PDA

View Full Version : Quad Cannons Spitfire Mk.Vc



LuftWulf190
05-04-2006, 10:05 PM
Which squadrons operated this veriant? Are there any good color profiles for the aircraft?

Tooz_69GIAP
05-04-2006, 10:17 PM
The Vc served in North Africa, in Malta I think, and maybe in the Far East, though I'm not too sure about that one. So look for sqn's who served in these theatres, and you'll probably find out which used the Vc.

But I'm sure there are plenty of folks here who know specifics.

LuftWulf190
05-04-2006, 10:19 PM
I've been raking my brain and my books trying to find out who operated them. So far I have found an awesome head on picture of Quadcannon North Africa Theater Spitfires, but I can't see the ID letters!

Trying to get this info for a guy who is helping me out with another Sim.

VW-IceFire
05-04-2006, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by LuftWulf190:
Which squadrons operated this veriant? Are there any good color profiles for the aircraft?
Basically the type was limited to North Africa and Malta. Most of these four cannon Spitfires were modified in the field down to just two cannons for better climbing. It was felt the 4 cannons was overkill and hindered performance.

The-Pizza-Man
05-04-2006, 10:35 PM
I've got a picture of a Spit Vc being lowered onto the USS Wasp in 1942. I first 4 letters of the serial are readable but the last letter is covered by the strap being used by the crane to lower it. But what I can see it "BP97". It looks like it's got a desert paint scheme.

Tooz_69GIAP
05-04-2006, 11:10 PM
Here's some information from looking through the Squadron Signal In Action series publication No.39 on the Spitfire:

One picture shows a Mk Vc with tropical filter of the RAAF No.79 Sqn and the caption says: "The third RAAF Spitfire squadron in the Pacific are, No.79 was formed in July 1943 and participated in a nisland hopping campaign that began on Goodenough Island and ended in Borneo. En route it used Horn Island, one of the group of Thursday Islands off Australia's Cape York Peninsula, where Mk.Vc JG807/UP-P is seen landing in 1943"

Next is a line up 5 Mk.Vc's although they look like they only have one 20mm in each wing rather than 2, but they have the chin filter. Caption reads: "Formed in Australia, No.451 Sqn operated in North Africa and Italy until the end of 1944. August 1943 saw the unit at El Daba, where these five Mk.Vc fighters were photographed. In the foreground is LZ943, with EF655/A next in line; clearly visible on the nearest machine is the tailplane-to-fuselage aerial for IFF equipment."

Another photograph showing a damaged Vc at a repair depot in N. Africa. Caption reads: "Still bearing the US flag marking applied for the North African landings, this Spitfire Vc is seen at a repair depot after being shot down in central Tunisia early in 1943. A machine of the 5th FS, 52nd FG (USAF)"

Another photograph: "In Dec 1942, Brig Gen Jimmy Doolittle visitied Tafaroui, Algeria, home of the 31st FG, and borrowed a Spitfire Vc of the 308th Squadron for a short flight. This starboard side view of the machine he used (coded HL-M) shows the "Lobo" marking which appeared only on this side, and the black shadows to the code letters."

Another: "Over the Adriatic en route to a target in Italy, this heavily armed Mk.Vc fighter bomber of No.2 Sqn SAAF is fitted with four wing cannon and carries a 500lb bomb on the centreline rack. Sporting no.2's "Flying Cheetah" emblem on the rudder, this machine has had its serial digits overpainted, leaving only the prefix letters "JK"

Another: "Spitfire Vc LZ820 of the 4th FS, 52nd FG crash landed at Borgotaro, Italy on 19th December 1943, apparently after running out of fuel in the company of two other Sptifires which also put down there. Fitted with a Merlin 61 with multiple exhaust manifolds and three-blade propeller the aircraft bears the name "Pauline" on the nose and "Capt. Kelly" forward of the insignia. The machine almost certainly retains the Vokes filter fairing under the nose."

Another: "This Mediterranean airfield shows a Mk.Vc in USAAF service, bearing non-standard codes. This Spitfire was flown by Fred Murray Dean, the commanding officer of 31 FG, and bears his initials: FMD. This is one of the few US aircraft to show the adoption of the British practice of a CO using his initials on his aircraft in place of squadron or group codes."

Another: "Languishing in a dump after the war, this Turkish Air Force Mk.Vc has a Mk IX-type pointed rudder, probably taken from one of the latter variants supplied after the end of WWII. Previously Spitfire Vs had carried the star and crescent insignia on the rudder."

There are also 2 colour profiles of the Mk.Vc - the first is Mk. Vc, BR195/AN-T, No.417 Sqn, 1942; the second is Mk. Vc, NH605/WD-D, 4th FS, 52nd FG, USAAF, 1943.

Most of the photos show Vc's sporting just 2 20mm cannon, rather than the 4 cannon we have on the in game Vc. As Icefire said, they were replaced as 4 were thought to be a bit OTT, but the ones which retained the 4 cannon were used for ground attack, if I remember correctly. I once saw a picture of a bunch of bomb and 4 cannon equipped Vc's being escorted by some other Spit V's with the normal cannon and MG configuration,and I think they were flying out of Malta.

Anyway, hopefully that helps a bit.

ImpStarDuece
05-05-2006, 12:21 AM
89, 126, 249, 601 and 603 Squadrons used 4 cannon Spitfires out of Malta at one time or another. However, as the harsh conditions made cannons likely to jam, many were reduced to 2 cannons while the remaining Hispanos were cannibalised for spares to keep the other guns in service.

Many pilots liked the firepower of 4 cannon Spitfires. There were reports of Ju-88s "just blowing up" from short bursts with 4 cannon. However, the dust and poor maintainence at Malta, as well as poor quality US made ammunition, and faulty British muzzle adapters, meant the the cannon often jammed.

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 05:01 AM
There was some structural problem with the C wings, the second pair of cannon comprimised the wings strenght when bombs were carried as well (bombracks happened to be just under the cannons). Several bulging/bending of the wing was observed, so the second pair of cannon were rarely fitted, and never on MkIXs, VIIIs or XIVs. I guess the latters increased weight on basically the same airframe made it more dangerous. A strange coincidence that you dont see four cannon Spits regularly until the wing was redesigned with the 20 series Spits, isnt it, despite that those would face exactly the same type of planes as previous versions 3 years before.

Megile_
05-05-2006, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
A strange coincidence that you dont see four cannon Spits regularly until the wing was redesigned with the 20 series Spits, isnt it, despite that those would face exactly the same type of planes as previous versions 3 years before.

Yes those twin Hispanos must have been bouncing of the K4's rear deflector shield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-05-2006, 05:40 AM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Owned_again.jpg

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 05:43 AM
Some have brains, others have funny pics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-05-2006, 05:44 AM
Some have neither.

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 05:46 AM
But they are Gold Members at least. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OD_79
05-05-2006, 06:15 AM
...

Why do you post? We all know what you're going to say! Lets pre-empt you...anymoe posts on the Spitfire, we know you're going to come in and say it's useless and should have been on the scraphead and the 109 is up there and will outfly and outfight Eurofighter and the F-22.

The guy has asked for information not disinformation or your warped opinions!

OD.

Megile_
05-05-2006, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
But they are Gold Members at least. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Touché

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 06:30 AM
"We"?

