an off chance they are XVIs but since XVIs were the same airframe as the IX except with an American built Merlin, it's the same thing.
And to quote the 602 Squadron history "Lions Rampant" by Douglas MacRoberts.
"Max (Max Sutherland 602 CO) discovered that the Spitfire XVI-Basically a Mark IX with a Packard built Merlin-had permanent bomb shacles under the wings, and had been stressed to take heavier loads. Having found his aircraft, he made sure 602 got the first batch available. They could sling 1000 pounders under the fuselage and a pair of 250 pounders under the wings..."
Quoting F/L Raymond Baxter
"Our usual force on a typical anti-V-2 mission consisted of 4 to six Spitfires loaded with a single 500 and two 250 pound bombs.."
Hope this covers it
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073932323.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073932348.jpg)
-
Since a Picture is worth a 1000 words. Here are two more of 74 Squadron Spitfires on the continent in 44/45 with 2 250 pounders and a 500 pounder on the centerline.
To be honest, this is the Spit I wish we had in AH. Clipped wing, tall tail, 3 hard points, E wing, best at Medium to low alt etc etc.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073933771.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073933798.jpg)
-
Funny that they'd be testing a 6 cannon installation in 42 in a heavier still Griffon engined DP845 when they couldn't carry 4 in a Spit IX? :)
No they never used it operationally but RAF requirements were looking at potentially 6 cannon armament for fighters at the time.
And Jeff Quill and Clive Gosling both flew this bird in that configuration.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1073934521.jpg)
-
Guppy, one has to understand that Barbi, aka Isegrim, hates the Spitfire (and all things British) and will do anything to put it down. Maybe he will believe now with more pics of Spits with the 3 bombs and the quotes you posted. Don't hold your breath though.;)
Guppy, why is it that Spit IX in the pic you posted with 3 bombs is able to taxi with an airman sitting on the wing. All that extra weight most surely would have collapsed the u/c or at least had flattened tyres, would it not?;)
Barbi, bighorn's photo is of MH486.
Nashwan, notice the Spit IX of #317 with 2 bombs and a fuselage tank above the pic you referenced to in the Osprey book. Another case of an overloaded and weak u/c Spit. :eek:
..........
Can you tell me what the difference is between the Dunlop IJ and IK tyres.
-
Hi Guppy,
>Funny that they'd be testing a 6 cannon installation in 42 in a heavier still Griffon engined DP845 when they couldn't carry 4 in a Spit IX? :)
Alred Price in "Spitfire - A Complete Fighting History" suggests that this installation was only a mock-up. No doubt with serious intentions, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>Funny that they'd be testing a 6 cannon installation in 42 in a heavier still Griffon engined DP845 when they couldn't carry 4 in a Spit IX? :)
Alred Price in "Spitfire - A Complete Fighting History" suggests that this installation was only a mock-up. No doubt with serious intentions, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
It was definately only a mock-up, but it was based on the potential requirement for up to 6 cannons in a fighter and this was in roughly May of 42. In 20+ years of researching Spits, I got to be good friends with a Supermarine service test pilot and he recalled dropping in on Tangmere with DP845 and the 6 cannon mock-up and the reaction he got from the operational pilots stationed there at the time. Needless to say they were a bit shocked :)
Dan/Slack
-
Not to change the subject, but since we're talking Spits...
Why doesn't AH have a Merlin 66 LFIX or a Merlin 266 LFXVI version of the Spit? The LFIX was built in far greater numbers then the F or HF versions and was flying from 43 on.
Any pilot account read finds the pilots referring to what they called the Spitfire IXB (LFIX) as their favorite and the one that let them match up with the 190s.
Seems goofy that we'd be stuck with the Merlin 61 engined version that didn't match up as well. In fact testing against Arnim Faber's 190 and a Merlin 61 Spit IX lead to the development of the Merlin 66.
Hitech ever say why they chose to go the way they did?
Yeah I know, it's probably been asked a hundred times before, but I missed the answer if there was one.
Dan/Slack
-
Guppy35,
I've never seen an answer to this either. My guess has been based on the huge whines generated by the F.Mk IX that we have. Can you imagine the complaints if it were an LF.Mk IX? Essentially I'm guessing that it is a balance issue and the F.Mk IX was selected to reduce the Spitfire's dominance.
Note that WarBirds also models the Spitfire Mk IX as a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire F.Mk IX.
-
AH needs to take away the hybrid armament of the '42 Spit9.
Then, model in a separate Spit lfMkIX with merlin66, and perk it at about 1~2 points.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
AH needs to take away the hybrid armament of the '42 Spit9.
Then, model in a separate Spit lfMkIX with merlin66, and perk it at about 1~2 points.
You'd perk a 1943 Spit? If you perk it at all, you'd better be perking the 190s it was developed to counter. Throw in any number of other planes in this game too then too :)
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Guppy,
>In fact testing against Arnim Faber's 190 and a Merlin 61 Spit IX lead to the development of the Merlin 66.
Thanks, that's highly interesting information. I often wondered why the RAF developed such a dedicated high altitude Spitfire as the Merlin 61/+15 lbs variant to counter the low/medium level Focke-Wulf. (This Spitfire was clearly superior above 8 km, but up to that altitude, the Focke-Wulf still ruled.)
The Merlin 66/+18 lbs Spitfire F. IX was a much better match, being only 10 km/h behind the Fw 190's speed at the altitudes where it was slower, 30 km/h faster at the Fw 190's gear change altitude, and it had the edge above 8 km, too.
On the other hand, it's obvious why the RAF had a serious problem with the single-stage supercharged Spitfire V even when boosted to +16 lbs.
Whatever happened to the Spitfire III, by the way? With the two-stage Merlin XX, it would have been superior at altitude to the Spitfire V, and probably been a tougher opponent for the Fw 190 as a result.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>In fact testing against Arnim Faber's 190 and a Merlin 61 Spit IX lead to the development of the Merlin 66.
Thanks, that's highly interesting information. I often wondered why the RAF developed such a dedicated high altitude Spitfire as the Merlin 61/+15 lbs variant to counter the low/medium level Focke-Wulf. (This Spitfire was clearly superior above 8 km, but up to that altitude, the Focke-Wulf still ruled.)
The Merlin 66/+18 lbs Spitfire F. IX was a much better match, being only 10 km/h behind the Fw 190's speed at the altitudes where it was slower, 30 km/h faster at the Fw 190's gear change altitude, and it had the edge above 8 km, too.
On the other hand, it's obvious why the RAF had a serious problem with the single-stage supercharged Spitfire V even when boosted to +16 lbs.
Whatever happened to the Spitfire III, by the way? With the two-stage Merlin XX, it would have been superior at altitude to the Spitfire V, and probably been a tougher opponent for the Fw 190 as a result.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
My understanding from all I've read is that the Merlin XX was not available in sufficent numbers for the Spit III as the Hurricane II was also using that engine. With the Spit V the next step and easier to get into production with the Merlin 45, it took precedent.
I suppose the Spit III in essence was the first aborted attempt in to what became the Spitfire VIII.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Guppy,
>My understanding from all I've read is that the Merlin XX was not available in sufficent numbers for the Spit III as the Hurricane II was also using that engine.
I'd agree, but as the Hurricane II was typically used for ground attack missions, why wasn't the Merlin 45 mounted to the Hurricane and the Merlin XX to the Spitfire? That might have been more adequate for both aircraft, I believe.
(On the other hand, I'm not sure about the time line - if the Hurricanes were up-engined in response to the Battle of Britain where they still were used as air superiority fighters, it might actually make sense.)
>With the Spit V the next step and easier to get into production with the Merlin 45, it took precedent.
Well, from 6 km up, the Merlin XX offered a performance advantage over the Merlin 45. Even if we accept that the Hurricane II/Spitfire V pair was the most sensible combination at the time, I'm surprised that not at least a few Spitfire IIIs were built when the fight moved to ever higher altitudes in 1941.
(Likewise, a Hurribomber or a Hurricane IID with a Merlin 45 would have been much better than the Merlin XX-engined aircraft actually used for these specific jobs.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
You'd perk a 1943 Spit? If you perk it at all, you'd better be perking the 190s it was developed to counter. Throw in any number of other planes in this game too then too
Unfortunately Gupps, the current usage levels of MA planes clearly indicate that pure performance specs in numbers, are not necessarily the only thing that forms the motive behind usage. ;)
Among the top five planes which constitute 45~50% of planes in the MA the Spit9 is the only plane pre-'44, and still sees considerable usage.
