How superior climb rate is used in air combat ?. (1 Viewer)

One of the things I learned about the P-40 was that Curtiss had one test pilot who used to 'check out' new planes every day,
In late 1942 Curtiss was building 360-416 P-40s a month, in 1943 they built 4258 P-40s, Curtiss had a lot more than one test pilot doing "check" flights. Some may have lasted longer than others. Some may not have written memoirs.
What can be done at the factory in a brand-new plane is not the limit that you want to put in the manual to be used in a plane with 100-200 hours (or more) of hard, 1st line use.
Also note that any combat flights of P-40s were done at the end of long sea voyages. Either crated or uncrated. Crated aircraft had to have the wings and fuselage and propeller rejoined and the uncrated aircraft were deck cargo exposed to the weather and protected by WW II tarps and sealant.
 
Another thing on ailerons - from what I understand, some aircraft used steel cables (of varying thickness and strength) to control the ailerons, some had boosted hydraulics, some had steel or wooden (!!) rods. Some had a combination of these. From what I understand, the Fw 190 used solid steel rods ('torque tubes') which were potentially better, since cables could get stretched out (and were also easier to cut via battle damage).
 
In late 1942 Curtiss was building 360-416 P-40s a month, in 1943 they built 4258 P-40s, Curtiss had a lot more than one test pilot doing "check" flights. Some may have lasted longer than others. Some may not have written memoirs.

yes, obviously. They had dozens of test pilots. Every aircraft got a checkout flight though from what I understand.

What can be done at the factory in a brand-new plane is not the limit that you want to put in the manual to be used in a plane with 100-200 hours (or more) of hard, 1st line use.
Also note that any combat flights of P-40s were done at the end of long sea voyages. Either crated or uncrated. Crated aircraft had to have the wings and fuselage and propeller rejoined and the uncrated aircraft were deck cargo exposed to the weather and protected by WW II tarps and sealant.

All true. But I have read many memoirs and unit histories of units (from many different nations) flying this aircraft type in which they had to do some major work on them when the N models arrived, which I don't remember from before except when the early D and E models were first showing up.
 
To my knowledge, the p-38 was never to exceed 0.68M, lift device, airbrakes or whatever plasma shield. This allowed the P-38 to not desintegrate in the dive, but the plane was aerodynamically unable to go faster without serious consequences. The Shrike was tested till 0.79M without any structural issue, if the pilot was slightly more kamikaze, it could push it even further, as at M0.79, only 27kg was needed to recover. (without using the horizontal tail trim). But Test pilots are not kamikaze. ;)

But, about the spit roll rate, am i the only one that interpret this report on the clipped spit as a direct questioning about the quality of production?
Better Roll rate seems more like a lotery, depending on the airframe "build-qualities".
View attachment 884491

The results being absolutely not reproductible,
On both the Mk5 and 9, clipping the wings didn't change the aileron responsiveness, the Mk5 having good ailerons and the Mk9 having "bad ailerons" at start.
But on the MK12 (note that both mk12 airframes tested were originally Mk5 airframes and were the first two MK12 from the factory) the one airframe with originally poor ailerons got an amelioration in roll, but the other with "good" ailerons no difference was found.

View attachment 884492

In conclusion, can we apply here the fact that cutting the wingtips doesn't per se make the spit a rolling beast?
What means no generalisation of the roll performance found in the different charts can be applied to all concerned spits and that manufacturing quality was not , well, very qualitative?
Can we push further and say that pilots never complained to the grease monkeys about the sloppy ailerons (2 of4 airfranes in the test had poor ailerons before testing) and ask them why and demand to correct it? if i'm a pilot that knew an airframe with good ailerons, and got one sloppy, wouldn't i request to check the issue? or is it just because most spits had sloppy ailerons and actually no pilot ever got one with good ailerons?
I can not imagine a Wurger pilot going on mission with unbalanced ailerons , giving flutter and serious vibrations in turn and maneuvering.

The conclusion by the raf reminds me of the Meteor III Evaluation: "hmmm, ok, but actually it's not, there is much room for improvement."
View attachment 884493

PS: Just like Clostermann, Bogdan Arct from the Sq306-303-145PFT had nothing good to say about the clipped Mk5 they used for a few weeks in the MTO, and not only because is was a Cropped, but mostly because it was Clipped.

Contrary to these recommendations from this one report, wing tips were removed from thousands of Spitfires from early 1943. Some pilots may not have liked 'clipped' Spitfires, but clearly many did. So there must have been some reason, the relevance to roll is somewhat obfuscated by the problems they were having with ailerons / build quality as is clear in this report, but even here there is indication of some improvement, and the shorter wings clearly had other benefits as well.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Contrary to these recommendations from this one report, wing tips were removed from thousands of Spitfires from early 1943. Some pilots may not have liked 'clipped' Spitfires, but clearly many did. So there must have been some reason, the relevance to roll is somewhat obfuscated by the problems they were having with ailerons / build quality as is clear in this report, but even here there is indication of some improvement, and the shorter wings clearly had other benefits as well.

As a guy having worked years as statician in the company i work for, i like to have the sources:
Can you quantify how many spits were clipped? starting when? wich Marks? Which TO? Which Squadrons?Have you the manufacturer official sources? Squadron notes mentioning the clipping and the impacted airframes numbers?...can go like this for a while.

What you're saying are "quotes" from book authors, some books without research but quoting other authors and rephrasing them, there are dozens books about the spitfire telling some really stupid shit, but there are very few based on real numbers. (like Saying that all old Mk5's frames received the M45M or the M55M and were clipped , as example.. :rolleyes: ).
this is how myths are made, repeating the same stuff hundreds of times (no more wars, covid, etc.... are enough examples of this) and transforming them into a reality for the masses.
This is maybe the origin of the sentence: there are 2 bigs lies in life, 1 politians and 2 statistics. if your stats are based on BS, you'll get BS stats, and with BS stats, you can turn them in any direction you want, unlike stats based on factual data.

I started for fun, for like 17/18 years now, to make basic statistics for the spifire using the production list (easily available on the net). This basic data is rather rich in elements, but the clipping/clipped word doesn't appear much often i must say. The same in the Raf Orbs i have (and i have 40Gigs of them), no much talking about it. It's also true that i'm not very interested what happened after mid43 and on other TO's than the channel (not that i totally exclude the information available, it's just , channel 41-43 was , as for as i'm concerned, the definition of real air combats, without the numbers overkill.) So, maybe because of the advent of the E-wing, spits got more Clipped (and also because combats with LW were also more seldom and the ability to fly on the edge in defence mode wasn't so needed anymore) and this fact became the myth, that changed the period of clipping much before mid44, well, because it's the Spitty and everyone loves the spitty and she must be looking good, she must be the winner, or maybe it's born because of the FW-190 and it was the sole propaganda option to flatten the narrative of the 190 mastering the spit in the roll-plane...who knows...
Like i like to say:, sources, numbers and conclusions. (like Holtzauge's book :D )
 
Assuming you had a supply of spare wing tips, any of the C type wings could be changed from one type to another. It is quite possible that this could be done on earlier wings. It could be done on the Vb aircraft.
Some aircraft were shipped with the wing tips stored in the cockpit with a small faring bolted to the last rib for protection in transit.
In one test (described on pages 166-167, of "the Spitfire Story" by Albert Price) and I believe this test is the one often referred to, they used two Spitfire VB aircraft. These were selected to be as close as possible in equipment and in flight performance. The two pilots swapped aircraft and each test was performed twice. After a high cruise flight with both aircraft the trials began with one plane having it's tips removed and a thin fairing replacing it. After a series of trials and the pilots swapping planes the 1st plane had it's wing tips replaced and the 2nd aircraft had it's tips removed and faired and the trials were repeated. Not sure what else could be done short of using 4 or 6 planes instead of 2.

Now maybe the British pilots did not know how to fly the 190 they had but the but the clipped with Spit increased it's turning circle by 55ft at 20,000ft altitude over the standard Spitfire to 1025ft while Farnborough was figuring the 190 needed 1450ft at 20,000ft. British did not see the small increase in turning circle as a problem. There are no roll rate figures but the clipped wing had a much better roll rate than the standard wing.
It would seem that there was not much a problem to swap the wing tips back and forth.
 