Well my take is that it's just a guy with a Spit-in-his-sig gets mental overheat if anybody dares to suggest that a plane he believes of divine perfection had actually some limitations, which is very clearly indicated in British reports. I am listening to your alternate explanations why 4-gunned planes did not exist in service use in any meaningful numbers until the wing was redesigned - or do you wish to argue this fact as well?

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Megile_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
But they are Gold Members at least. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Touché </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
05-05-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
"We"?

Well my take is that it's just a guy with a Spit-in-his-sig gets mental overheat if anybody dares to suggest that a plane he believes of divine perfection had actually some limitations, which is very clearly indicated in British reports. I am listening to your alternate explanations why 4-gunned planes did not exist in service use in any meaningful numbers until the wing was redesigned - or do you wish to argue this fact as well?

are you saying the spit had imprefections? because we all know it was perfect. I mean theres no 4 cannon 109 that can even get close to the performance of the trop Vc!

Bremspropeller
05-05-2006, 06:53 AM
Look, the K-4 can even catch the Gladiator with it's engine switched out.

luftluuver
05-05-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Some have brains, others have funny pics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yup and some have both. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

96th_Nightshifter
05-05-2006, 07:01 AM
How did this turn into a Spit bashing topic? Just let the topic starter get the answers he is looking for.

WOLFMondo
05-05-2006, 07:12 AM
Because Kurfurst turned uphttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst, your forgetting the the addition of the other cannon in each wing and its ammunition impeeded an already poor high speed roll rate. Also the VII, VIII and anything based on the VII had a strengthened wing and fuselage. Some of these changed made it into the IX series during production, as well as over 1200 other changes in the IX.

Monson74
05-05-2006, 07:55 AM
I thought the Malta Vcs were stripped two cannons due to lack of 20mm ammo & they kept it this way (even without the MGs) because two cannons really was sufficient for bringing down bombers - IIRC the American Vcs serving in the MTO often fought with two cannons & two MGs to save weight.

ImpStarDuece
05-05-2006, 08:06 AM
There were also some Mk VIIIS delivered to the RAAF with 4 cannon armament. 54 and 79 both got 4 cannon Mk VIIIs in 1943 and 1944.

justflyin
05-05-2006, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There was some structural problem with the C wings, the second pair of cannon comprimised the wings strenght when bombs were carried as well (bombracks happened to be just under the cannons).

Sorry Sir, but no 4-cannon Spitfire was ever cleared or designed to carry bombs at the same time as having 4-hispanos (Speaking in-game models at the moment). Also, early hispanos had issues, later models had the fuse issues and jamming issues mostly resolved.


There were also some Mk VIIIS delivered to the RAAF with 4 cannon armament. 54 and 79 both got 4 cannon Mk VIIIs in 1943 and 1944

Wow ImpStar, a Mk. VIII 4-cannon Spitfire would be the shiznet. Especially, if it was coupled with the proper +25lb boost version of the Mk. VIIIs we have in the game. Certainly, if the Mk. IX with Merlin 66 were cleared for +25, the Mk. VIII was as well?

As for the Vc 4-hispano, it's an awesome plane!!! It's like flying a faster, more maneuverable Hurri IIc. A fantastic addition to this sim and helps with 1941-early 1942 scenarios.

Megile_
05-05-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:


Wow ImpStar, a Mk. VIII 4-cannon Spitfire would be the shiznet. Especially, if it was coupled with the proper +25lb boost version of the Mk. VIIIs we have in the game. Certainly, if the Mk. IX with Merlin 66 were cleared for +25, the Mk. VIII was as well?



I doubt any MK VIII squadrons were supplied withb 150 Octane... but that would be a cool Spitfire.

justflyin
05-05-2006, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Megile_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:


Wow ImpStar, a Mk. VIII 4-cannon Spitfire would be the shiznet. Especially, if it was coupled with the proper +25lb boost version of the Mk. VIIIs we have in the game. Certainly, if the Mk. IX with Merlin 66 were cleared for +25, the Mk. VIII was as well?



I doubt any MK VIII squadrons were supplied withb 150 Octane... but that would be a cool Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, probably not. I guess all of the 150 was being used in Europe for Allied planes.

Oh well, one can hope. Although, the Mk.IX +25lb we currently have may outclimb the Mk. VIII, the Mk. VIII CW still beats it in the turn and has "close-enough" climb performance so, I guess +25lb isn't all that needed for the Mk. VIII CW to continue its dominance.

ImpStarDuece
05-05-2006, 08:51 AM
Actually, according to Stewart Wilson in his Spitfire history, several Mk VIIIs were tested at +25lbs.

Performance was excellent. One +25lbs equipped Mk VIII recorded a level speed of 409mph at 14,000 feet and 445mph at 25,000 feet in testing. To put that into perspective, the Mk XIV did 417 mph at 12,000 feet and 448 mph at 26,000 feet.

As far as I know, no Mk VIII units ever recieved 150 Octane and modifications for +25lbs.

horseback
05-05-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There was some structural problem with the C wings, the second pair of cannon comprimised the wings strenght when bombs were carried as well (bombracks happened to be just under the cannons). Several bulging/bending of the wing was observed, so the second pair of cannon were rarely fitted, and never on MkIXs, VIIIs or XIVs. I guess the latters increased weight on basically the same airframe made it more dangerous. A strange coincidence that you dont see four cannon Spits regularly until the wing was redesigned with the 20 series Spits, isnt it, despite that those would face exactly the same type of planes as previous versions 3 years before. This is Kurfy's usual mix-and-match answer, and as usual, when discussing Allied a/c, it's (intentionally) wrong.

There are two reasons you rarely see photos of 4x20mm Spit Vcs; cannon supply had not caught up to demand when the Vc was introduced, and they were heavy. The Mk V was already a poor match for the opposition it faced in Europe and the Med, and the extra weight was a major hindrance at a time in the air war when every little bit of weight was critical. You saw 4x20mm on Vokes' filter equipped Spits only where the Allies had overwhelming air superiority, as in the Med in mid 1943.

I have never seen a photo (in 40+ years of paying attention to the subject) of an operational Mk V with wing-mounted bombs; the problem Kurfy refers to was experienced mainly by Mk IX units flying new e-winged Spits in the ground attack role, which is why they moved the single cannon to the outboard position and the useless .50 cal M2 to the inboard. Spit Mk Vs carried bombs on their centerlines.

The only external wing ordnance I've seen or read of mounted on c-winged Spits in combat were single rockets on each wing of Mk IXs in the late summer/early fall of 1944 in the ETO, and that appeared to be a field mod.

The Mk Vc was used in some numbers on the Channel Front, and widely used in N. Africa, the CBI and the Southwest Pacific, most often with the standard 2x20mm and 4x.303 armament. Outside of Britain, it was rare to see one without a Voke's or some other tropical filter.

cheers

horseback

cheers

justflyin
05-05-2006, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
As far as I know, no Mk VIII units ever recieved 150 Octane and modifications for +25lbs.

Awwww, it was worth a shot though. lol

Wow, she really moved with +25lb boost, eh? Oleg could keep the XIV out of the game forever (which is most likely reality) if we got one of those +25lb Mk. VIIIs. hehehe

It would really be cool if we got a CW version of the +25lb Mk. IX though. They had to exist and be used, right? Or was the +25lb only fitted on the standard wing IXe?

luftluuver
05-05-2006, 09:02 AM
Lots of Spitfire photos, http://www.luchtoorlog.be/spit_v.htm

WOLFMondo
05-05-2006, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Actually, according to Stewart Wilson in his Spitfire history, several Mk VIIIs were tested at +25lbs.