If we model in a separate '43 Spit9 with even more powerful specs, then the whole '42 Spit9 crowd will just move on to the '43 Spit9 - with the '42 Spit9 dying off in usage, as the P-51B is almost never chosen over the P-51D.
So the only way we can justify the implementation of two different types of the same plane, is to retain reasonable usage for both types, while none being domninat in the Arena. So, slap on about 2 perks on it and that should do it. :D
ps) Ofcourse, under that logic, I also have many many other planes which should be perked, but that's another story :D
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>My understanding from all I've read is that the Merlin XX was not available in sufficent numbers for the Spit III as the Hurricane II was also using that engine.
I'd agree, but as the Hurricane II was typically used for ground attack missions, why wasn't the Merlin 45 mounted to the Hurricane and the Merlin XX to the Spitfire? That might have been more adequate for both aircraft, I believe.
(On the other hand, I'm not sure about the time line - if the Hurricanes were up-engined in response to the Battle of Britain where they still were used as air superiority fighters, it might actually make sense.)
>With the Spit V the next step and easier to get into production with the Merlin 45, it took precedent.
Well, from 6 km up, the Merlin XX offered a performance advantage over the Merlin 45. Even if we accept that the Hurricane II/Spitfire V pair was the most sensible combination at the time, I'm surprised that not at least a few Spitfire IIIs were built when the fight moved to ever higher altitudes in 1941.
(Likewise, a Hurribomber or a Hurricane IID with a Merlin 45 would have been much better than the Merlin XX-engined aircraft actually used for these specific jobs.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Quoting a guy who ought to know :) From Jeffrey Quill:
"The Mark III for example, which flew in only prototype form, was really designed to exploit the first Merlin engine to be fitted with a two-speed supercharger providing increased power over a wider height band. So the opportunity was taken to redesign the windscreen, develop a retractable tail wheel and experiment with a wing of considerably reduced span and greater armament potential. Although the Mark III did not go into production, these other refinements found their way into other production marks."
(Not tough to see the connection to the VII, VIII and XII among others)
Quoting Quill again regarding the high alt fighting:
"Then at some indefinate time in 1942, there seemed to be a change of tactical philosophy on both sides. It was rather as if by some sort of tacit mutual consent between enemies, it was realized that the band betwen 30,000 and 40,000 feet was a really silly place in which to have an air battle, and the fighting tended to drop down into more practical regions roughly between 15,000 and 25,000 feet."
He goes on to talk about the Merlin 66 after this.
personally I think there is a more obvious explanation for the change in that the bombers that the Spits were escorting, Mitchells, Marauders, Venturas, Bostons etc, did their best work at those heights between 15 and 25K.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Guppy,
>From Jeffrey Quill:
Thanks again! Very informative. It also explains why sometimes even the Spitfire V is considered a "stopgap" variant - it didn't have the refinements of the Spitfire III.
>a wing of considerably reduced span
Hm, sounds like a more radical change than just the standard clip wing.
>Then at some indefinate time in 1942, there seemed to be a change of tactical philosophy on both sides.
I wonder whether the Fw 190 played a role in that. It was the predominant Luftwaffe fighter in the west and couldn't really get up to the altitudes the Me 109 and the Spitfire could reach.
Interestingly, the Luftwaffe had scheduled series production of the Fw 190B-1 (edit: high altitude fighter! :-) to begin in June 1942 but canceled it in at short notice. The Fw 190B-1 was to be based on the Fw 190A series, retaining the same BMW801D engine.
Considering it wasn't much different from the A model, it's quite suprising that at 10 km, it exceeded even the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX's performance. (A better comparison of course would be a true HF Spitfire, but I'm surprised anyway :-)
Why the Fw 190B series was canceled remains mysterious. I'd suspect that it was realized that for the Eastern Front, the Fw 190A was better suited anyway, and the Luftwaffe's main combat effort was dedicated to the East in 1942 - 1943.
Development of a high-altitude fighter continued and finally lead to the Ta 152H, but no high-altitude Focke-Wulf was fielded prior to that. (At one point, Focke-Wulf even pointed out that a twin was better suited for high-altitude flight and offered to fit the Fw 187 with DB605 engines.)
>personally I think there is a more obvious explanation for the change in that the bombers that the Spits were escorting, Mitchells, Marauders, Venturas, Bostons etc, did their best work at those heights between 15 and 25K.
Quite plausible. The question is, when did the RAF intensify their bombing campaign? It's my impression that initially, the bombers were used more as a bait for Luftwaffe fighters, and bombing results didn't really matter.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
>personally I think there is a more obvious explanation for the change in that the bombers that the Spits were escorting, Mitchells, Marauders, Venturas, Bostons etc, did their best work at those heights between 15 and 25K.
Quite plausible. The question is, when did the RAF intensify their bombing campaign? It's my impression that initially, the bombers were used more as a bait for Luftwaffe fighters, and bombing results didn't really matter.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
It appears that this intensified in early 42 as the RAF got new aircraft such as the Boston III, Venturas, more Mossies etc. My main interest has always been the timeframe the Spit XII operated which was 43-44 and the Spit XII logbook copies I have show numerous escort to Mitchells, Bostons, Venturas and Maruaders. Just checking one logbook showed 19 escort missions in August and September 43, all going to LW airfields.
There was little reason for the Luftwaffe to respond early on to single or a few Stirlings or Blenheims escorted by mobs of Spits, as they did little damage, but as things picked up, it was a way to get the LW off the ground for the Spits, Tiffies etc to go after them in a war of attrition
A quick look at the History of 2 Group RAF shows they were doing the same thing to the airfields in Blenheims in mid to late 41 as well with heavy escort of Spits, and in some cases Whirlwinds. Interestingly enough it describes 3 types of operations flown. One being high alt fighter Sweeps to try and get the LW to fight on the best terms of the fighters. Another was purely based on the best operating alts for the bombers, which was much lower and the third was a mix and match of the two. Clearly over time, the medium alt escorted bombers must have proved to be the best way to get the LW into the air as by 43 thats all they were doing based on the logbooks I've seen.
Dan/Slack
-
Naswan & Guppy,
The manual?
"When wing bombs are carried in addition to a fuselage bomb or drop tank, takeof must be made only from a smooth hard runway"
"When carried, the 90 (or 170) gallon drop tank must be jettisoned before any dive bombing is commenced"
"Except in emergency, the fuselage bomb or drop tank must be jettisoned before landing with wing bombs fitted"
Well that`s definietely more prompt ...
Which should tell you several things
1. wing bombs and centre bomb/ drop tank was used.
... in a condition that was considered an "overload" (=not normal, routine, but highly stressfull for the airframe), and was only allowed if smmoth, hard runway is provided. Otherwise, NO.
2. landing with bomb or drop tank fitted was okay, providing wing bombs are not carried
3. landing with wing bombs fitted was okay, providing centreline bomb/drop tank was not carried
OK, so in short, your theory fails. Why ? My position, as well as the guys at the Stockholm webiste was that the u/c was simple not strong enough to cope with the stresses put on by the extra weight of the two stage Merlin and the extra Hispano guns. You claimed that it was all possible, because, as you said, it could routinely, easily etc. take the stress of all the 1000 lbs exteral ordonance.. yet even you found out that the manaul simply states it could not. It could not take the stress of an 1000 lbs ordonance, 1000lbs was pushing it to it`s very LIMITS. It couldn`t cope with it even on takeoff which means a lot lower stress factor than landing, unless a smooth, hard runway is provided. Pretty much tells you how much the u/c could take. Or the structure itself. And that`s the core of the question if you still hadn`t lose the string of it : could the Mk IX`s structure cope with the extra weight with ease ? Not really what bomb configs it could carry (which was your example, and put the discussion onto a sidetrack). Guppy did a pretty good work in convincing me it actually carried it in service, even though only under the abovementioned limitations and restrictions, which point towards srtuctural limitations occuring and not very significant loads. As for the oral story about the load that now inflated to 1500 lbs (Spitfire discussions usually have this ballon-like nature, the mythology always just gets richer), I guess it`s merely a mix up with a total of 1000 lbs load... Of course any nice pictures in 1000+2x250 load would be interesting, even though I cannot think how would there be ground clearance for an 1000 lbs bomb if there`s visibly so little room between the fin and the ground (a usual problem with fitting large bombs to non-tricycle l/g fighters)
"Don`t dive when significant extra weight is carried" - does this reads you as great abilty to cope with the extra load?
