PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire types, specifically mk ix e,c?



dazza9806482
08-03-2004, 09:13 AM
Can anyone explain to me the various late spitfire types?

whats the difference between mark ix e and c?

in addition i was on a googled website which suggested that in the spitfires development the mk 9 was based on the mk 5, whilst the mk 7 and mk 8 (i think) were a stronger airframe, does this mean the mk 8 is better than the mk 9?

please excuse my ignorance and laziness, i had a look but couldnt find any clear evidence, (and im in work skiving http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dazza9806482
08-03-2004, 09:13 AM
Can anyone explain to me the various late spitfire types?

whats the difference between mark ix e and c?

in addition i was on a googled website which suggested that in the spitfires development the mk 9 was based on the mk 5, whilst the mk 7 and mk 8 (i think) were a stronger airframe, does this mean the mk 8 is better than the mk 9?

please excuse my ignorance and laziness, i had a look but couldnt find any clear evidence, (and im in work skiving http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Arm_slinger
08-03-2004, 09:20 AM
Thew e and c business is to to with weapons

The "E"wing was a universal wing that could take 20mm and .50cal weapons, and I THINK .303's as well. The was due to the gun bays construction that could allow mre ammo to bwe carried for the 20mm's and where they could be possitioned. eg the Mk IX had the 20mm's in the outter bays, the later marks like the 18 and such like had the 20mm in the inner bay and the .50 in the ouuter.

The "C" wing has 2 .303's and a 20 mm per wing. The C is the same lay out os the B wing (see mark 5 spit) but had a great ammo capacity

In terms of airframes i dontr know other than the ( was a development of the 5 that gave the Germans a fright when they engaged the 9 for the first time.

The Mk8 was said to be the nicest of all spits to fly and thats all i know about it

Your sure to get alot of detailed replies here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A.K.A 242Sqn_Kye

"Target for Tonight" the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)

Also the home of 242 Squadron
http://www.nightbomber.com/242squadron/

Rushin Russian
08-03-2004, 09:32 AM
C - 4x .303, 2x 20mm
E - 2x .50, 2x 20mm
CW = Clipped Wing.

Not sure about the HF and LF, but it has to do with the altitude.

http://www.sighost.us/members/RushinRussian/il2sig.jpg
Supermarine Spitfire Mk. IXc

"On the European Front the most important development of the past year has been the crushing offensive of the Great Armies of Russia." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, April 1942

_VR_ScorpionWorm
08-03-2004, 09:42 AM
Dont know if this will help:

Arm_slinger has the wings correctly I think

From Spitfire in Action Aircraft No. 39 squadron/signal publications

Spitfire Mk VII
Development of the Merlin-engined Spitfires reached a peak in the Mks VII and VIII, both of witch incorporated considerable design changes. The pressurized Mk VII was the first variant to have rectangular radiator air intakes of similiar sectino on each wing underside rather than curcular section oil cooler that had given the Spitfire its disticnt asymetrical appearance from head-on. This change was the result of a redesign engine cooling system for the Merlin 66,64, or 71 with the mlti-ejector exhaust manifolds. Both air scoops contained radiators, that on the starboard side being for the supercharger intercool, that on the port for the oil cooler.
To accmomodate longer engine mounts, the fuselage of the Mk VII was stretched to 31 ft. 3.5in, with the early rounded rudder, 31ft 6in withthe broad chord rudder. A retractable tailwheel was also fitted. Pressurization was a later version of the system fitted to the HF Mk VI, with a similiar location but now the advantange of a sliding cockpit canopy. Extended tips were fitted to the 'c' type wings, which had reduced span ailerons and two leading edge 14 gal. fuel tanks. In high altitude form, the aircraft attained a maximum speed of 416 mph at 44,000ft. Thus configured the Mk VII was powered by a 1250 hp Merlin 71, medium altitude fighters having either the 1565 hp Merlin 61 or 1710 hp Merlin 64.

Spitfire Mk VIII
Designed before the Mk IX, but following it into service because its radical design cahnges would have meant production delays when time was of the essence, the Spitfire Mk VIII was an unpressurized Mk VIII. Powered by the Merlin 61, 63, or 63a in standard fighter form, Merlin 66 in LF form and Merlin 70 for high altitude work, it incorporated the Vokes Aero-Vee filter in a streamlined undernoce fairing. All Mk VIIIs were built for oversease use and, fitted with the 'c' wing developed for the Mk Vii, were stressed to carry up to 1000lb. of bombs on wing and center section racks. Early machines had the pointed wingtips of the MK VII, although tandard wingtips were subsequently fitted.
Teh Mk VII saw widespread use in the Mediterranean and Far Eastern theatres, the USAAF and RAAF as well as the RAF accepting large number. Post war, a single Mk VIII became the prototype Spitfire Trainer with the existing cockpit moved forward 13.5 in. to make room for a second cockpit set higher and enclosed by a bubble canopy. Full instumentation was provided in both positions and altered CG compensated for by revising the fuel system. Production trainers were Mk IX airframs.