Performance was excellent. One +25lbs equipped Mk VIII recorded a level speed of 409mph at 14,000 feet and 445mph at 25,000 feet in testing. To put that into perspective, the Mk XIV did 417 mph at 12,000 feet and 448 mph at 26,000 feet.

As far as I know, no Mk VIII units ever recieved 150 Octane and modifications for +25lbs.

I'm surprised the XIV is faster given 25lbs on the Merlin will almost match the Griffon HP at 18lbs and the XIV and VIII are identical apart from the powerplant, the XIV's being heavier.

IF theres good data on it, why not send it to Oleg. Its not an XIV but it really is the closest thing to it.

justflyin
05-05-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:
Sorry Sir, but no 4-cannon Spitfire was ever cleared or designed to carry bombs at the same time as having 4-hispanos (Speaking in-game models at the moment).

I sit corrected as I perused this website a few minutes ago and they list a 4-20mm with 500lb bomb as a Variant C armament for the Vc. I guess it was never operational.

http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/production.html

Also, according to the above website, the Variant B with 4 - .303s and 2 - 20mms did not carry the 1,000lb bombload of the IXc that we have in-game? Or am I confusing wing types? The IXc had a C-wing, right?

Granted, one website doesn't always make it true, but that site seems awfully well-informed to me.

LuftWulf190
05-05-2006, 10:19 AM
thanks for the info, but from hat I can fnd, I have only found twin cannons, ranther then the quads I'm looking for. So far I have only found a very small profile of a Spitfire Mk.Vc with Quad cannons, its in MTO Spitfire colors of sand and miedium brown with a red prop spinner. The side code is DB-R, and it looks like it has a red shield on the forward part of the virtical stabilizer. But what the sheild has on it I cannont see clearly. It same from the inside cover of the book, "Spitfire: A History".

The quad cannon Spitfire must have been a well though out idea though because in the book they show many inside views of the C-wing with htat armament installed.

Tooz_69GIAP
05-05-2006, 11:30 AM
Did noone see this in my post on the first page?? The caption to a photograph in the Squadron Signal publication No.39 on the Spitfire:

"Over the Adriatic en route to a target in Italy, this heavily armed Mk.Vc fighter bomber of No.2 Sqn SAAF is fitted with four wing cannon and carries a 500lb bomb on the centreline rack. Sporting no.2's "Flying Cheetah" emblem on the rudder, this machine has had its serial digits overpainted, leaving only the prefix letters "JK"

Spit Vc's with 4 wing cannon and carrying a centreline 500lb were operational, and used in the Mediterranean - I have a photo to prove it!!

justflyin
05-05-2006, 11:31 AM
Well then damnit, we need a 500lb bomb loadout added for the Vc. Also, the Mk. VIII was cleared to carry the same loadout as the IXs with one centerline 500lb and two 250lb wing-mounted, no?

One thing I must say, the two Vc skins that we do have in the game, are close to being my favorite default Spitfire skins. The Vc(4) looks great in desert camo and the colors of the Vc(2) really have a nice depth to them.

My respect for the skinner of those planes.

(Of course, there are many, many fine skins in this game and many talented artists, but those Vc skins are just beautiful).

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
There are two reasons you rarely see photos of 4x20mm Spit Vcs; cannon supply had not caught up to demand when the Vc was introduced, and they were heavy. The Mk V was already a poor match for the opposition it faced in Europe and the Med, and the extra weight was a major hindrance at a time in the air war when every little bit of weight was critical. You saw 4x20mm on Vokes' filter equipped Spits only where the Allies had overwhelming air superiority, as in the Med in mid 1943.

Interesting speculation.. lack of cannons, too much weight for a fighter that was already outclassed, making the four-cannon being feasible only where 'the allied had overwhelming air superiority'... if the theory is applied, does not put the spit and the brits into good light, since appearantly all later spit marks were outclassed until the Mk21 with redesigned wings, the cannon production was insufficent until the Mk21 with redesigned wings, and the allied did not have overwhelming air superiority in any theatre other than the MTO until the Mk21 with redesigned wings. Geez, the theory seems to be bleeding from a thousend wounds.



I have never seen a photo (in 40+ years of paying attention to the subject) of an operational Mk V with wing-mounted bombs;

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SpitV.jpg

ploughman
05-05-2006, 01:24 PM
Doesn't look operational to me. Looks like it's in a museum.

carguy_
05-05-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Doesn't look operational to me. Looks like it's in a museum.


Yup,it`s obvious they equipped that retired Spit with a Rack just for Kurfy.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-05-2006, 01:35 PM
Spits & Slavs - Kurfy's favourite combo... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

LuftWulf190
05-05-2006, 04:24 PM
Thanks all for the help, still haven't found a good picture of a Mk.Vc quad cannon Spit yet. But I'll keep digging.

horseback
05-05-2006, 04:26 PM
Interesting speculation.. lack of cannons, too much weight for a fighter that was already outclassed, making the four-cannon being feasible only where 'the allied had overwhelming air superiority'... if the theory is applied, does not put the spit and the brits into good light, since appearantly all later spit marks were outclassed until the Mk21 with redesigned wings, the cannon production was insufficent until the Mk21 with redesigned wings, and the allied did not have overwhelming air superiority in any theatre other than the MTO until the Mk21 with redesigned wings. Geez, the theory seems to be bleeding from a thousend wounds. Yet another gross distortion. The subject of my original statement was Mark V Spitfires, and specifically the Tropical version that sported the ungainly and performance-sapping Vokes' chin filter.

4x20mm armed Mk IXs were rare because the availability of the Hispano continued to be an issue, being mounted on thousands of Spits, Typhoons and later, Tempests. By mid 1944, it may simply have seemed 'unsporting' to unleash that kind of firepower on the increasingly less capable German pilots faced over the continent.

The fact is that Spitfire units in the ETO, especially after D-Day, were used more and more frequently for ground attack-with centerline bombs, and occasionally a pair of rockets.

Again, the only 'bomb' racks mounted on c wings, if any, appear to have been field mods as on the example in your photo. Unlike the e wing, there don't seem to be provisions for a pylon mount for bombs or drop tanks on the c wing. This makes sense, because the wing was developed when the Spit was being used almost exclusively as an air to air weapon.

I also found a number of photos in American Spitfire: Camoflauge and Markings (Ludwig & Laird-Ventura Publications, 1998), of a one-off MK IXc seconded to the USAAF that was heavily modified to create a 'long range' Spitfire; it had underwing 75 gallon 'teardrop' drop tanks mounted under the outboard cannon space (as was the normal practice, there was no second cannon, and the mounting was 'stubbed'). This Spitfire (S/N MK210) flew across the Atlantic in June of 1944. The drop tank was mounted well forward (closer to the leading edge) of the point used for a pylon mount on the e wing, possibly due to lack of an adequate hardpoint for its mounting.

cheers

horseback

Ratsack
05-05-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There was some structural problem with the C wings, the second pair of cannon comprimised the wings strenght when bombs were carried as well (bombracks happened to be just under the cannons).