"Don`t takeoff with a flimsy 454 kg load unless a smooth runway is provided, and remind yourself, you are overloading your airplane". Seafires squadrons in 1943 managed to knock themselves out within a month or two, mostly due to undercarriage failures on landings. Does this reads to you as an u/c that can take the stress with ease on a regular basis?
Spits loosing wings in dives if the wing bombs are still attached (and many times not even that was required ;) ) - does this reads you as the wing`s excellent ability to take extra stresses from extra load?
It does not to me.
In any case, the question is why did not the Mk IXs carried 4x20mms on any meaningful scale, when both previous and later Marks did so. 'The RAF just didn`t want that.' Oh sure. The Spit could go Mach 2 just as easy, they just didn`t want that to happen.. Interesting though, they did work on that all the time, they did work on the equip Mark Vs with 4 Hispanos, which had the same wing as the Mk IXs... even when, to quote Guppy, "RAF requirements were looking at potentially 6 cannon armament for fighters at the time, May 1942." So they were looking for no less than SIX cannons at the time the Mk IX appeared, but didn`t want four...? They wanted six cannons, but for some strange reason, they didn`t even think about applying a 4 cannon config on, let`s see, the most common type of all Spitfires in the second half of war? They worked for 3 years - at the same time the Mk IX was introduced - to redesign the Spitfire`s wing (WHY was that needed...?), which led to the Mk 21 and later ones, with 4 cannon armament again? Why bother at all, why wait for 3 years for a 4 cannon fighter again, if it was sooooo easy to mount another pair into the C wing of the Mk IX...? And isn`t it tells you even a little bit, that on the Spit`s design, the whole weight of the aircraft in the end was carried by the WINGs themselves, not the fusalage. Do you really say that it`s a mere coincidence, that as the weight of Spitfires grew, the 4 cannon armament was abandoned in service use, despite earlier success with lighter Marks, and then, by coincidence, it was suddenly re-introduced with the first "heavy" Spitfire that mounted a redesigned wing structure...? OH, and please don`t tell that the 4 cannon armement was suddenly needed in 1945, but not before. The RAF was flying against the very same planes as it did in 1942, the FW 190, Me 109, Ju 88, He 111 etc. sturcture or armor protection didn`t change in a meaningful way that would require doubling the firepower.
In any case, I think it`s got pretty long, and all pro and contra arguements has been added. Thank u for it in any case.
As for the little guy who plays his usual one-man show in the background of every thread I post, it gives me enough pleasure to know that he spends most of his life about hating and trying to blackmail me, registering several nicknames for that high purpose, and replying to his own posts with 'them' to get at least some attention... Everyone gets a life he deserves, hehe. :aok
-
OK, so in short, your theory fails. Why ? My position, as well as the guys at the Stockholm webiste was that the u/c was simple not strong enough to cope with the stresses put on by the extra weight of the two stage Merlin and the extra Hispano guns. You claimed that it was all possible, because, as you said, it could routinely, easily etc. take the stress of all the 1000 lbs exteral ordonance
No, there is a difference between the stress of 1000 lbs of bombs, or 1300 lbs of bombs and drop tank, and 245 lbs of guns and ammunition.
yet even you found out that the manaul simply states it could not. It could not take the stress of an 1000 lbs ordonance, 1000lbs was pushing it to it`s very LIMITS.
1000lbs was pushing it, but 245 lbs was not, as shown by the manual implying landing with 500 lbs of bombs, either on the wings or fuselage, was ok.
Why is it you think that if 1000 lbs or 1300 lbs was overload condition, 245 lbs must be as well?
-
Why is it you think that if 1000 lbs or 1300 lbs was overload condition, 245 lbs must be as well?
Can you carry a 70 lbs backpack once in a month without a degradation in your health?
Can you carry a 30 lbs backpack in every hour on EVERY single day without your back starting to look like Quasimodo`s after a year or two?
External load is occasional, and so is the stress it means.
Fixed armement is a permanent load, and so is the stress that comes with it.
BTW, if you accept that 1000 lbs is already an overload, than how much is a 'normal' load? Say 500 lbs . How much is left of that, if another permanent 250 lbs is added? 250 lbs. Wow... that`s some bombload, so you will have to overload the plane every time you want some serious ground attack to happen. That would require of course prepeared runways etc... Sounds a bit impractical, I guess the RAF though the same about that.
The point is, it was the structure that was the limiting factor, not the RAF`s will. First as because the RAF was no God and could not just do what it wanted against phyisical realities, second because it`s quite clear from the development history of the Spit that they pushed 4-cannon armament before and after the Mk IX, which makes me think there was something incompatilbe between the Mk IX and the 4-cannon mounts. And it just fits so well that the very same, just lighter airframe of the Mk V could cope with it.
-
Well it's not that I wasn't warned about you Isegrim :)
SO you don't acknowledge that the Spit IX carried the 500 pounder 2 250 pound bombs on a regular basis? I posted enough photos of it and if you look closely enough, they were operating off of PSP airfields on the continent.
As for the 4 cannon armament. What part don't you understand about the performance loss vs the gain of the extra cannon? The Spit Vcs that went to Malta with 4 cannon all had one set removed as the performance penalty far outweighed the added firepower. They found that 2 cannon did the job just fine. If you've got a fighter, like the Spit that has turning ability etc as it's greatest asset, it makes little sense to give it away by adding the second cannon, when the job can be done with 2. That they continued to build the C or Universal Wing with its two cannon bays and ammo bays, seems silly based on your assumption. Why did they not revert to the B wing which was less work to build internally?
In 25 years of Spit research, I've never seen it written or heard from a Spit pilot that weak wings was the reason the IX didn't carry 4 cannon. But IPMS Stockholm says it, so it must be fact right?
How then did S/L Eric Gibbs of 54 Squadron flying out of Australia on operations manage to have 4 cannon on his VIII when it's all up weight was more then the IX. That's a C wing, that is interchangable with an IX.
Note the image
Once again, did the IX have the abilty to carry 4 cannon? Yes. Note the C Wing diagram image with the twin cannon and ammo bays.
Did it carry 4 cannon regularly? No. The performace loss did not outweigh the gain of 4 cannon. Like I mentioned before. Not many 109 pilots wanted to go into a dogfight with a wing gondolas and extra cannon. Attacking bombers, it made sense, in an ACM environment it did not. The Spit IXs weren't attacking bombers, they were dealing with German fighters.
I realize that once you've made up your mind, in particular in reference to Spits and the RAF, there is no talking to you, but I figured it was worth one more shot.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1074098107.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1074098140.jpg)
-
Lets see, Barbi claims the Spit IX had weak u/c and the tyres could not take the load because of the increase of weight from Merlin 45/50/55 series engines to Merlin 60 series engines. To offset this weight increase, he claims 2 of the 20mm H-S cannons were removed. (Total weight 444lb with ammo > from his chart)
Yet weights in the form of bombs up to 1000lb (a difference of +456lb) could be carried (photo proofs posted).
Max weight for the Spitfire V was 7300lb, yet for the same airframe with a heavier engine:eek: the max weight was 9500lb for the Spifire IX (a difference of +2200lb)
Now he is squirming, changing the tune he sings, saying only a hard prepared surface was needed. Perf steel matting is not exactly a prepared surface. Many hard surface airfields in France, Belgium and Holland.:) (Bodenplatte was against hard smooth airfields) So what, it is still up to 1756lb more than if the 4 20mm H-S cannons had been fitted. So much for your claim the u/c was weak on the Spitfire MkIX. There is no restriction on a 500lb load to the type of surface, yet this is more than the weight of the 2 removed 20mm cannon. Landing on the ground is not like the "controlled crashes" a naval a/c does when trapping.
LF OoB
Mid year 1944 > 840 twin engine bombers
Year end 1944 > 294 multi engine a/c
April 1945 > 37 multi engine a/c
Not enough German a/c to be bothered with having an extra pair of 20mm cannons. P-47s and P-51s had no trouble using their 0.50" to down LW a/c.:) What you can't fathom Barbi is that there was not an operational neccesity for 4 cannons as the 2 cannons and 4 hmgs were good enough for destroying LW a/c and ground targets.
"(Spitfire discussions usually have this ballon-like nature, the mythology always just gets richer)"
Unlike Me109 threads which start that way.:D
The Spitfire could do Mach 0.89.:)
Guppy, it is a waste of time with Barbi, his hate for the Spitfire is to great. All that can be done is to control the damage he does with his anti-Spirfire campaigns.
