PDA

View Full Version : The Spitfire Mk. IX model...



John_Stag
05-19-2004, 04:23 PM
Isn't. It's a Spitfire Mk. XVI.

On the Mk. IX, the .50 cal positions are outboard of the Hispanos, and It still uses the tail of the Mk. V.

The Mk.XVI Has the .50's inboard, a re-designed tail, and a Packard-built Merlin Engine.

It's possible that the Mk.IXs could be retrofitted with the larger rudder, but the early aircraft should still have the old rudder.

I've been close enough to touch the Battle of Britain Flight's Mk. IX; trust me on this.

[This message was edited by John_Stag on Wed May 19 2004 at 04:50 PM.]

John_Stag
05-19-2004, 04:23 PM
Isn't. It's a Spitfire Mk. XVI.

On the Mk. IX, the .50 cal positions are outboard of the Hispanos, and It still uses the tail of the Mk. V.

The Mk.XVI Has the .50's inboard, a re-designed tail, and a Packard-built Merlin Engine.

It's possible that the Mk.IXs could be retrofitted with the larger rudder, but the early aircraft should still have the old rudder.

I've been close enough to touch the Battle of Britain Flight's Mk. IX; trust me on this.

[This message was edited by John_Stag on Wed May 19 2004 at 04:50 PM.]

lil_labbit
05-19-2004, 04:25 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif Wait till Gibbage reads this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

FI-Aflak
05-19-2004, 04:25 PM
Hmm. I bet the flight model was done with mk IX data, though, so it should be ok on that front.

What I want is a Griffon-powered Mk XIV.

hotspace
05-19-2004, 04:33 PM
I'll go with that as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/HSshot3_copy.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=Hot+Space&historicalidfilter=all&searchkey=&action=list&ts=1084560274)

Festung Europa Spitfire Campaign (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-14.html)

Art-J
05-19-2004, 04:37 PM
both IX"C"s have 0.50 positions outboard (early wing design), all IX"E"s have them inboard (late wing design). I don't see any problem in here... Besides, as far as I remember Mk XVIs main difference, apart from engine and rudder shape you noticed, was bubble canopy, and I don't see this one on patch Spits either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg

John_Stag
05-19-2004, 04:42 PM
The fuselage came in both flavours, although I would have thought such a difference would have warrented a seperate mark.

Damn, It's hard to find documentation to back up what I'm saying. Plenty of model kits, but that's not good enough, is it?

KIMURA
05-19-2004, 04:58 PM
The "C" was 4x20mm, though some C's had the B armament. the E-wing had the 2x0.5" always located inboard of the 20mm. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The XVI was a late IX with Packard (Merlin 266)and bubble canopy and chord rudder. Earyl XVI had C-Type armamment, later model E-type.

Kimura

John_Stag
05-19-2004, 05:11 PM
Managed to find some good photographic sources covering all marks of spitfire. However all they do is muddy the waters; It seems there is a multitude of variations; stubs inboard, stubs outboard, no stubs at all, large rudder, small rudder, A Mk. XVI with A bubble canopy, and a Mk.XVI with traditional fuselage.

However; I maintain that this is what the first Mk. Ix's looked like:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/394_1085008227_730.corsica1.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/394_1085008246_730.corsica2.jpg

John_Stag
05-19-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
The "C" was 4x20mm, though some C's had the B armament. the E-wing had the 2x0.5" always located inboard of the 20mm. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The XVI was a late IX with Packard (Merlin 266)and bubble canopy and chord rudder. Earyl XVI had C-Type armamment, later model E-type.

Kimura<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkIX

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Type 361-Mk XVI

A large number of Mk IX Spitfires (1054) were produced with Packard built 1372 HP Merlin 266 engines and designated Mk XVI. Many were built alongside Mk IX variants and sequential production numbers may have different mark designations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW, Yes, Bubble canopied Mk.IXs did exist. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
05-19-2004, 08:31 PM
http://www.bobafettmp.com/warbirds/britishairpower03/images/pict8513.jpg

This is a photo of the Spitfire I used as referance for my model. I visited this aircraft 3 times and have over 100MB of pics I took with my camera. Also all the drawings I had showed the .50's on the inner wings, and the book "Spitfire, The History of" also showed the .50's in this position. Im sure there may have been IX's with the .50's on the outside, but I think those represent the minority, and its clear that they were put on the inner wing.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

John_Stag
05-19-2004, 08:58 PM
Perhaps poor reference, I know, but the majority of plastic kits I've seen of the Mk. IX were layed out in the configuration I described. While I looked for Images to prove my point, I discovered that there's almost no such thing as a "Standard" Mk.IX. AFAIK, the aircraft with the Stubs outboard almost exclusively never carried the .50s; the weight penalty was just too much.

