Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kev367th on November 16, 2005, 04:51:48 PM
-
IX - As its an early 1942 bird should have the single large blister covering both cannon bays, not the slim blister covering only the used bay.
XVI - 'e' wing didn't have the blister on the upper wing above where the undecarriage was. (possibly)
-
Based on the skin at least, the FIX is a 1943 version which would have had the narrow blister over the single cannon chute feed.
BUT! It does have the tropical filter, which wasn't on the IXs in England at the time. Not until mid 44 for that.
Not sure what part you are referring to on the E Wing unless it's that tiny bulge over the wheel well? That is still there on the XVI wings, at least from the photos I've seen.
-
Did a bit of looking through the stuff on when the large cannon blister was on the IXs. It appears it was mainly on the very early issued IXs in the BS-serial ranges.
It also occured to me that the XII made it's debut in February 43 and it had the narrow blister from the start so no doubt it it was being used prior to this. And looking at photos from September 42 of the XII prototype, it had the narrow blister on the Universal wing then. So in reality very few IXs had the big bulge of the two cannon fairing as they never carried the two cannons operationally.
-
Only the early 1942 F.IXs had the larger blisters.
Some FIXs served into 1944 in the Med and possibly in the ETO, and they did have the larger trop filter, and by that time they had the narrow blisters.
It looks like despite a lot of modelling pitfalls, HTC got the Spits correct.
The business of the "skin" on the F.IX is a moot point, there will be many skins for it in the future, based on early or later time frames, the one we have now is just a "place holder default" so saying that that exact skin including serial #, does not model the 3d model is true, but its also irrelevent.
The F.IX would be a "late serving F.IX" but still correct.
The Seafire IIC has the larger 2 cannon blister, which is correct.
:aok
-
I thought it was supposed to be an early 42 IX?
-
Well, its modelled with the later, larger trop filter, so its a "later than 42 F.IX" as it is...but its still correctly modelled.
I understand the real MH434 is what its modelled after...
Its 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other, they can only make one 3d model of the F.IX, and the F.IX had mods on it during the war Kev, so its not ever going to be possible to take one 3d model and cover every F.IX type there was from 1942-wars end.
As long as what ever one they go with is representative of one that could have been, I think thats as much as we can ask?
Look at the P-51B, it has a malcom hood, but again, they can only do one, so its either canopy "A", or canopy "B". Pick one.
-
Agreed -
I just thought from the Spit lineup that the Spit IX was supposed to be the 1942 IX that was brought in to counter the 190's.
-
Guppy, do you have any refs for late serving F.IXs with the trop filter? Maybe in MED?
MH434 has one but I was wondering when it might have got it.
Also, do you have a ref for MH434 being a Merlin 61?
-
Originally posted by Squire
Guppy, do you have any refs for late serving F.IXs with the trop filter? Maybe in MED?
MH434 has one but I was wondering when it might have got it.
Also, do you have a ref for MH434 being a Merlin 61?
MH434 was actually an early LFIX. It did not have a tropical filter when it was in combat in 43-44. It came off the production line in August 43 and went to 222 Squadron First claim was a 190 over St. Omar on August 27, 1943.
Image from Peter Arnold of MH434 in squadron service with 222 Squadron in March 44. No tropical filter.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/9-mh434-06-001.jpg)
-
Ok cool, thx Guppy. I think I prefer a F.IX without the late filter but I doubt they will change it. In any case it can stand in as other late F.IXs.
Oh ya the E wing blisters:
http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/Fea1/601700/Fea664_Spitfire_Carroll/fea664.htm
They are correct. Photos will confirm that, I dont have any handy at the minute, although I do have a photo of a 416 Sqn RCAF Spit XVI being re armed in Germany, and it clearly shows the blister.
-
Yes the cannon blister on the XVI is correct, its the inboard one over the wheel whels that is incorrect.
It has the same one as the IX currently, which i believe is incorrect.
Looking at the pic of the model - Should it still have the hatches for the 303's on the upper wing?
-
Another interesting one for ya Squire.
Found in a book on the Polish Spit IX Wing that operated from Chaily during the time of the D-Day invasions.
A 3 bomb carrying Spitfire LFIX with Universal wing taken in May 44. Don't think I've seen many if any images of 3 bomb IXs that were'nt the strengthened E wing.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/3BombSpit.jpg)
-
So what was that Guppy a IXE wing with 4 303s and 2 20mm? Or is it a IXC with a modified wing that carries bomb racks? I beleive you posted on that before, that a few IXCs did carry wing bombs, although not as standard? N. Africa wasnt it?