You're correct, there was a problem with the bomb racks on the C wing, but it was not the second pair of guns that was the problem.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...so the second pair of cannon were rarely fitted, and never on MkIXs, VIIIs or XIVs.

You're incorrect on the 'never' bit. For a single counter example, see p. 152 of Alfred Priced, Spitfire Story. It carries two photos, and the upper is a Mk IXC carrying four cannon, serial AB196. You'd be on far safer ground if you said 'rarely'.



Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...I guess the latters increased weight on basically the same airframe made it more dangerous.

Drivel.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-05-2006, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Did noone see this in my post on the first page?? The caption to a photograph in the Squadron Signal publication No.39 on the Spitfire:

"Over the Adriatic en route to a target in Italy, this heavily armed Mk.Vc fighter bomber of No.2 Sqn SAAF is fitted with four wing cannon and carries a 500lb bomb on the centreline rack. Sporting no.2's "Flying Cheetah" emblem on the rudder, this machine has had its serial digits overpainted, leaving only the prefix letters "JK"

Spit Vc's with 4 wing cannon and carrying a centreline 500lb were operational, and used in the Mediterranean - I have a photo to prove it!!

What he said. The pic's on p. 19.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
05-06-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There was some structural problem with the C wings, the second pair of cannon comprimised the wings strenght when bombs were carried as well (bombracks happened to be just under the cannons).

You're correct, there was a problem with the bomb racks on the C wing, but it was not the second pair of guns that was the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Afaik there were a couple of wing distortions experienced with those rack. If you have more info, by all means post it so all of us can learn - similiar was experienced with the E-wing in dive attacks if the bombs would fail to jettison on recovery. It all points to that the wing was not able to take stresses at increased loads, which is something of a perfectly common physical reality with airframes, and there is no shame in it. Many planes had restricted load-factor while carrying wing stores.

But if you can come up with a better explanation, please do so. I can see the British wanted four canons on the aircraft, which is why they put four of them on the Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest. They wanted it for the Spitfire, too, which is why they designed the C-wings, capable of mounting 4 of them. BUT, after mounting 4-cannon installments on a few dozen planes, they suddenly dropped the idea, and shelved it until the the Mk 21 - which had redesigned and stiffer wings - while other RAF fighters continued to serve with quad Hissos.. And we know about some stress problems when greater loads were placed on those elliptical wings...

You see I am open to any reasonable suggestions, but it all points to the same thing.



Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...so the second pair of cannon were rarely fitted, and never on MkIXs, VIIIs or XIVs.

You're incorrect on the 'never' bit. For a single counter example, see p. 152 of Alfred Priced, Spitfire Story. It carries two photos, and the upper is a Mk IXC carrying four cannon, serial AB196. You'd be on far safer ground if you said 'rarely'.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's technically correct, however I feel here that it's a case of the expection that proves the rule.



Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...I guess the latters increased weight on basically the same airframe made it more dangerous.

Drivel.
[/QUOTE]

No, just Physics at work.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 08:29 AM
Yes, that's technically correct, however I feel here that it's a case of the expection that proves the rule.

Remember that in this expression the word 'prove' is used in one of its more antiquated senses meaning 'test', mostly only still extant in the sense of a 'Proving Ground' for military equipment.

Kurfurst__
05-06-2006, 08:52 AM
Interesting Aaron. Probably a coincidence, as the expression exists in my language as well and goes as "exception that fortifies the rule", literally. Probably of Latin origin.

As per Oxford :

exception

€ noun 1 a person or thing that is excepted or that does not follow a rule. 2 the action of excepting or the state of being excepted.

€" PHRASES the exception proves the rule proverb the fact that some cases do not follow a rule proves that the rule applies in all other cases. take exception to object strongly to; be offended by.

luftluuver
05-06-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SpitV.jpg The wrong exhaust stacks for a Mk V.

ploughman
05-06-2006, 10:46 AM
Kurfy's Mk Vc is from the Air Museum in Belgrade. It might've been re-engined at some point but it does look like Vcs had bomb racks during World War Two.

Click on this (http://www.yuairwar.com/novj.asp)for a history of 352 (Y) Squadron. The armament of their "Spitfire Mk V C consisted of four .303 (7,7 mm) machine guns and two 20 mm cannons, with provision for two 250 lb (113 kg) bombs."

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/YugoSpitVc.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 10:58 AM
Interesting Aaron. Probably a coincidence

Originally in the phrase the word 'prove' meant 'test' in English, also used in "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", as in the pudding is tested by eating it. Prove also has a baking connotation as well, as in proving dough, so this might be partially a pun too. It is interesting that the first of the expressions also appears in your language (whatever that is!).

But the original meaning of the phrase in English was that exceptions test the rule, which is pretty logical, but it has got confused given one of the other meaning of proof as a demonstration of the correctness of something. This has led to the phrase changing its meaning to the one you quoted.

Kurfurst__
05-06-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Kurfy's Mk Vc is from the Air Museum in Belgrade. It might've been re-engined at some point but it does look like Vcs had bomb racks during World War Two.

Excellent, excellent, my dear Sherlock ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Good work, really!

The Spitty is JK 808, looks like a Vc with a Vokes filter and racks. Probably a MkV all the way through, given that everyone's favourite JL 165 also started as a Mk V before becoming a MkIX. JK 808 appearantly remained a MkV. They probably came from the same batch, this one from the site you linked shows JK 608(?), labeled "Spitfires before first mission on August 18, 1944, from airport Canne - Italy"

http://www.yuairwar.com/images/04_Kane.jpg

On installation of bombracks :
http://www.yuairwar.com/images/pg45.jpg

JK 808 is in a quite distinguished company btw - P-47D, a Hurri, a Yak 3, an Il-2, a 109G-2 and a Storch, plus some Yugo yakovlev offspring Ikarus amongst dozens of others.


Aaron,

I just looked up my little Latin book, there's a phrase there which goes 'Exceptio firmat regulam'. Now the only way I can think the same phrase being present in both Hungarian and English is a common origin - Latin.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 12:34 PM
Exceptio firmat regulam

But firmat means confirms, not proves (in the sense of demonstrate to be true, rather than test, which would be probat).

Xiolablu3
05-06-2006, 05:56 PM
I have always read that the reason the extra cannons were not fitted was due to weight.

It was deemed that the extra 2 cannons added too much weight for the actual benefit in firepower they gave.

Pilots prefered the 2xcannon 4x303 and extra performance, rather than the extra firepower. I guess if they could be sure they were fighting bombers, they may have added the extra cannon, but they could not be sure what they were facing.

Ratsack
05-06-2006, 06:23 PM
Kurfurst,

I don't give a pinch of dry goat sh1t for your petifogging arguments in pig latin.

Fact: you said 'never'.

Fact: I provided you with a reference to a photograph showing an example of what you claimed never existed.

Conclusion: you're wrong.

If you'd like to qualify your initial incorrect claim and make it agree with the facts, I think we can all live with it.



As far as the pic of the MkV is concerned, you're most definitely correct, it's not a MkIX, nor is it powered by any of the 60s series Merlins. The exhaust stacks to which LuftLuuver referred were frequently retrofitted to MkVs from the beginning of 1942. They were good for an extra 7 mph due to the increase in exhaust thrust.