But still, I believe that the first Mk.IXs to enter service would have been layed out in the configuration I suggested. Digging out just what evolved when could be quite a large project.

My contentions aside, It's a beautiful model BTW. any plans to produce a slimmed fuselage version?

lil_labbit
05-19-2004, 09:05 PM
Yeah beautifull models they are Gibbage - thanks man http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

They fly great too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

horseback
05-19-2004, 09:11 PM
Mk XVIs were simply MK IXs with a Packard Merlin. The Packard Merlins were built to SAE rather than metric standard, and units flying with them required a different tool set. That was the primary difference. Wing armament was as varied on XVIs as on IXs. Bubble canopies were seen on late build examples of both Marks, but were more common on the Mk XVI, since Packard didn't move up to manufacturing the Griffon, resulting in more late model MK XVIs.

There has been much debate about what constitutes a Mk IXB, C, or E. Originally, the MK IX was a MK Vc (the lowercase 'c' used to designate the wing type, the 'c' wing capable of mounting two 20mm cannon each along with the two .303 MGs) with the more powerful Merlin -I think- 65 originally intended for the Mk VII and VIII.

At that time, there was no officially blessed model designation for the aircraft equipped with engines optimized for higher or medium altitudes, and if I remember Dr. Alfred Price's explanation in the Osprey Late Marque Spitfire Aces book, the medium altitude Mk IXs were usually called MK IXBs, & the higher altitude Spits were generally called IXCs (or vice-versa), although both used the 'c' wing.

Clipped wings were not what designated an aircraft HF or LF-that was based on the engine type. Clipping the wings made a huge difference in roll rate and also improved the dive characteristics somewhat on all Spitfire Marks it was used on, at some cost in sustained turn rate (I think-on the road again).

As the war progressed, improvements were made to the MK IX, and it looked more and more like the MK VIII, BUT it always had the fixed tailwheel, and the basic MK V fuselage.

The 'e' wing (note lowercase) finally provided the Spit with .50 cal. MGs to replace the .303s, US production finally meeting all their military branch's requirements, and allowing the Allies access to the excess production. The e wing was also equipped with hard points to allow small bombs or rockets to be mounted for ground attack, and if I recall, the .50 cal and the cannon positions were switched because the stress of the cannon so close the the hardpoint tended to make the wing fold at inopportune times.

'e' wings were also found on late model Mk XIV Spits, and possibly the Fleet Air Arm's later model LF MKIII Seafires.

I hope this helps.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

horseback
05-19-2004, 09:19 PM
Almost forgot--on the 'c' wing, the stub outboard of the cannon is for mounting the second cannon, although this was rarely done, because of the weight penalty and the cost of buying the cannon. Early 'c' wings had a wider teardrop fairing on the wing above the cannon to accomodate both cannons' magazines. Later 'c' wings featured a much slimmer teardrop fairing for just the one mag.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

John_Stag
05-20-2004, 01:16 AM
Horseback, you've explained why the Packard-Merlin equipped aircraft would require a different mark except for one thing; The measurements used By Rolls-Royce at the time were Imperial. Inches would be the same as the US, but I believe that fluid measurements are different. As for the apparrent chaos of parts fitted to Mk. IXs, most obviously wings and rudder, how the hell could the UK get away with calling the resultant aircraft Mk.IXs?

I've been thinking about this all night, and I believe I have the answer.

First of all, you have to bear in mind a couple of things.

Despite having a rather large Empire at the time, Britain had nowhere near the size of industrial base existing in the USA.

Over 5000 Mk.IXs were built; by far the most numerous of the spitfire marks. Aside from specialist marks The only versions of note were the MkXIV (Griffon Engine), and the Mk.XVI (Packard Merlin engine).

