For all Spitfire Fans
- Thread starter helmitsmit
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maestro
Master Sergeant
plan_D said:
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
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #24
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
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
Senior Airman
Yeah I agree.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
Interesting post Jabberwocky
- Thread starter
- #28
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
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.
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
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #30
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
That is good stuff. By the way the poll looks really interesting.
mfg
Airman
I go for the PRXI and PRXIX
- Thread starter
- #33
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
I see you like the photo recon spits. Me too particularly the mkXIX.mfg said:
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
I actually like the look of the Spiteful myself, but it's not as popular as the BoB models.
- Thread starter
- #35
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
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.
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?
Tech Sergeant
The Mustang looks a little fatter.
- Thread starter
- #37
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
Soundbreaker Welch? said:
It was a generally bigger airframe.
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
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!)
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
Major General
I agree Bullock, to be honest I dont really like the look of the Spitfire at all.
- Thread starter
- #40
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
Arh well I won't try and convince you otherwise. I do like the changed in undercarrige stance. It was the spits main falling