Can you now? Where is the big mega stash of it? It seems like I've seen the same two dozen WW2 gun camera clips over and over and over again. I'd love to see the mother lode. I'd also note that a lot of the clips I do see almost invariably seem to mix up Theaters, units, even which side of the war being depicted. Battle of Britain showing Pacific aircraft or Fw 190s etc or B-17s etc. It doesn't inspire confidence!

If you know of this giant mother lode of gun camera footage please link it!

Hopefully this link works:


Otherwise, Imperial War Museum London website, search "Gun Camera", add filters on "Second World War" and "Film", gets you 497 reels of original DIGITISED and ONLINE gun camera footage. This is a fraction of the collection of actual WW2 gun camera film that the IWM holds in its collection and across its various sites - only a fraction is online, most of their collection for archiving and preservation purposes was digitised some years ago, but there is still some of their holdings to be digitised. There is a limit to how much they can host and provide access to online. It includes a range of different films, ranging from gun camera film exposed by a single pilots during a single sortie/combat; gun camera films created for use in training at OTUs to show to trainees; 'greatest hits' gun camera reels comprising clips of gun camera footage obtained during multiple sorties in A2G and A2A firing that were duplicated and sent around for showing to RAF aircrew on training and operational units; and even some that was obtained using special gun camera installations fitted to aircraft for the express purpose of being used in newsreels for release to the public. On top of which the RAF had its own internal, official, newsreel during WW2 'The Gen' which also made good use of gun camera footage taken on a range of operational sorties that was used to illustrate the stories being conveyed in the newsreel. IWM also has digitised copies of The Gen online and did sell a complete set of the wartime newsreels on a set of DVDs some years ago. It is possible with the IWM to arrange viewing and access to original WW2 gun camera footage - on the original film - for research purposes in their research centre. Pre-arranged access in their research centre and you can literally go through one of the original films frame by frame on a 'reader' and select frames for digitisation or printing - for a fee - for use in research or publications (similar has been done with newsreel footage).

A little side story here, related to me by those who were there at the time. In the RAF's Army Co-operation and Tac/R Wings, the photographic sections attached to the Squadrons and Wings would regularly compile their own 'greatest hits' reels of gun camera footage selected from exposed gun camera film from the unit's pilots on their sorties. These reels would be regularly shown to the aircrew and the groundcrew of the Wing, to show them what the operational sorties were producing in both strafing attacks and air to air combat. A couple of short 'best of the greatest hits' reels were also produced and shown to visiting senior personages and also taken out and shown to the command staff of the Army formations they were supporting. There was a bit of competition between the Wings about whose pilots caused and caught the biggest and best 'bangs' on film - exploding boilers on railway locomotives, petrol tankers, ammo wagons, etc. When the squadrons went on Armament Practice Camps to practice and refine their air to air and air to ground gunnery techniques, the end of each day there would be a session where the gun camera footage from the practice sorties would be shown, combined with scores from ground targets or drogues. (Similar happened for the APCs where bombing and RP practice took place.)

RAF Museum Hendon also holds a collection, no online access, needs a personal visit. A fair amount of what they hold, duplicates what the IWM holds.

Another source with a reasonable collection is the Australian War Memorial in Canberra Australia, they have a mere 104 items of their digital film collection relating to "Gun Camera" available online, which includes also a training film on installation and maintenance of the gun camera in aircraft, and another on deflection shooting training making use of gun camera footage. RAAF also had their own official wartime newsreel "RAAF Combat Magazine" which was similar to the RAF's 'The Gen' newsreel, and did include a lot of gun camera footage of air combat and ground strafing and bombing. They have more available for viewing via the research centre at the AWM via personal visit.

NMUSAF also holds a collection of various films, including gun camera footage from a range of USAAC/USAAF and Allied Air Forces sources, not much of it digitised or made available online.

And yeah, I have spent many, many hours going through a mere fraction of the footage held by the IWM and AWM. Also got some copies of stills taken out of original WW2 gun camera film that pilot's I know had taken and had copies of in their log books or collections.
 