The inverted heart-shaped rudder first appeared on the Mk.XIV, I would guess because the more powerful Griffon gave the Spitfire control problems it never had before. The e wing was an evolution brought about by the increasing availability of the .50 cal, plus structural problems.

Britain didn't have the rescources to run production lines for two different rudders and umpteen wing variations. The Mk.XIV needed a bigger rudder, so tooling was changed to provide it. likewise the e wing; why bother to keep producing c wings, when experience showed that the e was superior? The Mk. XVI exclusively carried these evolutions, being the latest of the three main marks.

Then you have a load of existing Mk.IX airframes which every day are returning home with large holes in major components.

The definitive Mk.IX has the c wing with stubs outboard and a small rudder. Attrition meant that as battle-damaged aircraft were repaired or later examples of the same mark were produced, they were fitted with the available parts; the rudder from the Mk.XIV, and the e wing. It would also explain why an aircraft dating back to 1943 had non-standard components.

That's my theory anyway.

Uber_Numpty
05-20-2004, 03:52 AM
Vickers Supermarine Type 380 Spitfire LF.XVIe
C/N CBAF-IX-4596 TE462 (7243M)
1945
The Supermarine Spitfire is recognised as one of the greatest military aircraft of all time. First flying in 1936, the exploits of the RAF's first all-metal fighter are legendary, from its first blooding in combat on October 16th 1939 above the Firth of Forth to operations over the Middle East in both Israeli and Egyptian hands. This example is derived from the externally similar LF.IXe, the principal difference being the installation in the Mark XVI of an American Packard built Merlin engine. Features not in common with the more familiar Spitfire versions are the blown 'bubble' canopy and clipped wingtips, enabling the aircraft to fly a tighter turning circle at low altitudes. 'TE462' never saw squadron service, being built in 1945, Most of its active life was with maintenance units. TE462 spent time as a gate guard at RAF Ouston, Yorkshire before becoming the first aeroplane the Royal Scottish Museum acquired, in 1971.

I sat in this one when I was a kid about 7 years old, the museum had not long opened and my dad took me along to see it, couldn't believe it, it's one of my most vivid childhood memories, I think from that moment, Iwanted to be a fighter pilot...

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/Uber_Numpty/Eastfortune_Spit.jpg

Vickers Supermarine Type 380 Spitfire LF.XVIe
C/N CBAF-IX-4596 TE462 (7243M)
1945 (East Fortune Air Museum)

SUPERAEREO
05-20-2004, 04:07 AM
From:
http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/spitfire2.html

"The event that was to overtake the development of the Mk VIII was the emergence late in 1941 of the German Focke-Wulf FW 190. This new radial-engined fighter outclassed the Spitfire V by a wide margin. Trials between a captured FW 190A-3 and a Spitfire VB showed that the German fighter was at least 20 mph (32 km/hr) faster at all altitudes; it had better rates of climb and acceleration; it could dive faster initially; and, except in radius of turn, it was far more manoeuvrable. The Spitfire V took a heavy beating and an urgent solution was needed. The Mk VIII had been ordered in quantity, but it would not be available quickly enough. The answer was to fit the Merlin 60 engine into a Mk VC airframe. This became the Spitfire Mk IX, the second most widely used variant. Produced in LF (the most numerous), F and HF sub-types, the Mk IX had a performance very close to that of the FW 109A-3: slightly worse in transient performance but better in the turn. The only difference between the sub-types was the Merlin fitted; there were no external differences. From the air, the Mk IX was indistinguishable from the Mk VC, and the German fighter pilots could not tell just what they were up against until combat was under way. The Spitfire IX was still widely used at the end of the war, many examples being fitted with the E-wing. This carried a single .50 machine gun in place of the two .303's. The 20mm cannon was retained. With the advent of the Griffon engine, the Mk IX was largely devoted to low-level attack missions; a role for which its wings were frequently clipped. In later production aircraft, the large rudder became standard, and a 72 Imp gal (327.3 litre) fuel tank was installed in the rear fuselage of some examples. It is generally accepted that the Spitfire VIII's and IX's were the last of the "ladies"; the next generation were not so nicely behaved, as ever-increasing power and weight took their toll of the Spitfire's previously docile handling abilities.
Production: (all sub-types) 5,609"

And the e-type wing ALWAYS had the .50 guns between the 20mm an the fuselage.