I dont know if any body can interperat this better but I think Mk VIII had a stronger airframe, and the Mk IX didnt because it was based off the Mk V, just as you said.

http://img55.photobucket.com/albums/v169/Scorpion08/Hurri-1.jpg

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

Jester_159th
08-03-2004, 10:17 AM
The MkXI was supposed to be a stop-gap model. It was produced in response to the sudden rise in the number of pilots lost due to the arrival of the FW-190 which initially totally out performed the Spit MKV variants.

I believe it was a combination of the MKV airframe with an uprated Merlin engine (can't remember the exact HP specs etc..sorry).

The MKXI turnedout to be such an effective variant that with certain modifications (broadening of the rudder as depicted in the model available in AEP etc) that it remained in production for the rest of the war.

http://img61.photobucket.com/albums/v185/Jester_159th/jestersigfinal.jpg

Huckebein_UK
08-03-2004, 10:23 AM
The Mk VIII was mainly used in the Far East, but it was said to be better than the IX. That said, the IX was far more numerous, and once it was introduced into service Spitfire V pilots found Fw 190s veering away from them 'cos it was so difficult to tell a V from a much more deadly IX!

I think it was a Merlin 61 they stuck in a V to get the IX.

--------------
Huckebein_UK
http://www.il2skins.com:8080/skins/screenshots/8384.jpg
Il2skins.com for skins http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

horseback
08-03-2004, 11:48 AM
The c wing on the Mk IX was a hand-me-down from the Mk V. Although it was designed to permit the use of 2x20mm cannon in each wing (for a total of 4x20mm), as a practical matter this was rarely possible,due to shortages of the Hispano cannon and some pilots' preference for a more lightly loaded aircraft. As a rule, the 'c' wing featured a single 20mm cannon and 3x.303 light MGs in each wing.

The 'e' wing was not only equipped with the .50 cal heavy MG inboard of the cannon, but it also had hardpoints for the mounting of bombs, rockets, and occasionally, wingtanks. Most of the time, wingtanks on the Spitfire are usually mentioned as a means of transporting or chilling beer. Since the Spitfire was primarily used for point defense (and offense), wing tanks were rarely used for conventional (or unconventional) reasons.

As a practical matter, the E wing gives you a harder punch with each burst, and running out of cannon ammo doesn't take you out of the fight. In RL, the .303s were more useful as a ranging device for the cannon than anything else.

The Mk IX was essentially a Mk V with a Merlin 60-series engine stuffed into it. Since the Mk V was initially just a Mk I/II with a Merlin 45 stuffed into it, you can see that the airframe was probably not stressed for the higher speeds and weights involved. Most Mk IXs were built on purchase orders for Mk Vs well into 1944.

The Mk VIIIs were mostly deployed to the Far East and the Med theaters, and equipped with a 'universal' carburetor filter, although plenty of Mk IXs were built with these as well. The major outward identifier of the Mk VIII vs the Mk IX is the retracting tailwheel of the Mk VIII. Also, if it has the extended 'high altitude' wingtips, it is NOT a Mk IX, it is either a Mk VII or VIII.

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

Abbuzze
08-03-2004, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

The Mk IX was essentially a Mk V with a Merlin 60-series engine stuffed into it. Since the Mk V was initially just a Mk I/II with a Merlin 45 stuffed into it, you can see that the airframe was probably not stressed for the higher speeds and weights involved. Most Mk IXs were built on purchase orders for Mk Vs well into 1944.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm I would say they strenght the airframe, I don´t think that just the different engine/weapons let the empty weight increase from a I/II with 4332 lb ( 1965 kg ) to 6,600 lb. (2,993 kg) at a Spit IX.
Even a MK V with 5,065 lb. (2,297 kg) is a big difference.

And basicly a the same airframe is hmm also the 109 G10/K4 have basicly the same airframe like 109F...

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Arm_slinger
08-03-2004, 04:21 PM
the airframe of the IX was strengthened, and was extended by a few inches as well

A.K.A 242Sqn_Kye

"Target for Tonight" the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)

Also the home of 242 Squadron
http://www.nightbomber.com/242squadron/

horseback
08-03-2004, 04:46 PM
Abbuzze-

The books I have read on the subject indicate that little was done to strengthen the airframe from the Mk I to the Mk IX. Engine bearers and frames were enlarged & strengthened to accomodate the larger engines, but structurally, that appears to be it, except for some adjustment to the 'rake' of the landing gear, I think. Very little changed in the fuselage aft of the firewall. Mitchell's original design turned out to be remarkably robust.

The greater weights reflect the progressively larger engines, cooling & lubricating reservoirs with their associated plumbing, and upgrades in weaponry. A larger, more complex engine needs more glycol to cool it and more oil to keep it from tearing itself apart. Additional supercharger stages also helped put on the pounds.

Once you get to the Mk V, the weight of electronics went up a bit too, as the boffins decided that there was extra power available to carry some extra gadgets...

I'm sure that going to a four-bladed prop in the Mk IX had a significant weight penalty as well. The weight increase from the II to the V was a little less than 15%,icluding the switch from fabric to metal ailerons (every little bit helps!) and the V to the IX's final versions was about 25%, according to your figures.

That's significant, but the power at higher alts was more than doubled (I think, at work & away from my books on the subject), which was the point of the whole exercise.

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

dazza9806482
08-04-2004, 01:39 AM
Thanks guys

interesting, well researched responses as usual

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif