# For all Spitfire Fans



## helmitsmit (Apr 28, 2006)

What was your favourite type of Spitfire/Seafire. In the poll I am giving a choice of the main variants.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 28, 2006)

My favourite is the Mk-IX, I like the sleek lines of the merlined engined versions while I like the Griffin engined ones, the bubble canopy makes some of the later marks look odd.


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 28, 2006)

I now what you mean. Although, my favourite merlined mark is the VIII with the retractable tail wheel (much more refined). I saw a mk VIII with a bouble canopy looked great (in my opinion). That why I prefer the late mk XIVs, XVIIIs along with the humps on the cylinders, power! They have to have the eliptical wing though or it doesn't work 

My favourite Spitfire in terms of look though is the Mk III fighter variant.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 28, 2006)

I like the early versions of the Spitfire ,they look very light on the contrary to my favourite German fighter and later Spits.I vote for the Mk.I-IX,especially for MkIX.


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 28, 2006)

Just out of interest what do you think about the Seafang and Spiteful? Personally I think they look like a cross between a Mustang and a Spitfire mk 24. It really doesn't work does it? The eliptical wing was actually more aerodynamic!


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2006)

helmitsmit said:


> Just out of interest what do you think about the Seafang and Spiteful? Personally I think they look like a cross between a Mustang and a Spitfire mk 24. It really doesn't work does it? The eliptical wing was actually more aerodynamic!


To all intents and purposes they were a Spitfire with a Mustangs low flow laminar wing and your right. It didn't really work.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 28, 2006)

My favorite Spitfire version is the Mk. IX... Although Plan_D would argue with me on that point, I think that the Mk. IX was the best Merlin engined fighter of the war.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Apr 28, 2006)

I love PR XIX's. The Planes of Fame sold theirs off to France last year, but it was so pretty in blue and those props!
Chris...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

in terms of best looking i'm properly going to say PR.XIX as well, especially if she's in PRU pink or blue........


----------



## Royzee617 (Apr 29, 2006)

mk ix, i like mh434, first Spit I saw aerobatting like a WW2 might have done, cheers Ray!


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 29, 2006)

About the mkX1X don't you think the prop should be five bladed rather then cotra-rotating? 

The mk XVI was a mk IX with a bouble canopy. Shame they didn't do a "bouble" mk VIII for the far east.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2006)

The later ones (21, 22 etc). Theyre the only ones that look as good as everyone seems to think Spitfires do.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

she looks better than those italian lumps of metal you drool over so much.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2006)

I think not...Theres nothing amazing about the way the Spitfire looks. I think there are several planes which far eclipse it in terms of looks.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

there are several great things about the way the spit looks, and i've seen some planes that come close to her looks (the lanc included) however none that beat her.........


----------



## Maestro (Apr 29, 2006)

I agree with Lanc on that one... The Spitfire surely was the best looking plane of the war !


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 29, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> I think not...Theres nothing amazing about the way the Spitfire looks. I think there are several planes which far eclipse it in terms of looks.



What do you think looks better? As I'm inclined to disagree!!! lol It better have a special feature like (eliptical wing) the spitfire.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2006)

I voted for the Spitfire XIV, I love the looks of that powerful Griffon up-front. However, I do love the looks of all the Spitfires. 

The Spitfire VIII had more structural improvements than the Spitfire IX. For all intents and purposes, the Spitfire IX was simply a Mk.VC with a Merlin 60 series engine in it. The Mk.VIII was redesigned to be fitted with the Merlin 60 series engines, so it was more refined.


----------



## Bachgyn Bach (Apr 30, 2006)

My favourite is Mk VIII. She has the finest line..is the most beautiful of all of them. Considering Griffon engined 21 and 22 are cool. I don't like Spiteful tail section of 24 and 47. The ugliest marks of all, yet I like late type wings. Maybe they are nao as pretty as the "original" ones, yet they are OK.
Regards


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 30, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I voted for the Spitfire XIV, I love the looks of that powerful Griffon up-front. However, I do love the looks of all the Spitfires.
> 
> The Spitfire VIII had more structural improvements than the Spitfire IX. For all intents and purposes, the Spitfire IX was simply a Mk.VC with a Merlin 60 series engine in it. The Mk.VIII was redesigned to be fitted with the Merlin 60 series engines, so it was more refined.