All Spits powered by 60 or 70 series Merlins in airframes based on the Mk v (i.e., all the MkIXs and MkXVIs) had a subtle curve in the upper cowling. It was very slightly convex upward, and it's one of the identifying features of these types. The cowling on the machine in the photgraph is flat, like a MkV. (The MkVIII was also flat like the MkV's, since it was designed to take the two-stage Merlins from the beginning, and so had a redesigned fuselage.)

Regarding the drivel about extra wing loading of the four cannon making the Spit dangerous, there is not a single reference to any of the standard Spits displaying 'dangerous' handling characteristics, until the unfavourable AFDU report on the early Mk 21 in November 1944. They didn't like the way the plane yawed, so even this problem was nothing to do with wing loading. The M21's yaw problems were solved, too, by mods to the trimming system. Any dangerous handling characteristics of the four-cannon MkV are therefore less a question of physics, than of Kurfurst's fervid imagination at work.


cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
05-06-2006, 09:38 PM
Ratsack, it is just more of Kurfurst's slithering lawyer dancing.

The typical T/O weight of a Vb was 6822lb. For the Vc it was 7016lb or an increase of 194lb. That is 56lb less than the bomb it carried under each wing.

Btw, the intake on the Yugo Spit of Tino Jelavic is an Aboukir.

Yes Kurfurst, the wing of the Spit was so weak that it was able to dive at 60 degree (90 being vertical) with a 250lb bomb under each wich, never mind the 500lb bomb under the fuselage. I remember reading (AH board iirc) where you got pwnd when you tried to claim the u/c could not support such a load. Just more of your shovelling.

I guess we can say that 1.98 K-4s were the exception rather than the rule. You have yet to state definatively how many 1.98 K-4s there really were. Just suposition from you.

HellToupee
05-07-2006, 01:57 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html

on the 4 cannon Vc
"Brief Performance and Handling Trials with
4 - 20 m/m guns fitted."

".......(iii) There is no noticeable difference between the handling characteristics of this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types. "

Kurfurst__
05-07-2006, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Regarding the drivel about extra wing loading of the four cannon making the Spit dangerous, there is not a single reference to any of the standard Spits displaying 'dangerous' handling characteristics, until the unfavourable AFDU report on the early Mk 21 in November 1944.

Good to know.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spits_dive.jpg

Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive.
Jan 41...Mk I....N3191...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4354...Port wing broke off in dive.
Aug 41...Mk I....X4381...Starboard wing broke off in dive.
Mar 41...Mk I....X4421...Both wings broke off in dive pullout.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4662...Stbd wing broke off in dive pullout.
Jun 41...Mk I....X4680...Wings/tail broke off in dive pullout.
Nov 42...Mk I....X4621...Failed to recover from dive.
Apr 43...Mk II...P7352...Broke up in dive.
Sep 41...Mk II...P7522...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL531...Both wings broke off in dive.
Feb 42...Mk V....AA876...Disintegrated in dive.
Jul 43...Mk V....BL389...Pilot thrown from aircraft in dive.
Jan 43...Mk IX...BS251...Structural failure in dive.
May 43...Mk IX...BS385...Structural failure in dive.
Aug 43...Mk IX...BS441...Disintegrated in dive.
Oct 46...Mk IX...PL387...Disintegrated in dive.
Jan 48...Mk XVI..SL724...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Sep 48...Mk XVI..TD119...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Aug 42...Mk I....N3284...Broke up in flight.
Aug 41...Mk I....N3286...Broke up in flight.
Sep 40...Mk I....P9546...Structural failure in flight.
May 42...Mk I....P9309...Lost wing in flight.
Apr 43...Mk I....X4234...Lost wing in spin.
Sep 42...Mk I....P9322...Broke up in flight.
Aug 43...Mk I....R6706...Aileron failure which led to crash.
Jan 43...Mk I....X4854...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
Nov 40...Mk II...P7593...Stbd wing and tail broke off in flight.
Dec 41...Mk II...P8183...Port wing broke off in flight.
Jun 42...Mk II...P8644...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
May 41...Mk II...N8245...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 44...Mk II...P7911...Flap failure which led to crash.
Sep 42...Mk V....AD555...Flap failure which led to crash.
Mar 44...Mk V....BL303...Flap failure which led to crash.
Dec 41...Mk V....BL407...Structural failure suspected.
Jun 42...Mk V....AB172...Structural failure in flight.
Mar 43...Mk V....AA970...Structural failure in flight.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL290...Port wing broke off in flight.
May 43...Mk V....BR627...Port wing failed in spin.
Oct 41...Mk IV...AA801...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 43...Mk IX...BS404...Structural failure in spin.
Feb 45...Mk IX...MH349...Wing failed during aerobatics.
Apr 43...Mk V....EP335...Wings, fuselage, tail, damaged in dive.
Jul 42...Mk VI...AB200...Wings buckled in dive at 450mph IAS.
Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.


After the Spitfire Mk V had been in service for some time, alarm had been raised over several accidents where the aircraft simply dived straight into the ground for no apparent reason. The Accidents Branch investigated this matter and later determined that firing the 20mm cannons could damage the oxygen regulating apparatus, so that thereafter the rate of supply could not be varied and could lead to the pilot losing consciousness.

When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/7_DIVEPROHIBITION.jpg

As far as I know, there were numerous failures involving e-winged Spits dive bombing subpens (who came up with the idea, the bombs were too small for that anyway... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ) during pullouts.

Structural inabilty of the wing to carry the load of 4 cannons mounted seems to be the best reason so far.

One13
05-07-2006, 04:21 AM
From what I remember reading about failures in a dive it had nothing to do with wing strength or number of cannon but was due to problems with the way trim and the elevators interacted.
This caused the planes to pull up too sharply from a dive which put too much stress on the airframe.
It was cured by changing the elevator and trim controls.
I thought the problem with four cannon wing was with the ammunition feed. One of the frames inside the wing caused the feed to jam when four cannon were fitted, this was only rectified when the wing was redisigned in the Mk21.

ICDP
05-07-2006, 04:31 AM
Jesus christ Kurfurst but you really are a c.o.c.k WHY ARE YOU SHOWING REPORTS OF SPITFIRES THAT SUFFERED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ARGUMENT. The argument you made was that Spitfires had major structural problems when 4x cannons were fitted. You then stated that MkIX's NEVER had 4x cannons fitted. You were proved wrong and your typcical snake lawyer BS is coming through "I'm not wrong, look lots of Spitfires had structural problems". Yeah, none of which are related to having 4x cannons fitted.

You can post some excellent stuff about the 109 but you are SOOOOO BIASED I tend to take it all with a big grain of salt. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. Any time a Spitfire thread pops up you are sure to be in there with a post declaring the Spitfire as a POS with major problems.

Kurfurst__
05-07-2006, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by One13:
From what I remember reading about failures in a dive it had nothing to do with wing strength or number of cannon but was due to problems with the way trim and the elevators interacted.
This caused the planes to pull up too sharply from a dive which put too much stress on the airframe.It was cured by changing the elevator and trim controls.

Correct, this report deals with this control characteristic problems on early Spits, which could lead to overstressed airframes. It was just to educate ratsack about his categorical "there is not a single reference to any of the standard Spits displaying 'dangerous' handling characteristics, until the unfavourable AFDU report on the early Mk 21 in November 1944" statement.