Enjoying your "vacation" from Ubi for your obnoxious behaviour are we Barbi?
-
I'm late to all this discussion but it sure seems to me that weight gain has a more significant effect on vertical performance than it does sustained turning and the early to mid war Spitfires were always trying to catch up with the Germans in terms of vertical performance.
In the pacific during 1942, USN pilots preferred the F4f-3 to the F4f-4s. Why? The -3s had four Brownings with more rounds per gun. The -4's had 6 Brownings (a spec change to satisfy a British order) and fewer rounds per gun. Weight went up and climb rate suffered. Turn rate suffered too, but the pilots mostly complained about the loss of vertical perfomance against an enemy plane that was superior in both the vertical and horizontal.
Another issue - could it be Center of Gravity?
-Blogs
Originally posted by Guppy35
Cobra,
The photo of the three Spits you refer to are two Spit 21s and a Spit 22 with the bubble canopy. The Spit 21 saw very limited action with 91 Squadron just before the end of the war. The 22 didn't see WW2 service. The 21,22,24 had a completely different wing design and were Spits in name only.
They DID NOT use the 4 cannon wing with the IX in any numbers or total squadron service. The ONLY squadron I can definately say used 4 Cannon Spit Vcs in squadron strength is 2 Squadron SAAF late in the war as an air to ground support aircraft in Italy.
The weight gain was far more detrimental in an A to A environment then the extra set of cannon was worth. As I said earlier a number of pilots got rid of their 303s and relied totally on the 2 cannon as they figured if they couldn't hit with the cannon the 303s were pointless. The loss of that weight improved speed and turning ability in the pilot's eyes.
Trust me I love Spits but there is no reason to push for a 4 cannon Spit. A clipped wing, late war LFIXE or LFXVIE yes, but not 4 cannons :)
Dan/Slack
-
No question on the climb rate. One of the specific comments on the Malta Vcs with 4 cannons was the impact on the climb rate. As mentioned they removed two of the 4 cannons for performance reasons including helping with climb rate.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Dan,
>Clearly over time, the medium alt escorted bombers must have proved to be the best way to get the LW into the air as by 43 thats all they were doing based on the logbooks I've seen.
Very interesting!
It's all the more remarkable because the USAAF bombers which had superior high-altitude performance thanks to their turbo superchargers stuck to medium altitudes as well. I guess oxygen (and accordingly operational safety) was behind that.
Speaking about using bombers to get the enemy fighters into the air, I'm just reading about the role of Ultra in the Battle of Britain.
Apparently, Leigh-Mallory was pushing to go after the Luftwaffe in force just when Göring had told his squadrons that this was just what he wanted the RAF to do. Dowding and Park were cleared for Ultra and had Göring's orders on their desks, but Leigh-Mallory didn't get Ultra intelligence, and so they weren't allowed tell him what they knew!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Isegrim,
FYI, the USA had two Spitfire Mk IXs (MK210 and MK317) that they had worked up a scheme to increase the Spitfire's range.
"In these the internal fuel capacity had been increased by fitting a 43 gallon tank in the fuselage behind the pilot's seat and two leading edge tanks, each of 16 1/2 gals. Additional fuel was carried externally in two P-51 Mustang drop tanks, each of 62 gals capacity and suspended under the wings on P-51 bomb racks, With all this fuel the Spitfires weighed 10,150lbs and the undercarriage was fully compressed. Also, oil tank capacity had to be increased to 20 gals. The still air range of the modified Spitfires was approximately 1,600 miles while the Vickers scheme was about 1,400, but the latter could be extended to 1,650 miles by an increase in internal capacity. The American modified Spitfire handled better than the Vickers and was safer for reinforcing."
Now, that was a Spitfire Mk IX weighing in at 10,150lbs and the landing gear did not collapse. The shocks were fully compressed, but that is hardly surprising given the Spitfire Mk IX's designed maximum load and could have been remedied by heavier duty shocks.
The Spitfire did not have either weak landing gear nor weak wings.
-
"One of the specific comments on the Malta Vcs with 4 cannons was the impact on the climb rate. As mentioned they removed two of the 4 cannons for performance reasons including helping with climb rate. " AFAIK this was also the case with Hurricane 2Cs' based on Malta. The Hurris 2 cannon armament was considered adequate and the less weight of removing 2 cannons allowed them to intercept enemies more readily as the aircontrol at Malta was not too good.
About Spitfire's wing: To my understanding the main spar of the Spitfire was a spring-like square tube with smaller tubes inside another and thus very durable as was necessary because of the huge forces it had to endure owing to weight and big wing area. However, I'm not sure if the wing design itself was very rigid because of the wing area vs. thinness.
The wing could propably very well carry the weight of the four guns but maybe the flexing of the wing while firing was too much? (The hispano was not a very heavy cannon when considering its huge muzzle energy so the energy has to go somewhere.)
Just an idea...
-
Originally posted by Charge
"One of the specific comments on the Malta Vcs with 4 cannons was the impact on the climb rate. As mentioned they removed two of the 4 cannons for performance reasons including helping with climb rate. " AFAIK this was also the case with Hurricane 2Cs' based on Malta. The Hurris 2 cannon armament was considered adequate and the less weight of removing 2 cannons allowed them to intercept enemies more readily as the aircontrol at Malta was not too good.
About Spitfire's wing: To my understanding the main spar of the Spitfire was a spring-like square tube with smaller tubes inside another and thus very durable as was necessary because of the huge forces it had to endure owing to weight and big wing area. However, I'm not sure if the wing design itself was very rigid because of the wing area vs. thinness.
The wing could propably very well carry the weight of the four guns but maybe the flexing of the wing while firing was too much? (The hispano was not a very heavy cannon when considering its huge muzzle energy so the energy has to go somewhere.)
Just an idea...
The C or Universal Wing was redesigned internally specifically to have the option to carry the 4 cannon. It was strengthened for that.
Two diagrams from Spit manuals. First is the C or Universal wing as MH434 and others had it with only one cannon and no second cannon bay opening and plug. Note the outlined second cannon bay and ammo bay.
Second is of the installation in the C or Universal wing of the 2 cannon set up with out machine guns.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1074191420.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1074191454.jpg)
-
I'm a bit confused here.
It was my impression that US daylight raids were conducted at reletively high altitudes (25k & up) and British night raids were closer to 15k. The B-17 had no problem with 30k + altitudes but the ceiling on the B24 was lower. Of course bomb acuracy would suffer at higher altitudes.
-Blogs
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Dan,
>Clearly over time, the medium alt escorted bombers must have proved to be the best way to get the LW into the air as by 43 thats all they were doing based on the logbooks I've seen.
Very interesting!
It's all the more remarkable because the USAAF bombers which had superior high-altitude performance thanks to their turbo superchargers stuck to medium altitudes as well. I guess oxygen (and accordingly operational safety) was behind that.
Speaking about using bombers to get the enemy fighters into the air, I'm just reading about the role of Ultra in the Battle of Britain.
Apparently, Leigh-Mallory was pushing to go after the Luftwaffe in force just when Göring had told his squadrons that this was just what he wanted the RAF to do. Dowding and Park were cleared for Ultra and had Göring's orders on their desks, but Leigh-Mallory didn't get Ultra intelligence, and so they weren't allowed tell him what they knew!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
I'm a bit confused here.
It was my impression that US daylight raids were conducted at reletively high altitudes (25k & up) and British night raids were closer to 15k. The B-17 had no problem with 30k + altitudes but the ceiling on the B24 was lower. Of course bomb acuracy would suffer at higher altitudes.
-Blogs
Both the RAF and USAAF had medium bombers that were flying raids into France from 41 on. Spitfires were the primary escorts of these raids as they did have the range to take them to targets in France and back. These raids were flown at medium alts in the 15-25K range as it was the best operating altitudes of the medium bombers.
We were not talking about heavy bomber raids to Germany as those were flown at different alts
As you can probably tell I like visuals too :)
Scan is of the logbook of a Spit XII pilot that I have from September 43 showing all the escorts they were flying.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1074200648.jpg)
-
The answer it turns out was quite simple as to why we don't see Spit IXs with 4 cannon.