I agree about that but why didn't they put a bouble canopy mk VIII into production like they did with the mk IX (mk XVI)? Why didn't they put a retractable tailwheel on the mks V (needed a performance boost against 190), IX and XVI (you install a bouble canopy why not a retractable tail wheel)?

Actually, they could have done a lot to the mk V other than improving the engine. Most of the refinements on the mk III would have helped! Retractable tailwheel, complete landing gear fairing, better wind screen and longer fuselarge.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2006)

I voted for the Spitfire Mk.XIV, XVIII and XIX, cause like Plan_D I just love the looks of that big Griffon up front, as-well as the larger spinner, just looks great !


----------



## Maestro (Apr 30, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire VIII had more structural improvements than the Spitfire IX. For all intents and purposes, the Spitfire IX was simply a Mk.VC with a Merlin 60 series engine in it. The Mk.VIII was redesigned to be fitted with the Merlin 60 series engines, so it was more refined.



Yeah, but their performances were quite the same...

The Mk. VIIIs were mostly built with the type "E" wing while barely 50% of the Mk. IXs were built with the type "E" wing... That was the lone "big" difference.

Anyway, we already had that discussion before...


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 1, 2006)

Actually, most Mk VIIIs were built with the 'C' wing and usually armed with 2 Hispanos and 4 Browning .303s. The RAAF also got some with 4 cannon armement. 

The main differences between it and the MK IX were that the VIII had a strengthened fuselage, particularly in the nose and engine mounting, retractable tailwheel, reduced span alierons, a pointed rudder plane (although late production Mk IXs also had this) and a reinforced undercarriage. There were also some minor aerodynamic refinements. The other major difference was the addition of wing fuel tanks and the larger nose tanks, adding between 35-40 gal fuel capacity (sources vary), an increase of around 40%. Because of their larger internal fuel reservoirs and different operational requirements Mk VIIIs also routinely flew with the 90 gallon slipper tank, and occasionally the 170 gal overload tank, where as the Mk IX usually used the 45 gallon slipper tank, which was better matched to its 85 gallon internal fuel capacity.

I think you mean the Mk XVI, which was essentially a Mk IX with a Packard Merlin 266. It was introduced in squadron service in October 1944 and most recieved the 'E' type wing. A large proportion also had their wings clipped, and the type also got the bubble canopy in large numbers starting in December 1944, at the cost of cut down capacity with the new rear fuselage tanks.


----------



## helmitsmit (May 2, 2006)

I am surprised they sent the mk VIII only to the far east would it have been useful in Europe with it's better range?


----------



## elmilitaro (May 2, 2006)

Yeah I agree.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 2, 2006)

Couple of points on the use of the Mk VIII in the ETO (or otherwise)

1. The primary concern of the RAF fighter in Europe until 1944 was the defence of British Airspace. The RAF had recieved a bloody nose attempting day projections of power and preferred night bombing. The RAF saw the single engined fighter as primarily a short range aircraft, much to the chargrin of both aircraft designers and pilot, both of which wanted to get to the enemy. The official view was that there wasn't need a long range, single engine fighter, at least until the 8th AF began large scale daylight bombing. The enemy in 1940-1944 was just across the channel.

2. In non-European theaters, there were two concerns which made range of more obvious importance. First was the distances involved, which were generally larger than the cramped spaces of Northern Europe. Italy, Africa, the Meditteranean, the CBI theatre all covered much greater distances than the RAF needed to in defence of British airspace. Second was that the RAF desired not only to protect its airspace, but to project air dominance in daylight. So Spitfires were called on to perform long range escort, interdiction, strike and air patrol than they would of been in Europe. 

The fact of the matter is that the Spitfire was designed to take more fuel on several occasions, but official inaction and preconceptions about just what a single engine fighter could and couldn't do, prevented them from being acted upon until 1942 or later.

The original Spitfire Mk I had an 85 gallons in two nose fuel tanks. In 1940, the proposed Mk III 'improved Spitfire' had 99 gallons in the two nose tanks. However, the thirstier Merlin XX chewed up some of this extra fuel, but range was still 10% better than in the Mk I.

By late 1941 the Mk V was being outfitted with a variety of droptanks, mostly 30 gallon and 45 gallon slippertanks. Spitfire V ferry flights to Malta were conducted with a 90 gallon drop tank and a special 29 gallon rear fuselage tank.

