Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: VO101_Isegrim on April 14, 2004, 01:38:05 PM
-
Just a quick question : how common was the bubble type canopy on F. Mk XIVs? E-wings I believe were fairly common, if not dominating ones, but I am not sure about the bubble canopy, most photos I have seen show the normal razorback version. I believe the bubble was mostly on the FR XIVes, ie. the fighter-recon series that different somewhat from the normal fighters, and for which good field of vision was rather important.
Oh, just in case someone has some actual strenght figures for MkXIV squadrons in the end of 1944, I would appreciate it, I can only make guesses at the moment, for about 80-90 or so planes being on strenght at one moment. An actual number would be interesting to see!
-
Total as of 14 December 1944
Operationally fit sqns = 120
In A.S.U = 127
Total = 247
(Thanks Mike)
As of 27 December 1944,
41 sqn, 130 sqn, 350 sqn, 402 sqn, 610 sqn, 430 sqn and 2 sqn.
Neil.
-
Going though the "The Bible" there was 386 a/c produced (give or take 5-6 missed or double counted) by year end 1944.
-
Bubble canopy Spits were very late in the game, probably March 45 at earliest. E wings were the norm. with only those very early XIVs with Universal wings. 91 Squadron Spit XIVs are seen with the E wing during the doodlebug chasing time of June-Early August 44.
Peter Cowell, who flew with 41 Squadron had a painting on his wall of his last wartime Spit XIV EB-P and it was a bubble top. The painting was done at the time by a Flying Officer at one of their last airfields.
This also applies to the appearance of the Packard Merlin engined Spit XVIs as the first bubble top XVIs appeared on squadron service around the same time.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling
Total as of 14 December 1944
Operationally fit sqns = 120
In A.S.U = 127
Total = 247
(Thanks Mike)
As of 27 December 1944,
41 sqn, 130 sqn, 350 sqn, 402 sqn, 610 sqn, 430 sqn and 2 sqn.
Neil.
Thanks Neil & Guppy! :)
These are all "on hand" figures, right? If I took it right, on the 14th Dec, 120 "on hand/present" XIVs w. 1st line units, 127 with the 2nd line units (I am not sure what A.S.U. is an abbrevation of)?
All of these seem to operate over the Low Countries.
430 and 2 sqn appear to be tactical recon units, with FR XIVs. IIRC one of them were operating mixed with Mustang recces at that time.
Do you have a perhaps a breakdown for the 27th Dec date, ie. in the midst of fighting per Squadron (if that is available)?
That would be interesting. Anyway, thanks for your help, Neil !
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Bubble canopy Spits were very late in the game, probably March 45 at earliest. E wings were the norm. with only those very early XIVs with Universal wings. 91 Squadron Spit XIVs are seen with the E wing during the doodlebug chasing time of June-Early August 44.
Peter Cowell, who flew with 41 Squadron had a painting on his wall of his last wartime Spit XIV EB-P and it was a bubble top. The painting was done at the time by a Flying Officer at one of their last airfields.
This also applies to the appearance of the Packard Merlin engined Spit XVIs as the first bubble top XVIs appeared on squadron service around the same time.
Dan/Slack
Bubble canopy spits were really that late in the war? Somehow I always had the imprssion they came to combat in summer of 44...
-
Not being a big Spit-guru myself, but iirc the bubble canopy first appeared on fighter spits with the Mk XVI, which started production only in Automn 1944. Now considering that it probably took some time to make changes, plus the planes to reach the frontlines, about early 1945 seems a likely date of their appearance.
Guppy, were bubble canopies evenly spread out on production, or was it FR`s and PRs having priority?
-
ASU = Air Storage Unit
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Not being a big Spit-guru myself, but iirc the bubble canopy first appeared on fighter spits with the Mk XVI, which started production only in Automn 1944. Now considering that it probably took some time to make changes, plus the planes to reach the frontlines, about early 1945 seems a likely date of their appearance.
Guppy, were bubble canopies evenly spread out on production, or was it FR`s and PRs having priority?
The XVI was nothing more then a Spit IX with a Packard Merlin. As such, it was identical and if the preconception is that all XVI's had bubble tops, that isn't true. They didn't show up until somewhere in the TB serial ranged aircraft which were produced early in 45. You can find some Spit IXs with bubble canopies too.