I thought the problem with four cannon wing was with the ammunition feed. One of the frames inside the wing caused the feed to jam when four cannon were fitted, this was only rectified when the wing was redisigned in the Mk21.

This sounds like a good explanation, too. Any details?

Kurfurst__
05-07-2006, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Yeah, none of which are related to having 4x cannons fitted.

Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.

Not related?


Any time a Spitfire thread pops up you are sure to be in there with a post declaring the Spitfire as a POS with major problems.

Well the Spitfire, just like any major fighters of the war, was certainly not without problems, it was certainly not 'perfffffeccct'. It was a great fighter with strong and weak points.
What I perceive here is that some people who treat the Spit as a Holy Cow are showing off extreme reactions when ANY possible problem is connected to the Spit. For them, it could do anything and everything, and more. That's why you read nonsense such as the four cannons were generally not fitted because 'it was not sportman-like', instead of even attempting to find a rational explanation to the fact/phenomenon, they outright deny it exists. But fanboys can only talk in extremes...

ICDP
05-07-2006, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:Correct, this report deals with this control characteristic problems on early Spits, which could lead to overstressed airframes. It was just to educate ratsack about his categorical "there is not a single reference to any of the standard Spits displaying 'dangerous' handling characteristics, until the unfavourable AFDU report on the early Mk 21 in November 1944" statement.

Man what a total a.s.s. you are. You delibertaley misquote people to make them look wrong and you look right. Typical lawyer snake in the grass BS again. Allow me to post Ratsacks entire quote.

"Regarding the drivel about extra wing loading of the four cannon making the Spit dangerous, there is not a single reference to any of the standard Spits displaying 'dangerous' handling characteristics, until the unfavourable AFDU report on the early Mk 21 in November 1944. They didn't like the way the plane yawed, so even this problem was nothing to do with wing loading. The M21's yaw problems were solved, too, by mods to the trimming system. Any dangerous handling characteristics of the four-cannon MkV are therefore less a question of physics, than of Kurfurst's fervid imagination at work."

As we can all see Ratsack was explicitly referring to the four cannon Spitfire. You then deliberately misquoted Ratsack to suit your own pathetic argument (that you have already lost).

You really are a typical snak... I mean lawyer.

ICDP
05-07-2006, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Yeah, none of which are related to having 4x cannons fitted.

Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.

Not related? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is TOTALLY IRELEVANT AS IT DOES NOT STATE THE NUMBER OF CANNONS IT WAS CARRYING. You pull out one instance that mentions cannons, it doesn't even say the cannons were to blame. It merely states that that is were the wings buckled.

You being a lwayer should know that without the FULL FACTS AND CONFIGURATION of that particular Spitfire your evicence is WORTHLESS.

Stop using incomplete "evidence" and deliberately misquoting people to try to justify your hatred and biased BS crusade against the Spitfire. I would defend the 109 from its "haters" in the same way (and have done in the past).

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-07-2006, 04:50 AM
He's not a lawyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

ICDP
05-07-2006, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
He's not a lawyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

He is still a c.o.c.k. though

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-07-2006, 05:14 AM
Indeed.

luftluuver
05-07-2006, 05:14 AM
What I perceive here is that some people who treat the Spit as a Holy Cow are showing off extreme reactions when ANY possible problem is connected to the Spit. For them, it could do anything and everything, and more. That's why you read nonsense such as the four cannons were generally not fitted because 'it was not sportman-like', instead of even attempting to find a rational explanation to the fact/phenomenon, they outright deny it exists. But fanboys can only talk in extremes...
Oh, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Kurfurst is talking about himself and the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons. This Spitfire began its service life with 331 Sqd on Apr 28 1943. How much abuse had it taken in the following year of service?

Kurfurst__
05-07-2006, 05:52 AM
Interesting and finely shaped opinions from most refined gentlemen, keep up the good work, lads! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ICDP
05-07-2006, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Interesting and finely shaped opinions from most refined gentlemen, keep up the good work, lads! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I call it like I see it Kurfurst. You are deliberately misquoting people and using irrelevant and unconnected data to prove your biased opinion as fact.

You were proved wrong in this thread when you stated that the MkIX/MkVIII Spitfires were NEVER used with four hispanos.

Your quote "There was some structural problem with the C wings, the second pair of cannon comprimised the wings strenght when bombs were carried as well (bombracks happened to be just under the cannons). Several bulging/bending of the wing was observed, so the second pair of cannon were rarely fitted, and never on MkIXs, VIIIs or XIVs. I guess the latters increased weight on basically the same airframe made it more dangerous."

Had you simply admitted your mistake you wouldn't be getting any abbuse from me. The problem for me is that you chose to lie and present irrelevant data to try to wriggle your way out of it. Hardly the actions of a "refined gentleman" is it Kurfurst?

This kind of behaviour is typical of people like you. You are proved wrong, yet you refuse to accept it and use lies and deceipt to wriggle out of it.

Kurfurst__
05-07-2006, 08:45 AM
So full of emotions... is she having her period...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Now seriously, all this noise some make about AB 196 like there was any importance wheter is rather funny in view of what Dr. Alfred Price tells about it in the caption of the photo :

"AB 196 started life as a Spitfire VC and was the first such aircraft converted into a Mark IX by the installation of a Merlin 61 engine. It's seen here fitted with four 20 mm cannon, one of the few Mk IXs to be so armed".

Now someone please tell me what's so important about that plane, what was in effect a prototype for the MkIX, a quick mod that happened to retain the previous state of four cannons fitted to the aircraft otherwise. Something that was not really common to see when aircraft were modified en masse.

Alfred Price gives a hint why :

"During the early months of 1942... a couple of MkVCs, AB 196 and AB 197, were sent to the RR works at Hucknall and, after strenghtening the fuselage longerons to take the heaviwer and more powerful engine, they were fitted with Merlin 61. The new combination became the Spitfire IX. It was considered insufficiently stressed but, until the stronger Mark VIII airframe was ready to go into production, the Ministry of Aircraft production placed orders for Spitfire IXs to be converted or built as rapidly as possible."

Hmmm.

"It was considered insufficiently stressed".

Brain32
05-07-2006, 08:57 AM
What I perceive here is that some people who treat the Spit as a Holy Cow are showing off extreme reactions when ANY possible problem is connected to the Spit. For them, it could do anything and everything, and more.

M8 there is a term for that, it's called Spitblindness.
The biggest phenomenon here is that we are discussing a quite unimportant issue Spitfire had but some people can't even admit it had even the slightest design flaw. Can't even allow that it was possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

luftluuver
05-07-2006, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So full of emotions... is she having her period...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif So much for Kurfurst being a refined gentleman?

ICDP
05-07-2006, 09:22 AM
Brain,

I can live with the fact that the Spitfire had its design flaws. The truth is I don't particularly like the Spitfire, either as a plane or in the sim. I don't like the fact that the 25lb boost version seems to hold onto speed too well. Be that as it may I also can't stand people from either camp who bash/defend planes with unbelievable biased fanboyism. I have read enough books to know that the main reason for the Spitfire not having four cannons fitted as standard was because of the much reduced performance. Could it also have been due to structural issues, I don't know quite possibly it did.

Kurfurst was proved wrong on one point and rather than say "I got it wrong" he uses his usual tactics. He starts obfuscating by deliberately misquoting people and using partial and irrelevant data. All of this is to further his cause that the Spitfire was not a good fighter (at least not as good as his beloved Bf109).