All true. But I have read many memoirs and unit histories of units (from many different nations) flying this aircraft type in which they had to do some major work on them when the N models arrived, which I don't remember from before except when the early D and E models were first showing up.
This could be because the actual requirements had changed between the aircraft being ordered and built and when they arrived at service squadrons/theaters.
First 400 P-40Ns were stripper models with only 4 guns, one fuel tank taken out, the electric starter taken out and a much smaller battery fitted. Some sources say no battery but the pilots might have wanted to use the radio if the generator failed. They also were built without the vacuum pump and were not fitted with any vacuum instruments (no blind flying) but by June/July of 1943 when they started showing up in the Med and the Guadalcanal areas the need for fast climbing P-40s was a lot lower than it had been in Feb/March 1943.
So a lot the P-40N-1s were given electric starters and bigger batteries and had the forward wing tank installed and a few of the other "improvements" reversed. Later block number P-40Ns showed up much closer to standard fit than the -1 block.
Maybe there were quality problems and maybe there weren't, but the P-40N-1s could not do what the summer/fall 1943 squadrons wanted them to do as delivered. Imagine trying to fly in the Guadalcanal area for very long when you can't fly in clouds?
 
As a guy having worked years as statician in the company i work for, i like to have the sources:
Can you quantify how many spits were clipped? starting when? wich Marks? Which TO? Which Squadrons?Have you the manufacturer official sources? Squadron notes mentioning the clipping and the impacted airframes numbers?...can go like this for a while.

What you're saying are "quotes" from book authors, some books without research but quoting other authors and rephrasing them, there are dozens books about the spitfire telling some really stupid shit, but there are very few based on real numbers. (like Saying that all old Mk5's frames received the M45M or the M55M and were clipped , as example.. :rolleyes: ).
this is how myths are made, repeating the same stuff hundreds of times (no more wars, covid, etc.... are enough examples of this) and transforming them into a reality for the masses.
This is maybe the origin of the sentence: there are 2 bigs lies in life, 1 politians and 2 statistics. if your stats are based on BS, you'll get BS stats, and with BS stats, you can turn them in any direction you want, unlike stats based on factual data.

I started for fun, for like 17/18 years now, to make basic statistics for the spifire using the production list (easily available on the net). This basic data is rather rich in elements, but the clipping/clipped word doesn't appear much often i must say. The same in the Raf Orbs i have (and i have 40Gigs of them), no much talking about it. It's also true that i'm not very interested what happened after mid43 and on other TO's than the channel (not that i totally exclude the information available, it's just , channel 41-43 was , as for as i'm concerned, the definition of real air combats, without the numbers overkill.) So, maybe because of the advent of the E-wing, spits got more Clipped (and also because combats with LW were also more seldom and the ability to fly on the edge in defence mode wasn't so needed anymore) and this fact became the myth, that changed the period of clipping much before mid44, well, because it's the Spitty and everyone loves the spitty and she must be looking good, she must be the winner, or maybe it's born because of the FW-190 and it was the sole propaganda option to flatten the narrative of the 190 mastering the spit in the roll-plane...who knows...
Like i like to say:, sources, numbers and conclusions. (like Holtzauge's book :D )
LF's were made from MkV, IX and XIV with their own designed and developed engines plus given official designation as Low Flight Spitfires so while we don't have exact numbers as many were converted from other models its safe to assume there was a few made/converted.
 
A high climb rate becomes a high rate of turn (and high G load) if you're in a steep bank, bevause your lift vector is pointing into the centre of your turn circle.
 
That is basically incorrect. Climb rate is not really connected very much to turn rate.

A higher climb rate indicates more excess power than a lower climb rate. Power available over and above what is required for level flight is excess power.

Turn rate is more connected with the aifoil choice (so, lift coefficient) and wing area (wing loading) anbd the propeller. The excess power comes into play when the steep turn needs to be done without losing altitude or when it nees to be done while sinultaneously gaining altitude. Without enough excess power, you just can't do that, regardless of wing area and airfoil.
 
