Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Galand on October 13, 2005, 10:58:09 AM
-
What is the difference between an IXc Spit and a Mk IX period?
I haven't been able to find any info on the internet about the IXc
-
It has 4 x .303s...
It's Spitfire F.IXc with a 'c-wing'
-
it also has an ugly arse canopy
-
Someone really ought to tell them -
No such thing as a IXc. (despite what model manufacturers would have you believe).
Should just be referred to as F IX.
a,b,c designations more properly used on the Mk V Spits.
Original designations and armament -
a - 8x303
b - 4x303 + 2x20
c - 4 x 20
later on the improved 'b' wing started being called the 'c' wing (incorrectly)
later again
e - 2x20 + 2x.50
To further confuse things it wasn't unknown for pilots to refer the IX in the logbook as either a IXA (Merlin 61/63/63a) or IXB (Merlin 66).
Looks good though, at last the wing to fuselage join looks more realistic.
-
You sure Kev? I am currently buying Spit books, and the first 3 I looked at refer to IXCs in a number of places.
Spitfire, Flying Legend (Dibbs/Holmes)
Spitfire in Action (Squadron Signal AC #39)
Spitfire (Wilson)
Am currently awaiting the Humphrey's book (with rivet plans) recommended by Greebo (The Supermarine Spitfire, Modellers Datafile No3 by Robert Humphreys).
-
You guys should let up on this "there was no Spit IXc" stuff...there are too many authors that use that terminology in too many books. Yes, its technically incorrect, but it was and is a common term with too many historians, authors, and modellers (right or wrong).
You arent going to change that by posting here. Yes you are right, but its like trying to defy the sun to come up in the morning, you know? After the 100,000 post correcting folks, you will be no farther along.
You would be doing a better service by explaining what a "Spit IXc" is commonly...which is a "generic term" for a Spit F.IX or a Spit L.F. IX with a "c wing" armament.
-
Not even a 'c' wing armament.
'c' wing armament was 4x20mm.
What happened was they improved the 'b' wing and for some reason people started referring to it as a 'c' wing.
As stated in wasn't unknown for the pilots themselves to refer to the Merlin 61/63/63a versions as IXA, and the Merlin 66 versions as IXB.
From what I can gather it all became rather adhoc once the IX was introduced, until the arrival of the 'e' wing.
-
Originally posted by Squire
You guys should let up on this "there was no Spit IXc" stuff...there are too many authors that use that terminology in too many books. Yes, its technically incorrect, but it was and is a common term with too many historians, authors, and modellers (right or wrong).
You arent going to change that by posting here. Yes you are right, but its like trying to defy the sun to come up in the morning, you know? After the 100,000 post correcting folks, you will be no farther along.
You would be doing a better service by explaining what a "Spit IXc" is commonly...which is a "generic term" for a Spit F.IX or a Spit L.F. IX with a "c wing" armament.
Good point. I think I'd have to agree with you on this.
-
"From what I can gather it all became rather adhoc"
-Thats putting it mildly.
-
are we going to get a normal spit 9 too? kev can I get that list again?
-
Originally posted by Stratocaster
are we going to get a normal spit 9 too? kev can I get that list again?
It is a normal Spit IX. Most Spit IXs had two 20mm and four .303s. It has an early engine in it though, the same as the current AH Spit IX.
We are getting:
Spitfire Mk Ia (eight .303s, Merlin II at +9lbs or +12lbs boost)
Spitfire Mk Vb (two 20mm (60 rpg) and four .303s, Merlin 45 at +12lbs boost)
Spitfire F.Mk IX (two 20mm (120 rpg) and four .303s, Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost, screenshots of it today)
possibly Spitfire LF.Mk VIII (two 20mm (120 rpg) and four .303s, Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost)
Spitfire F.Mk XIV (two 20mm (120 rpg) and two .50 cals or four .303s, Griffon 65 at +18lbs boost or +21lbs boost)
Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe (two 20mm (120 rpg) and two .50 cals, Merlin 266 at +18lbs boost, clipped wings)
Seafire L.Mk III (two 20mm (120 rpg) and four .303s, Merlin 50 at +18lbs boost)
-
The IX we saw today most likely wasn't on WEP, so it'll be a +18 model I bet.
-
No it won't be @ 18lbs boost. Where did you see a picture of the boost gage with the engine running?
Anyway, a Spitfire F.IX with a Merlin 61 has maximum of 15lbs boost just like the current F.IX, just like Karnak said.
-
So you guys are saying that the following is wrong?
"The final letter in a Spitfire's designation (eg Spitfire F.VC) denoted the type of wing the aircraft was fitted with, a function of its installed armament. The basic Spitfire elliptical wing had four derivatives - A, B, C, and E, while the Mark 21 and later models had an entirely new wing with a standard armament and no designation suffix. In the case of a model which was always fitted witht the same wing, again no suffix was applied. An example is the Spitfire VIII... "
-
Originally posted by Bruno
No it won't be @ 18lbs boost. Where did you see a picture of the boost gage with the engine running?