HellToupee
05-07-2006, 09:52 AM
I have read enough books to know that the main reason for the Spitfire not having four cannons fitted as standard was because of the much reduced performance.

but then why would removing 2 303s and replacing with 1 hispano per wing be such a burden on performance.

horseback
05-07-2006, 10:04 AM
Alfred Price gives a hint why :

"During the early months of 1942... a couple of MkVCs, AB 196 and AB 197, were sent to the RR works at Hucknall and, after strenghtening the fuselage longerons to take the heaviwer and more powerful engine, they were fitted with Merlin 61. The new combination became the Spitfire IX. It was considered insufficiently stressed but, until the stronger Mark VIII airframe was ready to go into production, the Ministry of Aircraft production placed orders for Spitfire IXs to be converted or built as rapidly as possible."

Hmmm.

"It was considered insufficiently stressed". And yet they foolishly went forward and produced 5,665 of them, continuing in this folly long after the 'properly stressed' Spitfire Mk VIII was well into production.

The Mk IX/XVI series was the most produced variant of the Spitfire, when you add the 1,053 Mk XVIs into the mix. Is there no end to English stupidity?*

cheers

horseback

* For the edification of readers of limited English skills and hung-over Limys who aren't quite up to speed yet, this is a sarcastic (sarcasm-from the Latin sarcasmos-'to tear flesh like dogs'; a jibe or jeer, generally intended to be ironical) comment.

Megile_
05-07-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by horseback:

* For the edification of readers of limited English skills and hung-over Limys who aren't quite up to speed yet, this is a sarcastic (sarcasm-from the Latin sarcasmos-'to tear flesh like dogs'; a jibe or jeer, generally intended to be ironical) comment.

Don't worry, irony is our forté

LuftWulf190
05-07-2006, 02:42 PM
*Selects 7500 on Transponder*

This thread is seriously hijacked from it's original topic.

I was looking for information and pictures of Quad Cannon Spitfires Mk.Vc, and which Squadrons used them. That was the topic of this thread. I wanted paint schemes, information on the plane, Squadron, theater of Operation, Aircraft code, and production serial. That was it.

It's been entertaining going down this other road, and somewhat informative. But I'd like to either get back on topic, or just have this thread shut down. Whether or not Quad Cannon Spitfires existed in great any quantity, in any Mark, is not the original point. Nor is arguing the inferiority of a design the point of this topic either. We can all find weak points in any design. And to be completely honest I am getting tired of the childish personal attacks. I am under the impression that we are all adults in this forum.

I posted this thread because I have seen many very well informed people at this forum, and I wanted to glean some of their knowledge. I did not want to create a thread that would draw out the old adage, which plane is better, or what is wrong with this design. This bickering is pointless.

I did not start this topic to create a stage for anyone to make comments concerning the aircraft design, or use. I am not here to argue any part of the IL2 series of games.

So please can we get back on our original course?

horseback
05-07-2006, 03:40 PM
Best known unit operating 4x20mm cannon Spits: Number 2 Squadron, South African Air Force, which flew four cannon Mk Vcs over North African and the Mediterranean. These appear to have been mostly the sort with the performance-sapping Vokes' Filter. The photos I've seen show standard wingtips.

Camoflage was the standard pattern in Dark Earth and Mid-Stone over Azure Blue, with a red spinner (most Allied fighters in this theater had red spinners). No fuselage band, as found on ETO Spits based in Britain.

Squadron codes were DB*_, usually in standard Medium Sea Grey, but this may have also been a dirty white. Several sources state that SAAF units often used orange in the national insignia and fin flash in place of the more common Commonwealth red.

There are also a number of pictures of 4x20mm Spit Vcs preparing to depart for Malta from the USS WASP in October 1942, with a single squadron code letter of 3*_. The Serials appear to run from the BRxxx range.

Primary source: Wings Of Fame, Vol. 9, Supermarine Spitfire Part One, by Alfred Price (one of seven articles). Many photos, and some beautiful color plates are featured in this article. Hope this helps.

cheers

horseback

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-07-2006, 04:25 PM
603 Squadron (XT) used 4 cannon Vc's on Malta (april 1942). They were certainly painted in a 'sand and spinach' scheme with no squadron codes when they left the U.K. Whether they were later painted overall dark blue or not is still open to conjecture. Due to a shortage of 20mm ammunition on Malta, some (if not all) of the 111 MkVc's delivered to Malta in 1942 had their inboard cannon removed and replaced with mg's.

Photographs in 'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price. Squadron history in 'Fighter Squadrons of the RAF and their Aircraft' by John Rawlings.

I'll read through some other stuff tonight (including HMSO history of RAF) and get back to you.

Might be worth a post to Kristorf or Jocko in the paint schemes forum. Very knowledgeable chaps on Spitfire colours and markings.

LuftWulf190
05-07-2006, 04:25 PM
thanks Horseback, I guess the small color profile of DB-R was one of the SAAF's Mk.Vc.

Xiolablu3
05-07-2006, 04:56 PM
I am SURE its because of the weight guys.

Did you know that the could carry Spitfire at least equal armament than the FW190A if it was needed?

It had space for 4x20mm AND 4x303mg, something which I only just found out. I had always thought it was 1 or the other (4x20mm OR 4x303 and 2x20mm , this is not the case). But it was never fitted. I guess if they had needed a heavy bomber destroyer then we would have seen Spitfires with 4x303 and 4x20mm.

I have read in numerous books that it was planely the extra weight was deemed an unacceptable tradeoff for the loss in climb rate and manouvrabliltiy which was the reason that 4 cannons were not used much.

Also with the MGs being more reliable, if the cannons jammed, then at least you had something left to fight with.

EDIT: Sorry, just read the 'get back on topic' request. Will shut up now.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-07-2006, 05:10 PM
Further to my last post...

Spitfire Vc serials from aircraft ordered from Castle Bromwich factory here:
http://www.angelfire.com/sd2/spitfirefactory/production.htm

Sort of thing you're after?

Ratsack
05-07-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Now someone please tell me what's so important about that plane, what was in effect a prototype for the MkIX, a quick mod that happened to retain the previous state of four cannons fitted to the aircraft otherwise.



What's so important, you disingenuous twerp, is that it diproves your assertion that such an aircraft never existed.

End of story.

There are no reports of any Spit V displaying dangerous handling characterstics because of the guns, either.

You are so full of red herrings, it is not even vaguely amusing. As I've said to a notorious red whiner, the content of your posts is so predictable they lack even the entertainment value of novelty.

Regarding your implicit accusation that I'm some sort of Spitfire fanboi, perhaps you should get together with Buzzsaw and have a beer. He reckons I'm an incurable blue whiner. You can cry on each other's shoulders.

cheers,
Ratsack

LuftWulf190
05-08-2006, 12:42 AM
Wow LowFlyer, thanks! Thats a big help!

HellToupee
05-08-2006, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I am SURE its because of the weight guys.

Did you know that the could carry Spitfire at least equal armament than the FW190A if it was needed?

It had space for 4x20mm AND 4x303mg, something which I only just found out. I had always thought it was 1 or the other (4x20mm OR 4x303 and 2x20mm , this is not the case). But it was never fitted. I guess if they had needed a heavy bomber destroyer then we would have seen Spitfires with 4x303 and 4x20mm.