Last edited:
Assuming you had a supply of spare wing tips, any of the C type wings could be changed from one type to another. It is quite possible that this could be done on earlier wings. It could be done on the Vb aircraft.
Some aircraft were shipped with the wing tips stored in the cockpit with a small faring bolted to the last rib for protection in transit.
In one test (described on pages 166-167, of "the Spitfire Story" by Albert Price) and I believe this test is the one often referred to, they used two Spitfire VB aircraft. These were selected to be as close as possible in equipment and in flight performance. The two pilots swapped aircraft and each test was performed twice. After a high cruise flight with both aircraft the trials began with one plane having it's tips removed and a thin fairing replacing it. After a series of trials and the pilots swapping planes the 1st plane had it's wing tips replaced and the 2nd aircraft had it's tips removed and faired and the trials were repeated. Not sure what else could be done short of using 4 or 6 planes instead of 2.

Now maybe the British pilots did not know how to fly the 190 they had but the but the clipped with Spit increased it's turning circle by 55ft at 20,000ft altitude over the standard Spitfire to 1025ft while Farnborough was figuring the 190 needed 1450ft at 20,000ft. British did not see the small increase in turning circle as a problem. There are no roll rate figures but the clipped wing had a much better roll rate than the standard wing.
It would seem that there was not much a problem to swap the wing tips back and forth.
Thanks for this, this is the kind of anecdotes that i like :D
About the C wing: to my knowledge, the C wing started with the spit Vc that started to be slowly assiged as from Mars42, than the spit9-M61 and then everything until mid44 and the E-wing.
The spit Vb had the ...B-wing. Technical confirmation request: possible removal of the wingtip on the B wing without going to Factory/MU's/etc... ? Are there manuals for the B wing tip removal available??? Calling G Geoffrey Sinclair for help:salute:


LF's were made from MkV, IX and XIV with their own designed and developed engines plus given official designation as Low Flight Spitfires so while we don't have exact numbers as many were converted from other models its safe to assume there was a few made/converted.
Wel, this info is easily quantifiable.
Indeed, there were no "official" LF-Vb's produced with this denomination from the factory. Looks like the modding happend on the factory lines and airframes were renamed after production.
3600 MK-Vb's build, 159 "Modded" to LF, From those 159, 76 were LFLR versions.
261 build with M45M, 34 going to LF's, 54 for LFLR. The rest going for "standard" MK-Vb's
So we can be certain , there are at least 88 CCC's from the 3600 build, thus at least 88 CLipped MK-Vb's. (Trop versions not included here)
But we can also see that standard MK-v's got also the M45M and those supposely were not clipped.
For the Mk-Vc's, 1542 build and only 21(+/- , data is still very raw) build as LF and LFLR and almost all with M45or46. 50Airframes Being used to build the LFMK-9.
MK-9's received ther specific LF denomination in Factory, thus those are very easily quantifiable. 4020 MK-9 LF build (all versions: Std, b,c,e and all with M66)
Trop Versions not included.
 
As a guy having worked years as statician in the company i work for, i like to have the sources:
Can you quantify how many spits were clipped? starting when? wich Marks? Which TO? Which Squadrons?Have you the manufacturer official sources? Squadron notes mentioning the clipping and the impacted airframes numbers?...can go like this for a while.

What you're saying are "quotes" from book authors, some books without research but quoting other authors and rephrasing them, there are dozens books about the spitfire telling some really stupid shit, but there are very few based on real numbers. (like Saying that all old Mk5's frames received the M45M or the M55M and were clipped , as example.. :rolleyes: ).
this is how myths are made, repeating the same stuff hundreds of times (no more wars, covid, etc.... are enough examples of this) and transforming them into a reality for the masses.
This is maybe the origin of the sentence: there are 2 bigs lies in life, 1 politians and 2 statistics. if your stats are based on BS, you'll get BS stats, and with BS stats, you can turn them in any direction you want, unlike stats based on factual data.

I started for fun, for like 17/18 years now, to make basic statistics for the spifire using the production list (easily available on the net). This basic data is rather rich in elements, but the clipping/clipped word doesn't appear much often i must say. The same in the Raf Orbs i have (and i have 40Gigs of them), no much talking about it. It's also true that i'm not very interested what happened after mid43 and on other TO's than the channel (not that i totally exclude the information available, it's just , channel 41-43 was , as for as i'm concerned, the definition of real air combats, without the numbers overkill.) So, maybe because of the advent of the E-wing, spits got more Clipped (and also because combats with LW were also more seldom and the ability to fly on the edge in defence mode wasn't so needed anymore) and this fact became the myth, that changed the period of clipping much before mid44, well, because it's the Spitty and everyone loves the spitty and she must be looking good, she must be the winner, or maybe it's born because of the FW-190 and it was the sole propaganda option to flatten the narrative of the 190 mastering the spit in the roll-plane...who knows...
Like i like to say:, sources, numbers and conclusions. (like Holtzauge's book :D )