Quoting Jeffrey Quill, Cheif Supermarine Test pilot(A primary source I'd argue):
"Although the Universal (C) wing had provision for four cannon, it was normally possible to fit only two, because heating for the outboard cannon was inadequate. Only some squadrons operating overseas in low level roles ever operated with four cannon fitted"
That explains 4 cannon VIII in Australia and 4 cannon Spit Vc in the Med does it not?
Heating, not weight was the issue
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The answer it turns out was quite simple as to why we don't see Spit IXs with 4 cannon.
Quoting Jeffrey Quill, Cheif Supermarine Test pilot(A primary source I'd argue):
"Although the Universal (C) wing had provision for four cannon, it was normally possible to fit only two, because heating for the outboard cannon was inadequate. Only some squadrons operating overseas in low level roles ever operated with four cannon fitted"
That explains 4 cannon VIII in Australia and 4 cannon Spit Vc in the Med does it not?
Heating, not weight was the issue
Dan/Slack
A much more reasonable reason for the 2 cannon Spits over the truly lame 'weak u/c' reason given by another.
-
"Isengrim:
Can you carry a 30 lbs backpack in every hour on EVERY single day without your back starting to look like Quasimodo`s after a year or two? "
Try being 30 lbs too fat, - not a lot really ....weakling:D
Better still, try being a farmer for a year, hehe
-
Guppy:"because heating for the outboard cannon was inadequate"
But what is the inboard "stub" seen on 2 cannon Spit. I thought it was the outboard cannons that where fitted and the inboard ones deleted?
Where was the 50Cal fitted? Was it in the innermost MG bay or next to the 20mm(and inner or outer bay)?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Guppy:"because heating for the outboard cannon was inadequate"
But what is the inboard "stub" seen on 2 cannon Spit. I thought it was the outboard cannons that where fitted and the inboard ones deleted?
Where was the 50Cal fitted? Was it in the innermost MG bay or next to the 20mm(and inner or outer bay)?
-C+
That was the redesigned "E" Wing that had the cannon outboard and the 50 cal inboard. This didn't appear until mid 44. It still didn't carry two 20mm cannon however. The point being that heating for one cannon was adequate but not for two.
With the two 303 MGs on the Universal wing, they decided to have the 20mm cannon in the inboard bay.
They didn't solve the heating problems for the two 20mm cannons until the completely redesigned Spitfire 21.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Guppy,
>It still didn't carry two 20mm cannon however. The point being that heating for one cannon was adequate but not for two.
As this makes it sound like it was a question of heating power, I'd like to point out that to me, it sounds more like a question of the hot air not getting to the outer cannon if an inner cannon was present.
That the issue wasn't solved in my opinion shows that it didn't have much priority. If hot air didn't suffice, there were always electrical heaters as used by the USN.
Either the added firepower wasn't considered worth the effort, or there were supplemental reasons not to use the cannon. Disturbance of the air flow over the wing might be one, for example.
It comes down to the Spitfire with 2 cannon being a better fighter overall than the Spitfire with 4 cannon, whatever the trade-offs were.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>It still didn't carry two 20mm cannon however. The point being that heating for one cannon was adequate but not for two.
As this makes it sound like it was a question of heating power, I'd like to point out that to me, it sounds more like a question of the hot air not getting to the outer cannon if an inner cannon was present.
That the issue wasn't solved in my opinion shows that it didn't have much priority. If hot air didn't suffice, there were always electrical heaters as used by the USN.
Either the added firepower wasn't considered worth the effort, or there were supplemental reasons not to use the cannon. Disturbance of the air flow over the wing might be one, for example.
It comes down to the Spitfire with 2 cannon being a better fighter overall than the Spitfire with 4 cannon, whatever the trade-offs were.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Clearly the need for 4 cannon was not pressing enough to change production at that point in the war. But it was clear from many sources not in the least Jeffrey Quill that the Universal wing was meant to hold 4 cannon and did in limited low alt and tropical settings.
But because of the heating issue, the ducting for the cannon heating to the one cannon was routed through the empty second bay. This is visible in the maint manuals for the Spit.
There is little doubt though that because the hitting power of the single cannon wing was sufficent that they didn't force the issue earlier and in fact settled on the E wing with the 20mm cannon and .5 machine gun as the best set up for the wartime Spit.
As mentioned earlier the Spit 21 with a completly redesigned wing did see limited service at the end of the war with one squadron but not enough to make a difference as the IXe, XVIe and XIVe did in the 44-45 timeframe.
Bottom line though for this thread, is the wing could have carried twin cannon as it clearly was strong enough and designed for such a loadout despite certain Spit hater's belief that it was unable to because the undercarriage was too weak :)
Dan/Slack
-
Spot on Guppy!
Anyway, the SEAFIRE had a stronger undercarriage, so installing a stronger undercarriage was easily possible.
The final Seafire version was 12500 lbs in overload condition, 10300 lbs in normal condition, and this is something that comes down on an aircraft carrier deck!
-
Guppy,
SO you don't acknowledge that the Spit IX carried the 500 pounder 2 250 pound bombs on a regular basis?
No I don`t, because the manual tells that`s it`s an OVERLOAD, despite you choose to ignore that fact. Regular basis? No, I would not call it a regular one when it`s "only from smooth and hard runway". Read it if you want, it says "ONLY". Not "ALWAYS".
Read further,
Spit 9/16`s manual, page 31:
Maximum weights:
Mk IX and XVI,
For take off and gentle manouvers only : 8700 lbs *
For landing (except in emergency) : 7450 lbs
*At this weight, take-off should be only made from smooth and hard runways only"
Ok, so 7450 lbs is the MAXIMUM allowed landing weight of the spitfire IX and XVI. Adding the 2nd pair Hispanos would overload the airframe above the maximum allowed landing weight for the landings. Period, end of story.
As for the 4 cannon armament. What part don't you understand about the performance loss vs the gain of the extra cannon?
What part you don`t understand about the flimsly undercarriage and the inability of the airframe to land over 7450 lbs without overstressing the airframe?
Which part did you not understand :
Maximum weights:
Mk IX and XVI,
For landing (except in emergency) : 7450 lbs
The Spit Vcs that went to Malta with 4 cannon all had one set removed as the performance penalty far outweighed the added firepower... etc. etc. etc. etc.
Stop... in your style, 'which part you did not understand?' We are talking Mk IX, not Mk V.
In 25 years of Spit research, I've never seen it written or heard from a Spit pilot that weak wings was the reason the IX didn't carry 4 cannon. But IPMS Stockholm says it, so it must be fact right?
How then did S/L Eric Gibbs of 54 Squadron flying out of Australia on operations manage to have 4 cannon on his VIII when it's all up weight was more then the IX. That's a C wing, that is interchangable with an IX.
Note the image
Once again, did the IX have the abilty to carry 4 cannon? Yes.
According only to you... Still, you didn`t give any answer to the fact why, oh why did the 4 cannon armament was immidiately reintroduced with the Mk 21 and all later models ...? Didn`t the Mk 21 would suffer the same performance loss as the others from adding the extra cannons?
Note the C Wing diagram image with the twin cannon and ammo bays.
'Which part you did not understand ?'
Let me repeat :
We are not talking about the Mk V`s ability to carry 4 cannon armament.
We are not talking about the C-wing`s ability to carry 4 cannon armament.
We are not talking about the Mk IX`s ability to carry this and that bombload.
We are talking about the Mk IX/XVI`s inability to carry 4-cannon armament. Oh pardon, only I am talking about it, you keep switching subject instead of giving asnwers.
So kindly stop flipping and flopping around, and finally kindly start talking about the subject:
How could the Mk IX/XVI carry 4 Hispanos, which would increase it`s weight to around 7700 lbs from 7400, when it`s maximum allowed landing weight is 7450 lbs ?
Simple question which you failed to answer yet.
Did it carry 4 cannon regularly? No. The performace loss did not outweigh the gain of 4 cannon. Like I mentioned before.
Yes you did, for about how many? 4 times already ? Very very convincing... Please forgive me that parrotting it just isn`t working on me. You definietely convinced your own mind, though. :)
Not many 109 pilots wanted to go into a dogfight with a wing gondolas and extra cannon.
Indeed not, on the other hand the 109s were much lighter fighters, and the gondola guns weighted twice as much as the Hispanos, at around 500 lbs - certainly effecting the 109 more.
Attacking bombers, it made sense, in an ACM environment it did not. The Spit IXs weren't attacking bombers, they were dealing with German fighters.