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

John_Stag
05-20-2004, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:


And the e-type wing ALWAYS had the .50 guns between the 20mm an the fuselage.

S!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we're also talking about the Mk.IXc, which is represented by exactly the same model as the later marks. Sorry, I should have specified that the problem was with the IXc, but to be truthful, it's the first time I've gone into the subject in this amount of detail.

[This message was edited by John_Stag on Thu May 20 2004 at 04:06 AM.]

Baron_Kiptofen
05-20-2004, 05:22 AM
I'm not going to get involved in the debates about which is the more accurate Spitfire... anyone who has any wisdom will quickly realise where there is one topic, but 2 human heads you'll get a million different answers: but this is why we should have the new planes in the object viewer! There's only one set of data involved with each model, and I shouldn't have to spend hours reading the "experts" arguing about whether the model Gibbage submitted is accurate or not... it's in the game now, as a Spit IX, and that's all that matters! You guys can get it changed later if you still have problems http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But to then have to stare at engine nacelles and tail fins and try and work out from that what armament and performance it carries, so I don't spend my evening online getting pounded for choosing entirely the wrong Spit (or other plane) variant is no fun for us less than experts... Give me in game information about what we actually have here, and let me worry about learning how to fly and fight properly instead!

SUPERAEREO
05-20-2004, 05:31 AM
AFAIK: the c-type wing could mount either 4 x 20mm cannons or 2 x 20mm cannons + 4 x .303 machine-guns.

The c-type wing never had provision for the installation of .50 calibre machine-guns, which were introduced only with the e-type wing (2 x 20mm + 2 x .50).

the new Spits in the patch are: Spitfire Mk. IXc, Spitfire Mk. IXc (CW), Spitfire Mk. IXe, Spitfire Mk. IXe (CW), Spitfire Mk. IXe (HF).

Only the IXe should have the .50 guns.

It has to be said that the Spitfire was one of the planes in WW2 that had the highest number of modifications, and many details were often changed on the production lines without changing the type designation (the Mk.V for example had three different types of propeller - 1 x De Havilland and 2 x Rotol - and three different spinners installed without any change in designation, beside other fairly major mods - exhausts, elevators etc.).

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

BerkshireHunt
05-20-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:


And the e-type wing ALWAYS had the .50 guns between the 20mm an the fuselage.

S!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we're also talking about the Mk.IXc, which is represented by exactly the same model as the later marks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect, I don't see anything wrong. The IXCs have 'C' wings and the IXEs have 'E' wings.
'E' wings were introduced in the latter half of 1944 and were attached to Spitfire IXs, XIVs and XVIs, all of which were being made side- by- side on the same production lines.

'E' wings ALWAYS had the fifty inboard of the Hispano. To quote historian Robert Humphreys: "there was more room here to accomodate the longer ammunition belts which the 0.5 in guns had compared to the 0.303in guns of the 'C' wing. Consequently, the cannon was fitted in the outer bay (on 'E' wings)."
It's nice to see that the model correctly shows the cannon stubs shorter on the 'E' wing Spits than on the 'C' wing versions- the 'E' wing had the Hispanos mounted further back. Well done, Gibbage.

Re the broad- chord rudder- this was developed originally for high- flying Spitfire VIs, VIIs and VIIIs. It couldn't be fitted to early Spitfire IXCs (in late '42) as it simply wasn't available. As I'm sure you know, the early IXCs were re- engined Spitfire Vs rushed into service to counter the FW190A4 and they retained the Mark V's smaller rudder. However, they also had a different (larger) cannon blister fairing on the top surface of each wing, which we do not have in the game.
So I don't think you can make the case that the game's IXCs are early ones and should therefore have the smaller rudder. You can only interpret them as late IXs with broad- chord rudder which the game does in ascribing the date '1943'.
Broad- chord rudders of one sort or another (there were many versions of slightly different shape) were fitted to all Merlin 61 engined Spits from 1943 on (though not to new build Spitfire VCs which were still in production at the end of 1944).