Sounds like you have a real strong opinion on Spitfire wings being clipped or not 🤷‍♂️ . I definitely don't have a lot of stats on it, I'm not deeply invested in the issue, but I have seen quite a few photos of Spitfires from wartime units from 1943 onward which do clearly have clipped wings.

1782355880440.png
1782355908546.png


I'd say if you have statistics showing that the increased used of shortened wings is a myth perpetuated and spread by irresponsible aviation authors by all means post such evidence, I'd be glad to see it. Anything we can do to clarify the picture a little more is always good.

Emotional venting isn't as interesting to me. When it comes to this issue, I really DGAF, I'd be glad to know the truth either way. We all discuss various apparent or reported on truisms from the war, some of which eventually turn out to be false - when that happens I make sure to correct the version I describe - much as I did in my original post that set you off when I mentioned the improved roll rate of the later Spit Mk Vs, noting that it was either clipped wings and / or metal ailerons. You seemed to ignore that nuance very effectively for someone interested in impartial understanding of the war etc.

But please also be aware that you are not alone in having spent decades looking into WW2 aviation, I think many people here have done so. We all have small pieces of a very big puzzle, none of us has it all put together ;)
 
Hopefully this link works:


Otherwise, Imperial War Museum London website, search "Gun Camera", add filters on "Second World War" and "Film", gets you 497 reels of original DIGITISED and ONLINE gun camera footage. This is a fraction of the collection of actual WW2 gun camera film that the IWM holds in its collection and across its various sites - only a fraction is online, most of their collection for archiving and preservation purposes was digitised some years ago, but there is still some of their holdings to be digitised. There is a limit to how much they can host and provide access to online. It includes a range of different films, ranging from gun camera film exposed by a single pilots during a single sortie/combat; gun camera films created for use in training at OTUs to show to trainees; 'greatest hits' gun camera reels comprising clips of gun camera footage obtained during multiple sorties in A2G and A2A firing that were duplicated and sent around for showing to RAF aircrew on training and operational units; and even some that was obtained using special gun camera installations fitted to aircraft for the express purpose of being used in newsreels for release to the public. On top of which the RAF had its own internal, official, newsreel during WW2 'The Gen' which also made good use of gun camera footage taken on a range of operational sorties that was used to illustrate the stories being conveyed in the newsreel. IWM also has digitised copies of The Gen online and did sell a complete set of the wartime newsreels on a set of DVDs some years ago. It is possible with the IWM to arrange viewing and access to original WW2 gun camera footage - on the original film - for research purposes in their research centre. Pre-arranged access in their research centre and you can literally go through one of the original films frame by frame on a 'reader' and select frames for digitisation or printing - for a fee - for use in research or publications (similar has been done with newsreel footage).

A little side story here, related to me by those who were there at the time. In the RAF's Army Co-operation and Tac/R Wings, the photographic sections attached to the Squadrons and Wings would regularly compile their own 'greatest hits' reels of gun camera footage selected from exposed gun camera film from the unit's pilots on their sorties. These reels would be regularly shown to the aircrew and the groundcrew of the Wing, to show them what the operational sorties were producing in both strafing attacks and air to air combat. A couple of short 'best of the greatest hits' reels were also produced and shown to visiting senior personages and also taken out and shown to the command staff of the Army formations they were supporting. There was a bit of competition between the Wings about whose pilots caused and caught the biggest and best 'bangs' on film - exploding boilers on railway locomotives, petrol tankers, ammo wagons, etc. When the squadrons went on Armament Practice Camps to practice and refine their air to air and air to ground gunnery techniques, the end of each day there would be a session where the gun camera footage from the practice sorties would be shown, combined with scores from ground targets or drogues. (Similar happened for the APCs where bombing and RP practice took place.)

RAF Museum Hendon also holds a collection, no online access, needs a personal visit. A fair amount of what they hold, duplicates what the IWM holds.