Yet the RAF was working from 1943 onwards on the Mk 21 with a four cannon armament... why is that if it wasn`t needed at all as you say ? Not that I wouldn`t agree that the extra weight would decrease performance, however, that is not the reason IMHO.
Here`s some addendum about the Spit`s structure and undercarriage structural intengrity. Certainly, there were PROBLEMs. The below was someone else`s post on another forum:
The fate of MA 308 in 1944 is especially interesting...
"This is just a partial list of structural failures and dive-related accidents involving RAF Spitfires. The following is from SPITFIRE: THE HISTORY, Eric Morgan & Edward Shacklady. Most of the data on the chart is quoted from the aircraft construction lists, although some information is found in the text sections of the book and this is noted by page number.
---------------------------------------
Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive.
Jan 41...Mk I....N3191...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4354...Port wing broke off in dive.
Aug 41...Mk I....X4381...Starboard wing broke off in dive.
Mar 41...Mk I....X4421...Both wings broke off in dive pullout.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4662...Stbd wing broke off in dive pullout.
Jun 41...Mk I....X4680...Wings/tail broke off in dive pullout.
Nov 42...Mk I....X4621...Failed to recover from dive.
Apr 43...Mk II...P7352...Broke up in dive.
Sep 41...Mk II...P7522...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL531...Both wings broke off in dive.
Feb 42...Mk V....AA876...Disintegrated in dive.
Jul 43...Mk V....BL389...Pilot thrown from aircraft in dive.
Jan 43...Mk IX...BS251...Structural failure in dive.
May 43...Mk IX...BS385...Structural failure in dive.
Aug 43...Mk IX...BS441...Disintegrated in dive.
Oct 46...Mk IX...PL387...Disintegrated in dive.
Jan 48...Mk XVI..SL724...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Sep 48...Mk XVI..TD119...Crashed after recovery from dive.
--------------------------------------
Aug 42...Mk I....N3284...Broke up in flight.
Aug 41...Mk I....N3286...Broke up in flight.
Sep 40...Mk I....P9546...Structural failure in flight.
May 42...Mk I....P9309...Lost wing in flight.
Apr 43...Mk I....X4234...Lost wing in spin.
Sep 42...Mk I....P9322...Broke up in flight.
Aug 43...Mk I....R6706...Aileron failure which led to crash.
Jan 43...Mk I....X4854...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
Nov 40...Mk II...P7593...Stbd wing and tail broke off in flight.
Dec 41...Mk II...P8183...Port wing broke off in flight.
Jun 42...Mk II...P8644...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
May 41...Mk II...N8245...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 44...Mk II...P7911...Flap failure which led to crash.
Sep 42...Mk V....AD555...Flap failure which led to crash.
Mar 44...Mk V....BL303...Flap failure which led to crash.
Dec 41...Mk V....BL407...Structural failure suspected.
Jun 42...Mk V....AB172...Structural failure in flight.
Mar 43...Mk V....AA970...Structural failure in flight.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL290...Port wing broke off in flight.
May 43...Mk V....BR627...Port wing failed in spin.
Oct 41...Mk IV...AA801...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 43...Mk IX...BS404...Structural failure in spin.
Feb 45...Mk IX...MH349...Wing failed during aerobatics.(pg.318)
Sep 46...Mk IX...MJ843...Port wing, tailplane broke off in loop.
---------------------------------------
Apr 43...Mk V....EP335...Wings, fuselage, tail, damaged in dive.(pg.63)
Jul 42...Mk VI...AB200...Wings buckled in dive at 450mph IAS.
Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.(pg.63)
Feb 44...Mk XI...EN409...Many wing rivets failed in dive.(pg.389)
Apr 44...Mk XI...EN409...Prop/gear broke off at 427mph IAS.(pg.389,399)
Nov 44...Mk IX...MH692...Tail section damaged in dive.(pg.318)
In addition, the construction lists identified a few Spitfires that broke up in bad weather, but I did not include those.
-
Because of character limits, this is the 2nd part :
WING and TAILPLANE FAILURES
In July 1941, Spitfire Mk I - X4268 was used to investigate wing failures by taking measurements of internal pressure on the wings. In June 1942, Spitfire Mk II - P7251 was used to investigate tailplane failures, by taking measurements of tailplane deflection in high speed dives. Eventually it was judged that the port and starboard tailplane tips were at slightly different angles in a dive and this caused an excessive degree of twist in the airframe. That could be overcome to some extent by applying full left rudder, although using full right rudder made the problem much worse. The summary says that the terminal velocity of the Spitfire was about 560mph TAS.
In July 1942, there was a meeting at the MAP to discuss the chronic aileron problems with the Spitfire. After six years of flight testing this aircraft, surprisingly little progress had been made at improving the aileron response at high speeds.That includes the results of replacing fabric ailerons with metal ones, and associated attempts to add inertia weights to the elevator system. Pilots involved in the aileron testing noted that as speed increased, the rate of aileron upfloat increased suddenly and disproportionately. Squadron Leader Raynhan of the Accidents Branch asserted that the most significant fact emerging from recent Spitfire accidents was that no change in the type of failure had been brought about by the introduction of the inertia device or by readjusting the center of gravity, which he believed pointed to aileron instability. Also, there had been evidence of ailerons flying right up at a very early stage of the accident in certain instances, and failures of the aileron circuit which could not be explained by the wings breaking off the aircraft in flight.
When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.
After the Spitfire Mk V had been in service for some time, alarm had been raised over several accidents where the aircraft simply dived straight into the ground for no apparent reason. The Accidents Branch investigated this matter and later determined that firing the 20mm cannons could damage the oxygen regulating apparatus, so that thereafter the rate of supply could not be varied and could lead to the pilot losing consciousness. "
Also it`s quite interesting to conflict the claim about the claims here about the Seafire`s strenght with it`s operational record :
"September, 1943, saw the first extensive combat use of the Spitfire... Appearantly, it was decided to provide air support for the operation from a force of Royal Navy carriers equipped mainly with Seafire IICs and LIICs. The Seafires brough down a few German and Italian aircraft, partly because the tactics were predominantly defensive and many of the raiders were bomb-carrying JaBo Bf 109s and FW 190s. But in 713 sorties, no fewer than 42 of the 120 Seafires involved had been lost or written off, including 32 wrecked in landing accidents, while 39 more of the fighters had been damaged in deck accidents. Altough the operation served it`s purpose of providing air cover until the land forces could provide secure airstrips, the Seafire force had virtually ceased to exists by Salerno D-Day plus 3. The bad experiance of Salerno not unnaturally coloured the Navy`s subsequent view on the Seafire; altough the development of a Seafire version with a stronger undercarriage was initiated shortly after the Salerno operations, it was to be another 3 years after this aircraft, the Seafire 17, entered service. Meanwhile, deliveries of purpose built American carrier fighters to the Fleet Air Arm were picking up speed, and the Seafire suffered by comparison."
See Bill Sweetman`s 'Spitfire', in 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes', page 314.
And BTW : IF the issue was the performance drop, both in terms of climb and turning, why the clipped wing Spits IX, hhmm? Clipping the wings had worser effect on turning and climbing as the extra circa 250 lbs extra weight from the Hispanos (clipping the wings increased wing loading by about 5-6%, adding 250 lbs only by about 3%)) ... still, clipped wings were common, 4 Hispanos were not. And why no 4 cannon Spit IX series, unlike before (MkV) and after (Mk 21+), I cannot imagine.
Of course one can just go by all that in the classic Spitdweeb style, singing the song about the strong undercarriage, strong wings, and just throw the Mk IX manual straight into the trashcan, because it`s just all bothering stuff. Anyway, I don`t want to bother you guys anymore with that, I see you put the pink glasses/blinkers on, and from that onwards, there`s no real point trying to lead you guys back to the physical reality of our world. Not to mention it`s all the BS style that makes up an increasing proportion of Guppy`s post about, ie. Spithater etc. No offense meant.
-
Ok, so 7450 lbs is the MAXIMUM allowed landing weight of the spitfire IX and XVI. Adding the 2nd pair Hispanos would overload the airframe above the maximum allowed landing weight for the landings. Period, end of story.
Sorry, it wouldn't. Planes usually burn some fuel in flight. The extra Hispanos would add 250 lbs or so to that weight, but using 35 gallons of fuel would take you back below the normal maximum landing weight.
In fact, just about the only way for a Spit with 4 Hispanos to land over the normal maximum weight would be if he declared an emergency almost immediately after takeoff, that required immediate landing. But landing over 7450 lbs was allowed in an emergency anyway.