I'm not positive, but I'm assuming that one of the factories, probably Castle Bromwich, transitioned prodution to the bubble canopy fuselage first.
A couple of anectodal comments in books has 421 Squadron RCAF getting their first bubble top XVI in April 45 and 317 Polish getting theirs around the same time.
41 Squadron and their XIV with bubble tops was as mentioned late March or so.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I'm not positive, but I'm assuming that one of the factories, probably Castle Bromwich, transitioned prodution to the bubble canopy fuselage first.
Dan/Slack
The "Castle Bromwich-canopy" ? ;)
ie. like Erla-Haube
MkXVI, Packard and all, I know. Was this perhaps an equivalent of G-14, ie. same as G-6 but with all the goodies put in? Was there a similiar tendency for standardization of the most up to date parts, apart from the US manufactured Merlin?
Btw, I figured out that the Polish book that I took the Spit drawing for sighting comparision probably had a type, and mixed XIV with the intended XVI... :cool: Those tricky roman numbers. :)I wonder about the Mk XIV`s nose sight view, I have now the Il-2AEP beta with the MkIXs, brr, that longer nose really makes deflection shooting hard compared to the Mk V... ;)
Do you have AEP, and participate on HLobby perhaps?
-
Nose view on the Griffon Spits was actually better because of the mounting of the Engine. In particular the XII when tested was seen as a better alternative to the IX for dive bombing because of the better view over the nose.
The Griffon Spits did need constant trimming and were not considered as good of gun platforms as the Merlin Spits from what I've read and heard from folks who flew them.
Dan/Slack
-
Just another tidbit. I have the logbook of a Canadian pilot who flew with 416, 41 & 91 Squadrons from December of 41 until August of 44 when he returned to Canada. He flew the Griffon XII and XIV in combat along with the Merlin Spit II, V and IX.
His first flight in an E wing XIV was July 1, 1944 when he airtested his 'new machine' DL-A.
He specifically designated it as an XIVE in his logbook as there was an E designator for that wing. Prior to that he was flying XIVs with Universal wings so they were logged as just XIVs.
The Universal wing was only called the C wing with the Spit V. There was no IXC or XIIC, XIVC or VIIIC. They all had Universal wings but were just known as FXII or LFIX etc. As with the XIV, when the IX got the E wing, it was known as an IXE.
Tht puts the intro of the E Wing, shortly after D-Day with the IX and XIV
Dan/Slack
-
Isegrim, I don't have a break down, however Wings of Fame Supermarine Spitfire and Seafire by A Price contains a reference to the completion of Spitfires FR.MK XIVE with bubble canopy and addtional 33-imp gal rear tank from the autum of 44.
Neil.
-
ie. the only known strenght is for 14th Dec, Neil? Still, at last we have something definitive on this subject, no more need for guessing...
OFF : F-4s first saw service in June 1941, also see LEMB.. If you need more info, I can send it to your mail address, provided it`s still the same.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Nose view on the Griffon Spits was actually better because of the mounting of the Engine. In particular the XII when tested was seen as a better alternative to the IX for dive bombing because of the better view over the nose.
The Griffon Spits did need constant trimming and were not considered as good of gun platforms as the Merlin Spits from what I've read and heard from folks who flew them.
Dan/Slack
IIRC the Griffon was mounted lower than the Merlin, hence the bulges appearing on the top of engine cowling - and more forward view despite the even longer engine..? I guess this may be also the cause for more frequent trimming, perhaps the thrustline also got lower, and I presume the CG moved further forward etc... (?)
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Was this perhaps an equivalent of G-14, ie. same as G-6 but with all the goodies put in? Was there a similiar tendency for standardization of the most up to date parts, apart from the US manufactured Merlin?
IIRC the main reason for the different mark number was that the Packard built merlins needed different parts and tools to the Rolls Royce merlins. The different mark ensured that MkXVI equipped uints got the right supplies.
I assume that the MkXVI incorporated whatever was standard on MkIXs at the time of their design. In general RAF aircraft seem to have been fairly standard and changes propagated pretty quickly from one production centre to another.