Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 1Cane on October 17, 2019, 02:38:17 PM

Title: The question on spitfires
Post by: 1Cane on October 17, 2019, 02:38:17 PM
Why don't the spitfire14& 16 have a bubble canopy? :airplane:
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: Chris79 on October 17, 2019, 03:50:07 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/WFDYt7kz/3-A78-D726-85-AA-4718-8-DB9-62-D4-CD10436-B.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/WFDYt7kz)


That’s an early 14
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: mikeWe9a on October 18, 2019, 11:14:09 AM
The fact is that both the Mk 14 and 16 did have bubble canopies - that is, production of both mks eventually had bubble canopies.

Spitfire variant numbers were not really in chronological order, and in many instances were not made to replace a previous mk, so it doesn't necessarily follow that a Mk 16 will have all of the refinements of lower numbered variants.  The Mk 16 for instance, was a Mk 9 in all respects, but it used the Packard version of the Merlin engine instead of Rolls Royce, presumably because there was a shortage of Rolls Royce Merlins - there were enough differences in the engine (imperial vs metric measurements, etc) that a different Mk number was needed to ensure correct logistical support.  The Mk 9 was still in production at that point, and eventually both the 9 and 16 were produced with bubble canopies.

Mike
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: nooby52 on October 21, 2019, 08:54:13 AM
I did not know that about the MK 9/ 16. Very interesting.
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: atlau on October 21, 2019, 09:10:31 AM
The fact is that both the Mk 14 and 16 did have bubble canopies - that is, production of both mks eventually had bubble canopies.

Spitfire variant numbers were not really in chronological order, and in many instances were not made to replace a previous mk, so it doesn't necessarily follow that a Mk 16 will have all of the refinements of lower numbered variants.  The Mk 16 for instance, was a Mk 9 in all respects, but it used the Packard version of the Merlin engine instead of Rolls Royce, presumably because there was a shortage of Rolls Royce Merlins - there were enough differences in the engine (imperial vs metric measurements, etc) that a different Mk number was needed to ensure correct logistical support.  The Mk 9 was still in production at that point, and eventually both the 9 and 16 were produced with bubble canopies.

Mike

What about the wingtips?
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: mikeWe9a on October 21, 2019, 11:32:55 AM
What about the wingtips?

Yes, the Mk 16 had clipped wingtips.  I misspoke (typed?) above.  The Mk 9 was built in several versions during the war, both as a high altitude fighter (H.F.) and low altitude fighter (L.F.), with differing engines.  The Mk 16 was based on the L.F. Mk 9.  At the end of the Mk 9 production, L.F. versions with the cut down fuselage and bubble canopy were built with the clipped wing as well.  According to Wikipedia, most of these Mk 9s ended up serving with the South African Air Force (SAAF) after the end of WWII.

Mike
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: FLS on October 21, 2019, 12:21:06 PM
What about the wingtips?

Wingtips were bolt on parts. The "clipped" wing just used a different end piece. Same wing, different wingtip.
 
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: Bruv119 on October 22, 2019, 04:55:19 PM
Spitfires are Awesome!   :aok
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: potsNpans on October 22, 2019, 07:32:09 PM
Spits are fer' sissies  :neener:
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: Karnak on October 28, 2019, 10:15:55 PM
Yes, the Mk 16 had clipped wingtips.  I misspoke (typed?) above.  The Mk 9 was built in several versions during the war, both as a high altitude fighter (H.F.) and low altitude fighter (L.F.), with differing engines.  The Mk 16 was based on the L.F. Mk 9.  At the end of the Mk 9 production, L.F. versions with the cut down fuselage and bubble canopy were built with the clipped wing as well.  According to Wikipedia, most of these Mk 9s ended up serving with the South African Air Force (SAAF) after the end of WWII.

Mike
It took 30-45 minutes of ground crew time to change wing tips on a Spitfire.  They could be clipped, standard or extended.  It wasn't dependent on the engine or mark number, at least from somewhere in the Mk V production run on.  Late in the war high level operations were not in as much demand so clipped wings became pretty common on Merlin Spits.
Title: Re: The question on spitfires
Post by: Mister Fork on October 29, 2019, 05:40:26 PM
Spitfires are Awesome!   :aok
...and the SpitV the best of everything!

More to add to Karnak's point - in the late stages of the war, with forward operating bases located deep inside France and the perimeter of Germany, the allied forces no longer had to climb out to 20'000+ ft to engage enemy German fighters...they were themselves barely off the ground before being engaged.  At 350-400MPH, a late war Allied fighter could fly into German-occupied territory in minutes. Conversely, German pilots only had minutes to get into the air once their EWR detected a fighter sweep.

It's like flying for the Rooks next to an occupied Bishop base. They just come up from the airfield in swarms!