The E wing was capable of carrying 2 20mm and 4 303s. Its just they normally did not. Seems thats likely the answer, especially May 44 when the E wing was coming into service but some perhaps were not armed yet with the .50 calibers.
Wheel blisters:
"According to Rolf Meum, who has accumulated 100+ hrs of Spitfire flying with the Old Flying Machine Company, Duxford, the teardrop-shaped blisters above the wheel wells correlate to a modified wheel axle geometry adapted to tarmac/concrete runway operation; the original "grassfield" undercarriage has a substantial toe-in which results in severe wear on the port mainwheel when flying from tarmac/concrete airfields. With the modification the wheels no longer lie flat in the wheel wells and need more space. This may explain why the blisters are frequently seen on surviving warbirds and other post-war Spitfires while being rare on pictures taken during the war."
So it looks like they may be correct. Who knows as to the rarity.
-
I thought an 'e' wing was an 'e' wing was an 'e' wing, whether fitted to a XIV, IX or XVI.
Panel diagrams I have of a XIV 'e' wing show no upper or lower hatches for the 303's.
Need the answer for the XVI I am doing for Dan, at the moment I have omitted the 303 hatches.
-
I do beleive the 303 bays and hatches still existed on the E wing. It was capable of carrying the following armament:
2 x 20mm and 4 x .303 cal.
4 x 20mm
2 x 20mm and 2 x .50 cal.
That being said, during the war almost all of the E wings carried the last armament listed (20mm and .50s) with very few exceptions, as the RAF had a policy in place as to how they would be configured. The USA was able to provide for large #s of .50 caliber MGs to the UK, and so the decision was made in 1944 to arm the Spits in that fashion.
The E wing was a "Universal Wing" meaning it could carry any of the armament options, in theory. Had the USA had a shortage of .50s during WW2...undoubtably the Spit IXE would have been armed in a different way.
The rest is history, as they say...
-
Originally posted by Squire
So what was that Guppy a IXE wing with 4 303s and 2 20mm? Or is it a IXC with a modified wing that carries bomb racks? I beleive you posted on that before, that a few IXCs did carry wing bombs, although not as standard? N. Africa wasnt it?
The E wing was capable of carrying 2 20mm and 4 303s. Its just they normally did not. Seems thats likely the answer, especially May 44 when the E wing was coming into service but some perhaps were not armed yet with the .50 calibers.
Wheel blisters:
"According to Rolf Meum, who has accumulated 100+ hrs of Spitfire flying with the Old Flying Machine Company, Duxford, the teardrop-shaped blisters above the wheel wells correlate to a modified wheel axle geometry adapted to tarmac/concrete runway operation; the original "grassfield" undercarriage has a substantial toe-in which results in severe wear on the port mainwheel when flying from tarmac/concrete airfields. With the modification the wheels no longer lie flat in the wheel wells and need more space. This may explain why the blisters are frequently seen on surviving warbirds and other post-war Spitfires while being rare on pictures taken during the war."
So it looks like they may be correct. Who knows as to the rarity.
E wing was a July entry at earliest and it was purely an E wing, no provisions for the 4 303s. That was the Universal Wing or "C" wing as everyone calls it.
So this is a Universal Wing with the three hard points in May of 44.
The other photos I saw of Universal Wing Spits with wing racks were in the MTO and in late 44-45 so I assumed they were field mods, but this photo seems to imply they were doing it earlier at least in small numbers as this was from a Polish Wing that was flying lots of bombing runs in May 44 and afterwards.
-
Copy that.
So whats the verdict on the "E wing" then, all the pics and other info I have clearly shows the .303 hatches still there, although unused. Unused doesnt mean the bays are no longer there though.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/201300/Fea278_Spitfire_Adel/images/mv293_6.jpg
Again this is a model pic, but you can see the outer 303 hatch in the middle of the roundel.
My book also has "plan drawings" of the E wing on both the XVI and XIV, with the 303 hatches clearly there.
So they right, or no? You sure you are not getting "no provisions" for "not ever used"?
-
Wish I knew.
My drawing of Spit XIVe wing clearly shows no sign of 303 hatches on upper or lower wing.
Also one more for ya's - The 20mm access cover, seen it in two versions:
a) One piece
b) Split lengthwise (slight angle) into two seperate covers.
-
I think this photo might provide a clue. It appears the hatches were there and that compressed air bottles or something similar are in the wing under those access hatches.
Not sure what for, but clearly there is something in both spots.
In the great Flypast Forum Spit wing debate, the guys who've worked on restoring E wings say there were not gun mounts there, while they were there in Universal wings.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20000
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/Spit16.jpg)
-
Looks like the hatches are definately there. Ya they must have used the empty ports for other things I guess.