Another source with a reasonable collection is the Australian War Memorial in Canberra Australia, they have a mere 104 items of their digital film collection relating to "Gun Camera" available online, which includes also a training film on installation and maintenance of the gun camera in aircraft, and another on deflection shooting training making use of gun camera footage. RAAF also had their own official wartime newsreel "RAAF Combat Magazine" which was similar to the RAF's 'The Gen' newsreel, and did include a lot of gun camera footage of air combat and ground strafing and bombing. They have more available for viewing via the research centre at the AWM via personal visit.

NMUSAF also holds a collection of various films, including gun camera footage from a range of USAAC/USAAF and Allied Air Forces sources, not much of it digitised or made available online.

And yeah, I have spent many, many hours going through a mere fraction of the footage held by the IWM and AWM. Also got some copies of stills taken out of original WW2 gun camera film that pilot's I know had taken and had copies of in their log books or collections.

Thanks!

Seems like those 'best of the best' collections are what gets repeated over and over and over.

I don't get why IWM, and anyone else who has a lot of this stuff, couldn't just all of these up on Youtube or some other similar aggregator site. Unless they are just holding on to the IP for financial reasons.
 
This could be because the actual requirements had changed between the aircraft being ordered and built and when they arrived at service squadrons/theaters.
First 400 P-40Ns were stripper models with only 4 guns, one fuel tank taken out, the electric starter taken out and a much smaller battery fitted. Some sources say no battery but the pilots might have wanted to use the radio if the generator failed. They also were built without the vacuum pump and were not fitted with any vacuum instruments (no blind flying) but by June/July of 1943 when they started showing up in the Med and the Guadalcanal areas the need for fast climbing P-40s was a lot lower than it had been in Feb/March 1943.
So a lot the P-40N-1s were given electric starters and bigger batteries and had the forward wing tank installed and a few of the other "improvements" reversed. Later block number P-40Ns showed up much closer to standard fit than the -1 block.
Maybe there were quality problems and maybe there weren't, but the P-40N-1s could not do what the summer/fall 1943 squadrons wanted them to do as delivered. Imagine trying to fly in the Guadalcanal area for very long when you can't fly in clouds?

Yeah I'm aware of that but there seemed to be a lot of more basic structural issues and engines running rough and so on, I'll track down some examples and transcribe them when I get the chance, I know I just read one of these.
 
A guide to Spitfires seems to be along the lines of a Guide to Elephants that goes if you do encounter a pink one try not to become visibly agitated or alarmed as this is considered poor manners, even if it is really not playing the trumpet well.

The UK official history lists four Spitfire airframe types,
A, Merlin II, III, XII so marks I, II and IV (PR), it was stretched to do the marks V, VI, PR VII, PR XIII, and Seafire I.
B, Mark VC, based on the mark III fighter prototype, stretched to do the mark IX and XII
C, Mark VII and VIII, and the two stage Griffon variants to the mark XIX.
D, F.21 and later.
The airframe was successively strengthened, so A was stronger than B, C was stronger than B and D was stronger than C.

C Wing,
Supermarine start October 1941, last B wing February 1942
Westland start April 1942, last B wing June 1942 (Westland started Seafire production in June 1942, finished Spitfire in October 1943)
Castle Bromwich start August 1942 (there was 1 in June), last B wing December 1942

The wing armament list is what we now designate things, including the D wing which had the large leading edge fuel tanks for the reconnaissance versions. The trouble is finding contemporary documents using the designations. The mark VA/VB/VC/VII/VIII/IX/XII were just that to February 1943, from March it was F.VC, F.VII and F.XII only, while F.IX, LF.IX and HF.IX depending on engine fit, similar for the mark VIII, there was also the LF.XVI, it was the prefix, not suffix, that mattered as all had the c/universal wing. Though the mark VIII wing had other changes.

Plenty of early Spitfires, mostly mark V, ended up as IX and some could have had the B wing as built but in fact the IXB was an unofficial designation for the LF.IX when it was introduced 8 months after the F. The replacement of the 0.303 inch with 0.50 inch was simply an ability of the c/universal wing and not considered worthwhile to record. Later the mark XVIII could be considered to have introduced the E wing when it eliminated the structures for the outboard 0.303 inch machine guns.