Anyway, a Spitfire F.IX with a Merlin 61 has maximum of 15lbs boost just like the current F.IX, just like Karnak said.
Wow, we agree on something :) .
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
So you guys are saying that the following is wrong?
"The final letter in a Spitfire's designation (eg Spitfire F.VC) denoted the type of wing the aircraft was fitted with, a function of its installed armament. The basic Spitfire elliptical wing had four derivatives - A, B, C, and E, while the Mark 21 and later models had an entirely new wing with a standard armament and no designation suffix. In the case of a model which was always fitted witht the same wing, again no suffix was applied. An example is the Spitfire VIII... "
Yes it is wrong at least in terms of the IX. Note it mentions there was no designation to the Spit VIII. Same principle.The Spitfire V used the A, B, C designations because they were using all three.
The Spitfire IX went into production with only the Universal wing. This was called the C wing on the Spitfire V. There was no inclination to use the A or B wing on the Spitfire IX so there was no seperate C designation. They did, upon introduction of the E wing of 2 20 and 2 .5MGs add the E designation so Spitfire LFIXE would be correct. But there was no official Spitfire FIXc.
It is purely a product of historians carrying on the idea from the Spitfire Vc
If you look at the maintenence manuals they don't refer to the C wing at all with the IX. I have the XII maint manual and it too does not refer to the C wing. It refers to the Universal wing as used on the Spitfire Vc.
I've posted this link before, but it's to a debate I started on the Flypast forum. At that point I was of the C wing club on the IX. Mark12 is Peter Arnold who is THE Spitfire historian out there. By the end, we'd gotten it down to that there was no C wing designation for the Spit IX and he posts the images from the manuals to prove it.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20000
-
Interesting link; I will have time to absorb it properly when I get home.
So, I guess the issue is (a) whether the IX existed with multiple types of wings (thus theoretically justifying the suffix to distinguish between them), and (b) whether this nomenclature was actually used in WWII, regardless of this theoretical justification.
My answer to (a) appears to be yes, as some early Spit IXs were converted from production Spit Vs (which had different wings), and as there are photos of early Spit IXs with what appear to be "b" wings.
My answer to (b) is that I need to read Guppy's link. :-)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Spitfire Mk Vb (two 20mm (60 rpg) and four .303s, Merlin 45 at +12lbs boost)
The spit 5 screenshot cockpit shows the spit 5 has 240 rounds of cannon ammo.
-
1K3, would you please stop going on about that. It is just artwork and does not neccessarily reflect what the loadout actually is.
-
then new spit 5s will have 120 rounds of cannon ammo?:confused: :eek: :O
-
No, Skuzzy is being noncommital. It could be 120. It could be 240. They will tell us later; this artwork is just to fill us in on how the planes will look.
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
Interesting link; I will have time to absorb it properly when I get home.
So, I guess the issue is (a) whether the IX existed with multiple types of wings (thus theoretically justifying the suffix to distinguish between them), and (b) whether this nomenclature was actually used in WWII, regardless of this theoretical justification.
My answer to (a) appears to be yes, as some early Spit IXs were converted from production Spit Vs (which had different wings), and as there are photos of early Spit IXs with what appear to be "b" wings.
My answer to (b) is that I need to read Guppy's link. :-)
The Spit IX was essentially a Spitfire Vc with a Merlin 60 series engine. The early ones were converted Spitfire Vc. That being said, they started with Universal wings not the early B wing of the Spitfire Vb.
You will see some images of Spitfire IX without the cannon plug next to the cannon. This has sometimes been misinterpreted as a B wing. That gets covered in that link I posted. It was because of MH434, which has a Universal wing, but no blanked off cannon plug that I asked the question. Initially it was argued that it was a B wing, but in fact it's internals are a Universal wing. It just happened to not have the second opening.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
No it won't be @ 18lbs boost. Where did you see a picture of the boost gage with the engine running?
Anyway, a Spitfire F.IX with a Merlin 61 has maximum of 15lbs boost just like the current F.IX, just like Karnak said.
D'oh.. Never mind, I was thinking of the wrong spit :confused:
-
OK, I've read Dan's link more carefully, and reviewed my limited library. My current personal conclusion is that:
1) The major participants in that thread have concluded that it is not correct to refer to IXc armament, based on lack of evidence available to them that this designation was used in WWII. While this conclusion is probably correct in many contexts, I am not sure it is correct for all contexts. In particular, note the following specific statement in the Price book:
"Later in the year..." (1943) "... the Ministry of Aircraft Production introduced three new official designations for sub-variants of the Mk IX in an attempt to resolve the position. They were as follows: FIXC..." "...LF IXC..." "...HFIXC...".
This statement refers to an alleged historical event, and is not merely a carrying-over of Spit V terminology without explanation.
2) Until the above is resolved, I feel that it is not unreasonable to refer to IXCs, especially as this term is useful to distinguish them from IXe/IXEs.
3) Also, many hobbies dealing with historical events (like ours) develop terminology which was not used when the events occured. That does not necessarily mean that the terminology should be prohibited, if it is otherwise useful to the hobbyiests.