SUPERAEREO
05-20-2004, 05:44 AM
Thank you Berkshire, I thought I was left alone, poor Eyetie that I am, to illuminate our friends across the pond on the finest points of Reginald Mitchell's creation..! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

PS: just realised where your name comes from LOL! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

John_Stag
05-20-2004, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
AFAIK: the c-type wing could mount _either_ 4 x 20mm cannons _or_ 2 x 20mm cannons + 4 x .303 machine-guns.

The c-type wing never had provision for the installation of .50 calibre machine-guns, which were introduced only with the e-type wing (2 x 20mm + 2 x .50).

the new Spits in the patch are: Spitfire Mk. IXc, Spitfire Mk. IXc (CW), Spitfire Mk. IXe, Spitfire Mk. IXe (CW), Spitfire Mk. IXe (HF).

Only the IXe should have the .50 guns.

It has to be said that the Spitfire was one of the planes in WW2 that had the highest number of modifications, and many details were often changed on the production lines without changing the type designation (the Mk.V for example had three different types of propeller - 1 x De Havilland and 2 x Rotol - and three different spinners installed without any change in designation, beside other fairly major mods - exhausts, elevators etc.).

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The guide who took me around the hangar may have got it wrong with regard to c wing armament (not impossible) but the question remains; are the positions of the stubs inboard or outboard of the Hispanos on the c wing?

Edit: Bugger, you're right. Apologies Gribbage, Excellent Job!

Still, the tail on the '43 version...

[This message was edited by John_Stag on Thu May 20 2004 at 05:01 AM.]

SUPERAEREO
05-20-2004, 05:59 AM
The stubs on the c-type wing are outboard of the Hispanos.
They were of course the stubs of the fairing for the "optional" second pair of cannons. Those stubs normally remained on the c wing even when there was no intention of installing a second pair of Hispanos.

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

SUPERAEREO
05-20-2004, 06:07 AM
It's easy if one looks at the wings from above:

a-type (only on Mk.I-II-V): no cannons

b-type: no stubs

c-type: stubs outboard

e-type: stubs inboard

A d-type wing was planned but never produced.

The tail was modified to the "pointy" one in late-production examples.

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

John_Stag
05-20-2004, 06:19 AM
Okay, so let me sum this up:

The c wing is correct.

The e wing is correct.

The tail is correct for a late model Mk. IX, but not early.

Thanks for clarifying, Gentlemen, I'll just go and shut up for a month or so. :embarrassed:

SUPERAEREO
05-20-2004, 06:33 AM
@John_Stag: don't shut up and don't be embarrassed, we are all here to chat, exchange info, learn stuff and have fun.

And I myself only a couple of months back I made an a$$ of myself insisting with Oleg that the throttle in German planes acted backwards (and of course I was wrong).

Just remember: it took me decades to become the plane nerd I am now: before the plane bug bit me I was handsome, brilliant, extroverted and could get all the girls I wanted, now I spend my days hunched over a computer and live alone, hidden away with my die-cast models up in the belfry...

You have been warned!!!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

VW-IceFire
05-20-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:
Okay, so let me sum this up:

The c wing is correct.

The e wing is correct.

The tail is correct for a late model Mk. IX, but not early.

Thanks for clarifying, Gentlemen, I'll just go and shut up for a month or so. :embarrassed:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup you got it right now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XVI wasn't that different...although late model XVI's did have a bubble canopy. But it was not uncommon to have both types of IX with different tails in the same squadron.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Heavy_Weather
05-20-2004, 07:42 AM
i never understood what those little "stubs" were used for. can someone explain what those are on the wings?

"To fly a combat mission is not a trip under the moon. Every attack, every bombing is a dance with death."
- Serafima Amsova-Taranenko: Noggle, Ann (1994): A Dance with Death.

SUPERAEREO
05-20-2004, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
The stubs on the c-type (...) were of course the stubs of the fairings for the "optional" second pair of cannons. Those stubs normally remained on the c wing even when there was no intention of installing a second pair of Hispanos.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the e-type wing they housed the .50 calibre guns.

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

John_Stag
05-20-2004, 08:55 AM
Hardpoints for more weapons, seldom used for weight considerations. I'll say mo more, just nod politely when I take the tour.

:Sergeant! Where are you taking those vultures?

Sergeant: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, sir!

:Like hell you are, they made this mess, get them to clean it up!

Sergeant: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.