This was perhaps the greatest missed opportunity for the Spitfire, apart from not adopting the Mk III for production. Although the rear fuselage tank caused some problems when full, most of its capacity (20 gallons or so) would of been used in a climb to altitude, leaving the Spitfire with a full drop tank to cruise to the target and full nose tanks to get home again.

Potentially, the Mk V could of, quite easily, carried 114 gallons internally, plus either a 30, 45, 90 or even 170 gallon slipper tank.

When the Mk VIII was designed in 1942, Supermarine installed two 13.5 gallon wing fuel tanks, and bumped the nose tanks up to 95 gallons (which had been done on some MK I, Mk II and Mk IX production). Usable fuel jumped up to ~125 gallons, meaning that, unlike the Mk IX, the Spitfire VIII could comfortably use the 90 gallon slipper tank.

Late production Mk IXs did fit a rear fuselage tank. A 75 gallon tank was installed in the Mk IX and the Mk XVI following mid 1944, giving up to 160 gallons total. But any need the RAF had for long range fighters diminished in this period as Mustang squadrons became active and the war moved closer and closer to Germany.

The RAF did use its 4 Mk VII squadrons, with the same fuel as a MK VIII, for a few long range escort missions into France and over the North Sea.


----------



## Gnomey (May 2, 2006)

Interesting post Jabberwocky


----------



## helmitsmit (May 2, 2006)

Yeah good stuff. Did the griffon engined marks get even more range with the extra power? 

Something that has been bugging me for ages, did the Griffon marks have a better view over the nose. I know the spitfire was renowned for being bad on the ground.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 2, 2006)

The Griffon engine marks had very poor range, simply because the Griffon was around 25% thirstier than the Merlin. Despite the higher cruise speeds, range took a nose dive with the introduction of the Griffon.

The Mk XII had the shortest range of any Spitfire, just 350 miles w/ 85 gallons of fuel. It basically a MK V airframe with a Griffon engine in it. It was used as a low level jabo chaser and flew with the 30 gallon slipper tank as pretty much standard for its 18 months of service.

Later Griffon marks got progressively more fuel. The MK XIV had 110 gallons of fuel, and a range of about 475 miles, about the same as the early Mk IX. It usually carried a 45,50 or 90 gallon slipper tank for operations over the Continent.

The Mk XVIII, which was essentially a slightly reworked Mk XIV, had the longest range of any fighter Spitfire. It had 175 gallons, or even 187 gallons in the final 40 produced, and a basic range of better than 700 miles.


View over the nose was actually better with the Griffon, by about 2 degrees of deflection. The Griffon was set several inches lower than the Merlin and the increased slope towards the prop past the cylinder bank bulges offered pilots much better sighting for firing. The long nose was equally difficult to see past on the ground however.


----------



## helmitsmit (May 4, 2006)

That is good stuff. By the way the poll looks really interesting.


----------



## mfg (May 14, 2006)

I go for the PRXI and PRXIX


----------



## Wurger (May 14, 2006)

An interesting site mfg.


----------



## helmitsmit (May 14, 2006)

mfg said:


> I go for the PRXI and PRXIX


I see you like the photo recon spits. Me too particularly the mkXIX.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 14, 2006)

I actually like the look of the Spiteful myself, but it's not as popular as the BoB models.


----------



## helmitsmit (May 15, 2006)

Don't you think it looks a bit of a miss match? I mean you could call it Spitang! or Mustfire! Seriously, do you like that hump just before the canopy? 

I heard that it's laminar-flow wing wasn't because dirt and flies distroyed any advantage over the old spits wing. Unless you had cleaners on it round the clock (even when in the air!) it was like any other wing.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 15, 2006)

The Mustang looks a little fatter.


----------



## helmitsmit (May 16, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> The Mustang looks a little fatter.



It was a generally bigger airframe.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

Why's it all gotta be about being fat? LOL!

I agree the profile on the Spiteful isn't as clean as the bubble top Mustang, but I prefer the Spiteful profile to the standard Spit profile. (just personal preference, don't anyone kill me over this one!)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2006)

I agree Bullock, to be honest I dont really like the look of the Spitfire at all.


----------



## helmitsmit (May 22, 2006)

Arh well I won't try and convince you otherwise. I do like the changed in undercarrige stance. It was the spits main falling


----------