A normal landing would hardly be made until at least half a tank had been used, and even with 4 Hispanos that takes you well under normal landing weight.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Because of character limits, this is the 2nd part :
WING and TAILPLANE FAILURES
In July 1941, Spitfire Mk I - X4268 was used to investigate wing failures by taking measurements of internal pressure on the wings. In June 1942, Spitfire Mk II - P7251 was used to investigate tailplane failures, by taking measurements of tailplane deflection in high speed dives. Eventually it was judged that the port and starboard tailplane tips were at slightly different angles in a dive and this caused an excessive degree of twist in the airframe. That could be overcome to some extent by applying full left rudder, although using full right rudder made the problem much worse. The summary says that the terminal velocity of the Spitfire was about 560mph TAS.
In July 1942, there was a meeting at the MAP to discuss the chronic aileron problems with the Spitfire. After six years of flight testing this aircraft, surprisingly little progress had been made at improving the aileron response at high speeds.That includes the results of replacing fabric ailerons with metal ones, and associated attempts to add inertia weights to the elevator system. Pilots involved in the aileron testing noted that as speed increased, the rate of aileron upfloat increased suddenly and disproportionately. Squadron Leader Raynhan of the Accidents Branch asserted that the most significant fact emerging from recent Spitfire accidents was that no change in the type of failure had been brought about by the introduction of the inertia device or by readjusting the center of gravity, which he believed pointed to aileron instability. Also, there had been evidence of ailerons flying right up at a very early stage of the accident in certain instances, and failures of the aileron circuit which could not be explained by the wings breaking off the aircraft in flight.
When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.
After the Spitfire Mk V had been in service for some time, alarm had been raised over several accidents where the aircraft simply dived straight into the ground for no apparent reason. The Accidents Branch investigated this matter and later determined that firing the 20mm cannons could damage the oxygen regulating apparatus, so that thereafter the rate of supply could not be varied and could lead to the pilot losing consciousness. "
Also it`s quite interesting to conflict the claim about the claims here about the Seafire`s strenght with it`s operational record :
"September, 1943, saw the first extensive combat use of the Spitfire... Appearantly, it was decided to provide air support for the operation from a force of Royal Navy carriers equipped mainly with Seafire IICs and LIICs. The Seafires brough down a few German and Italian aircraft, partly because the tactics were predominantly defensive and many of the raiders were bomb-carrying JaBo Bf 109s and FW 190s. But in 713 sorties, no fewer than 42 of the 120 Seafires involved had been lost or written off, including 32 wrecked in landing accidents, while 39 more of the fighters had been damaged in deck accidents. Altough the operation served it`s purpose of providing air cover until the land forces could provide secure airstrips, the Seafire force had virtually ceased to exists by Salerno D-Day plus 3. The bad experiance of Salerno not unnaturally coloured the Navy`s subsequent view on the Seafire; altough the development of a Seafire version with a stronger undercarriage was initiated shortly after the Salerno operations, it was to be another 3 years after this aircraft, the Seafire 17, entered service. Meanwhile, deliveries of purpose built American carrier fighters to the Fleet Air Arm were picking up speed, and the Seafire suffered by comparison."
See Bill Sweetman`s 'Spitfire', in 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes', page 314.
And BTW : IF the issue was the performance drop, both in terms of climb and turning, why the clipped wing Spits IX, hhmm? Clipping the wings had worser effect on turning and climbing as the extra circa 250 lbs extra weight from the Hispanos (clipping the wings increased wing loading by about 5-6%, adding 250 lbs only by about 3%)) ... still, clipped wings were common, 4 Hispanos were not. And why no 4 cannon Spit IX series, unlike before (MkV) and after (Mk 21+), I cannot imagine.
Of course one can just go by all that in the classic Spitdweeb style, singing the song about the strong undercarriage, strong wings, and just throw the Mk IX manual straight into the trashcan, because it`s just all bothering stuff. Anyway, I don`t want to bother you guys anymore with that, I see you put the pink glasses/blinkers on, and from that onwards, there`s no real point trying to lead you guys back to the physical reality of our world. Not to mention it`s all the BS style that makes up an increasing proportion of Guppy`s post about, ie. Spithater etc. No offense meant.
Did you read Anything in any of the posts above? What part don't you understand? The Cheif test pilot is quoted as saying the 4 cannon armament was not used because of heating issues with the outboard cannon. Look at the diagrams and you can see the heating ducts for the cannon.
Why did they clip the wings? Cause the airwar came down in alt. It also increased the roll rate in response to the 190. The difference in turning circle was not great at lower alts between the clipped wing and regular span wing. The IX/XVI series with the Merlin 66/266 was geared towards the lower alt ranges.
Funny, with the HF IX, VII etc they used extended wings for higher alts. You could in fact find Spits in 44 using all three types of wing tips. It depended on the mission they were used for. Kinda common sense don't you think?
You are quoting Seafire stats too. Different bird. I'll not argue that the early Seafires had problems as they did. One of the common complaints was the crinkling of the fuselage behind the cockpit from the hard carrier landings. Spit IXs were'nt landing on carriers however and talking Seafires has nothing to do with this debate.
Hmmm I suppose since the early 109Fs lost their tails or had wings fall off during combat (see Mickey Ssalamander, JG26 about this among others), we should complain about the design of the 109G14 then? what does one have to do with the other?
And lets get back to the issue. I once again quoted the Cheif Test Pilot of Supermarine, Jeffrey Quill.
"Although the Universal (C) wing had provision for four cannon, it was normally possible to fit only two, because heating for the outboard cannon was inadequate. Only some squadrons operating overseas in low level roles ever operated with four cannon fitted"
What part about the inadequate heating for the outboard cannon, don't you understand?
The Universal wing was used on the VC, IX, VIII, VII, XIV, XII.
But of course we throw out the word of the Cheif Test Pilot, and the maintenence manuals for the Spit IX because you've got it figured out another way?
And you claim I'm wearing blinders? LOL amazing.
Go back and read, slowly so you don't miss anything, what I've written. Examine the photos posted, inculding the Spit IX with 4 cannon. It's all there despite your missing it again and again.
Dan/Slack
-
I find it rather amusing that Isegrim fails to show if it's even there, the parameters those aircraft failed under. Even todays modern fighter aircraft suffer from structural failures (including rivets).
First question is were they within operating parameters? If not to what extent were they over and what was there configurations? What altitudes did this happen at and in what regions were they operating?
Simple fact is structural damage is still a major issue as fighters push the envelope. A split second stick input can and will damage the aircraft. It just depends on configuration and how hard and how long the aircraft sustained that maneuver. Sealants also make a big deal here. An incorrectly sealed surface will cause it to shear off if any condensation builds up then turns to ice.
Only 9 Mk. IX aircraft are depicted here in his failure list. I'm sure there is more than that but it's by far not much considering the amount of Mk. IX variants that were made. Also 5 of those 9 failed in a dive so what was there flight condition? Did they exceed the aircrafts parameters extremely or just a little? 1 of them was in a spin (flat spin) so it's not surprising. 1 buckled around the cannons but no info on what it was doing when it happenend. 1 lost it's tailplane section. And last but not least another 1 lost a wing during aerobatics.
Again these failures still happen in todays aircraft whether it's pilot induced, structural failure, or structural failures due to enviromental affects. Trying to say they were all weak just upon these incidents is merely crazy. And as Guppy has stated undercarriage failures were on Seafires not the overall Spitfire world. I'm not well informed on the exact structural improvements on the Seafires as compared to the standard Spitfires but again even in todays modern fighter aircraft there is very major differences in a carrier based aircraft than a land based. Try and land an F-15, F-16, or A-10 on a carrier and the under carriage will surely fail. It's already been tested and proven that they were uncapable of these kind of stresses with the basic landing gear system. So was the Seafires gears essentially the same as the standard Spitfire? And was only the main carriage upgraded for stress and not specially designed gear made?
-
Hi everyone,
With regard to the Spitfire wing strength, I don't believe they were much of a factor in the cannon issue.
The wing failure problems at high speed were due to aeroelastic problems and probably had little to do with airframe weight. They weren't fully understood until after WW2, and as far as I know were no different in later versions than in early ones.
The Seafire accident rate was a mostly controllability issue, not one of airframe strength. The Spitfire's (usually beneficial) gradual stall combined with the Seafire's tail heaviness made it quite difficult to come down exactly in one defined spot, and everything could happen after bouncing on a carrier deck.
(More on these issues in Mike Crosley's "Up in Harms Way", which is a great book on aerodynamics and test piloting with many examples from his WW2 Seafire career.)
The problems in mounting the cannon to the Spitfire wings weren't prohibitive, and if the Luftwaffe would have mounted a large-scale daylight bombing offensive against Great Britain, 4-cannon Spitfires would certainly have seen action in numbers.
The landing weight issue in my opinion isn't a go/no-go affair anyway, but rather a question of fatigue. Perhaps the reduced lift coefficient due to the extra cannon barrels was even more important than the weight - if you have to land a few mph faster, the landing shock will be heavier as a result.
I imagine that at some point in the war, the Air Ministry was told "If you want them, you can have four-cannon Spits soon, but be prepared for average servicability to drop a few percent operating from rough strips." And the answer probably was: "Now that we're in the bomb-dropping business in Italy, we'll rather keep the two cannon, but have a look at the bomb rack issue please." (It were the front line units who first increased the bomb loads, it seems.)
Many WW2 fighters have untapped potential - the F4U and the F6F both could have mounted 20 mm cannon, too, and the Fw 190D-9 could have been a four-cannon fighter just as easily as the Spitfire. Tactical, operational and even logistical reasons often prevent such potential from being tapped - that's just the way it goes.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Nashwan your right,
7450LBS was the takeoff weight of a fully loaded Spit. He would have burned 20 gallons US just by warming the engine. Thats 120lbs right there.
Also the Spit IX was limited to a diving speed of 440MPH with a 500lbs bomb at 20,000Ft and below. That's a high limiting speed for any WW2 fighter without bombs.
-
Great post Barbi!!!:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
Trouble is, I forgot my shovel for all that manure you are pushing out.:D:D
I know you have trouble with logic and are short on common sense but step back and loose your hatred for the Spitfire, for it is trully blinding you.
Lets see, using your data from pg 1, a 4 cannon Spit IX would weight 7652lb(TO). Returning from a mission with 20gal of fuel left and a 50% usage of ammo would reduce the a/c weight by 618lb(7034lb). Even if there was no ammo usage the a/c's weight would be well below the 7450lb weight you claim is the max for landing(ie. 7184lb). Once a 1/3 of the fuel (28gal) had been used the a/c would be down to the weight.
LOL, Barbi clutching at straws.:aok :rofl
Yes, Ubi is a much nicer place without you posting there anymore.
-
Isegrim, Isegrim, please don't make matters too complicated.
A spitfire IX with the C wing could carry 4 Cannons, right?
Whether or not, anyway, there was no problem in manufacturing it,- the first 4 cannon spits were tested in 1940.That was a modified Spit I wing if I recall right.
A six cannon Spit was also tested, just can't remember which type.
And the flimsy spit wing breaking in dives etc, in many cases was because of the at-the-time C of G as well as incredible elevator authority. Spits would be able to get pushed into so high G maneuvers that the G loads would have broken ANY plane, most of them earlier actually. This was being fixed from Mk V into the Mk IX modl by adding bob weights that INCREASED the elevator heaviness under high G. In other words, the Spit had such an UBER elevator control, that it needed to be calibrated into a more heavy control.
Anyway, these figures seem low, and humble compared to (cough) the 109 landing accident write-off (often fatal)rate of approx 1500 aircraft. (5%+)
(How's that for a mid week flame attempt :D )
Then on to the Seafire.
The Seafire had a rough time in the Med where very many were lost in the landing process. Well, for your knowledge, most of those were being used from very little escort carriers, and a second and third problem were low cruising Speed and wind speed. Most carrier borne planes would have had trouble in the spot, and secondly, carrier ops were not what the Spit was designed for. However, operations from full size carriers went just fine.
Anyway, Isengrim, pull your biased brain together for once will you.
:p
-
Oh,by the way, a 7451 lbs Spit will definately get smashed at landing, while a 7449 lbs Spit will be fine. Still sucks :D
-
Well since Barbi is posting again, why has he not posted in this thread?:eek:
-
You mean this page of this thread right?
(Barbi = Isengrim?)
-
Originally posted by Angus
You mean this page of this thread right?
(Barbi = Isegrim?)
Yup Barbi, aka BarbI, aka Babs, aka Barbarossa Isegrim, aka Ise, aka Issy, aka Vo101 Isegrim. He was known as Barbarossa Isegrim before he became Vo101 Isegrim.
In the other thread > Spit/ BoB thread. Still getting his butt kicked, like in this thread.
When ever he is shown to be wrong he leaves, never to return again. Not even a word that he accepts that he was in error.
-
Well, how about baiting the hook and see if he appears again? Hmm, maybe I should start a thread called "the dreadfully bad 109"??
Anyway, dipping the nose into that poddle, the Spitfire wing was stronger than the 109's wing, it could carry more weight (and that being multiplied with G's), and it could carry much more armaments, which was a project removed from the 109's wing after 1940 :D
-
As for mixed armament Spit (2xrox + bomb). Any glues about what kind of missions did it fly ?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, dipping the nose into that poddle, the Spitfire wing was stronger than the 109's wing, it could carry more weight (and that being multiplied with G's), and it could carry much more armaments, which was a project removed from the 109's wing after 1940 :D
That is of course complete and utter BS. The 109s wings could take 12Gs, the Spit's 10Gs. The 109s could take 20mm cannon pods under each wing and a 250kg or 500kg bomb centreline. That single 500kg bomb alone exceeds the Spits 1000 lbs load discussed in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, how about baiting the hook and see if he appears again? Hmm, maybe I should start a thread called "the dreadfully bad 109"??
Anyway, dipping the nose into that poddle, the Spitfire wing was stronger than the 109's wing, it could carry more weight (and that being multiplied with G's), and it could carry much more armaments, which was a project removed from the 109's wing after 1940 :D
Angus, can we see a source for that load factor claim ?
As Scholz pointed out, the 109 could carry a lot more weight under it`s wings than the Spit.
The Spit, with considerable restrictions, was allowed to carry 113kg under each wing.
The 109, without any restriction, could carry 235-250kg under each wing.
-
Originally posted by VooDoo
As for mixed armament Spit (2xrox + bomb). Any glues about what kind of missions did it fly ?
Post D-Day with 2 TAF on the continent, the Spit IXs and XVIs were used in ground attack as the air to air targets were drying up.
As I posted much earlier in this thread, one of the Spit XII pilots I got to know, was flying XVI's at this time and his feeling was that in many ways the powers that be were at a loss as to what to do with their squadrons with the airwar so lopsided.
He was shot down dive bombing sub pens , which the 500 pounders they were carrying had no hope of penetrating. He was a tad bitter about that :)
Dan/Slack
-
I mean - in what kind of ground attack mission it was used. 2 rox is a pretty small number in terms of WWII rocket accuracy... Special "rocket sharpshooter" squadron :) ?
-
Originally posted by VooDoo
I mean - in what kind of ground attack mission it was used. 2 rox is a pretty small number in terms of WWII rocket accuracy... Special "rocket sharpshooter" squadron :) ?
Nothing I've seen, speaks to a specific mission outside of the usual "targets of opportunity'. In general the rockets were regarded as a poor substitute for the 2 250lb bombs that could have been carried instead on the wing hard points.
Dan/Slack
-
Slack, which squadron you friendly with again? 41 Sqn or 54 Sqn? They're disbanding them in RL... :( Not till 2005/2006 though.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Slack, which squadron you friendly with again? 41 Sqn or 54 Sqn? They're disbanding them in RL... :( Not till 2005/2006 though.
41 Squadron. I heard that the RAF was doing the cutbacks and the Jaguars that 41 Squadron flies are being taken out of service.
RAF Coltishall is being closed as well and that is where the Jags are based. Spent some time there in 85 at the 41 Squadron reunion. Talk about history all around.
Kinda sad really
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
41 Squadron. I heard that the RAF was doing the cutbacks and the Jaguars that 41 Squadron flies are being taken out of service.
RAF Coltishall is being closed as well and that is where the Jags are based. Spent some time there in 85 at the 41 Squadron reunion. Talk about history all around.
Kinda sad really
Dan/Slack
6 Sqn Jaguars will reform as a Typhoon squadron though I don't know about 41 & 54 Sqns.
Kinda silly when you think they've recently spend millions upgrading the Jaguar fleet to GR3 standard.
RAF Coltishall will close in 2006.