I have read in numerous books that it was planely the extra weight was deemed an unacceptable tradeoff for the loss in climb rate and manouvrabliltiy which was the reason that 4 cannons were not used much.

Also with the MGs being more reliable, if the cannons jammed, then at least you had something left to fight with.

EDIT: Sorry, just read the 'get back on topic' request. Will shut up now.


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html

on the 4 cannon Vc
"Brief Performance and Handling Trials with
4 - 20 m/m guns fitted."

".......(iii) There is no noticeable difference between the handling characteristics of this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types. "

if it was weight i think they would have said something, considering u would delete the 2 303 machine guns cant be a great increase in weight, there was also some rare variants trialed with 6 cannon arments.

major_setback
05-08-2006, 02:35 AM
I have'nt been following all this thread, but thought this might be relevant:

"the Spitfire Vc was introduced in late 1941. Compared to the Spitfire Vb, it featured a redesigned and strengthened airframe and other refinements plus the €œuniversal€ or €œc€ wing which had provision to accommodate 4 x 20mm cannon or 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 0.303€ mg. Comparatively few were fitted with the 4 x 20mm cannon armament as the extra cannon imposed stresses on the wing . Instead, the extra space in the cannon bay was used to double the ammo for the 2 x 20mm cannon. As designed, it could also accommodate 8 x 0.303€ mg but this feature was dropped from production aircraft. For the purists, the undercarriage legs of the Vc sloped forward 2€ further than the earlier versions."

From good old http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/spitfirevcreviewrb_1.htm

ImpStarDuece
05-08-2006, 02:46 AM
The "6 cannon Spitfire" was actually just a mock up for trial installation on the prototype Griffon II powered Mk IV. As far as I can tell, no Spitfire ever flew with a 6 cannon armament.

The Mk IV was to have either 6 or 4 cannon armament, or 12 Browning 303 armament.

The Mk IV was a very interesting bird indeed. It was essentially a reworking of Jospeh Smiths proposed "improved Spitfire", the Mk III, fitted with a Griffon engine. It incorporated many of the features of the Mk. III: new foward angled gear struts, larger landing gear wheels, strengthened undercariage and fuselage, retractable tailwheel and increased fuel capacity. It was very quick down low, capable of about 360mph/580 kph at sea level, but the single stage Griffon let it down above 20,000 feet. Eventually it was turned into the Mk XII prototype, but why they switched back to 85 gallons fuel capacity is anyones guess.

Xiolablu3
05-08-2006, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:
I have'nt been following all this thread, but thought this might be relevant:

"the Spitfire Vc was introduced in late 1941. Compared to the Spitfire Vb, it featured a redesigned and strengthened airframe and other refinements plus the €œuniversal€ or €œc€ wing which had provision to accommodate 4 x 20mm cannon or 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 0.303€ mg. Comparatively few were fitted with the 4 x 20mm cannon armament as the extra cannon imposed stresses on the wing . Instead, the extra space in the cannon bay was used to double the ammo for the 2 x 20mm cannon. As designed, it could also accommodate 8 x 0.303€ mg but this feature was dropped from production aircraft. For the purists, the undercarriage legs of the Vc sloped forward 2€ further than the earlier versions."

From good old http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/spitfirevcreviewrb_1.htm

So they were flying Spits with 240rpg for the 20mm cannon? Awesome. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
05-08-2006, 04:31 AM
4 20mm cannon and 4 0.303 guns was a proposed armament for a single-seat fighter derivative of the Defiant for bomber destroying, so I wonder if the option of a 4 20mm cannon plus 4 0.303 guns was seriously considered as a viable bomber-destroyer option for the Spitfire?

As a side note a turret armed derivative of the Spitfire was proposed, and the first 4 cannon armed Spitfire proposal was in the mid 1930s, but with the cannon mounted much further out on the wing than in the Vc, again a mid 30s proposal to a WD specification.

Beaufort-RAF
05-09-2006, 01:18 AM
http://onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105579700_4cannonspitvc.jpg

http://onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105536909_4cannonspits.jpg

Xiolablu3
05-09-2006, 02:10 AM
You would think that the problem would be caused by the cannons simply being too cclose togther.

If the plane was flying at high speed, with a damaged wing, then of course the two cannons so close would create quite a lot of 'stress'.

Moving the cannons further apart like the FW190 would solve the prolem I would have thought.

Gibbage1
05-09-2006, 02:45 AM
Typical Kirfy. Read my sig. He eather knows nothing about any other aircraft then his 109, or he lies. Im thinking its a blend of the two. To say he has a reputation is a bit of an understatement.

Ratsack
05-09-2006, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:



Beaufort,

That top pic is the one we were referring to before, of the SAAF squadron. I've never seen the bottom one before, though. It's a beauty. Do you have any details of the unit?

[EDIT]: Sh1te! I was just looking at the second pic again. Those Spits are carrying the four 0.303s as well as the four cannon! You can see the doped-on gun patches, particularly the inboard one on the port wing of the front plane.

I didn't know this loadout was actually used. Well, bu9ger me with a barge pole.

cheers,
Ratsack

Aaron_GT
05-09-2006, 05:18 AM
Are you sure the patches aren't just to seal the holes to reduce drag? On spitfireperformance.com there are lots of references to empty gun ports being covered.

LuftWulf190
05-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Beaufort, your awesome! Exactly the photos I was looking for! Thanks!

Ratsack
05-09-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Are you sure the patches aren't just to seal the holes to reduce drag? On spitfireperformance.com there are lots of references to empty gun ports being covered.

G'day Aaron,

Am I sure? No.

Do I think it's likely there are gun muzzles under those patches? Yes. There are some good reasons why (which I can go into, if you're interested), but I am not certain. However, it isn't a fact that there are no guns under those patches, either.

So, in the absence of firm data about the specific machines in the pic, we're into judgements about likelihood. In my view, it' more likely there are 0.303s under those patches than not.

Happy to elaborate, if you wish.


cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
05-10-2006, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Are you sure the patches aren't just to seal the holes to reduce drag? On spitfireperformance.com there are lots of references to empty gun ports being covered.

It helped drag until the guns were fired, but the pathces serve primarly to prevent icing of the gun and barrel, and freezing up/jams. It was quite common practice, iirc I've seen some LW instruction for armorers that the first round loaded in the cannon must be an AP to clear away the fabric patch - Mineshells had very sensitive fuse and might detonate upon hitting the fabric.

Aaron_GT
05-10-2006, 02:21 AM
It helped drag until the guns were fired, but the pathces serve primarly to prevent icing of the gun and barrel,


I meant more that if there were no guns fitted at all you'd expect the holes to be faired over in some way. However I would have expected it to have been something neater than just the doped fabric. So, like Ratsack, I'd say it is hard to say. It's definitely one of the theoretical options that was discussed in the Spitfire developmnent, as well as the single-seater version of the Defiant. So anything is possible. Probably wouldn't do much for performance, though!

ImpStarDuece
05-10-2006, 02:22 AM
It was also done to prevent dust and sand thrown up on airfields getting into the barrels and causing jams and malfunctions.

Beaufort-RAF
05-10-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

Beaufort,

I've never seen the bottom one before, though. It's a beauty. Do you have any details of the unit?



2 SQ SAAF again.