Then there is the use of the LF designation to mark V, the RAF February 1943 to June 1944 census *only* uses LF for VIII and IX.

The only low altitude engine for Spitfires built was the 55M, meant for Seafire, The Ministry of Aircraft Production has no record for Merlin 45M or 50M or conversions to them. The Merlin 45 ceased production in June 1942 apart from 74 built November 1942 to January 1943, there were 729 Merlin 50 built November 1942 to June 1943, replaced by the Merlin 55/55M.

Having said that dropping in on AIR 16/1085 The Fighter Command Order of Battle January 1942 to December 1943, for 30 December 1943, as written, where L.F is mentioned
9 Group, 222 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) VB
11 Group, 501 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) V (L.R) plus some IXF, 322 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) V (L.R), 349 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) VB (L.R)
12 Group, 64, 611, 316, 402, 416 squadrons all (L.F) V (L.R), 234, 140 squadrons (L.F) VB
13 Group, 485, 504, 453, 118 Squadrons all Spitfire (L.F) VB

Now all you need are the definitions if L.F and L.R, note the Command has very few day fighter squadrons with the latest types.

For most of 1942 the RAF was after altitude performance for the Spitfire at least, the Typhoon problems and the increasing use of low level Fw190 fighter bombers resulted in the Spitfire F.XII. Then on 14 October 1942 the ADFU reported on what happened when you clipped the Spitfire wing. In early/mid November 39 kits were ordered with 20 meant for 91 squadron Spitfire VB as a trial, it is therefore no surprise it became a Spitfire XII squadron in April/May 1943, joining 41 squadron which also converted from VB but in February/March. Forming the core of what became a low altitude Spitfire force in 1943 joined by Spitfire V squadrons with low altitude rated engines as they helped escort the increasing allied light and medium day bomber force.

Apart from the VI, VII and some VIII which had extended wing tips all Spitfires were delivered with standard wings well into 1944. The obvious possible/probable exception would be the XII, which stayed in production until September 1943. Clipped wings were conversions limited to experiments and some of the low altitude force during 1943.

The mark V is the transition to the new wing, C, engines do not matter when designating the version. After that it is engine matters, not wing, when designating the version.
 
Thank you G Geoffrey Sinclair for taking your time to put the things into context.:salute:
I suppose this confirm my thought about the clipped spits. ;)

Edit: About the MK12: were they produced clipped or where they modded using those famous kits? Because if they used the Kits, they couldn't have been all clipped.
(note that most pictures available on the web of the MK12's are the same aircraft)

Now, about the spit's "maintenance" manuals, are they really so hard to find? where should we look first? got an idea? Spit rebuilders?
 
Last edited:
A guide to Spitfires seems to be along the lines of a Guide to Elephants that goes if you do encounter a pink one try not to become visibly agitated or alarmed as this is considered poor manners, even if it is really not playing the trumpet well.

The UK official history lists four Spitfire airframe types,
A, Merlin II, III, XII so marks I, II and IV (PR), it was stretched to do the marks V, VI, PR VII, PR XIII, and Seafire I.
B, Mark VC, based on the mark III fighter prototype, stretched to do the mark IX and XII
C, Mark VII and VIII, and the two stage Griffon variants to the mark XIX.
D, F.21 and later.
The airframe was successively strengthened, so A was stronger than B, C was stronger than B and D was stronger than C.

C Wing,
Supermarine start October 1941, last B wing February 1942
Westland start April 1942, last B wing June 1942 (Westland started Seafire production in June 1942, finished Spitfire in October 1943)
Castle Bromwich start August 1942 (there was 1 in June), last B wing December 1942

The wing armament list is what we now designate things, including the D wing which had the large leading edge fuel tanks for the reconnaissance versions. The trouble is finding contemporary documents using the designations. The mark VA/VB/VC/VII/VIII/IX/XII were just that to February 1943, from March it was F.VC, F.VII and F.XII only, while F.IX, LF.IX and HF.IX depending on engine fit, similar for the mark VIII, there was also the LF.XVI, it was the prefix, not suffix, that mattered as all had the c/universal wing. Though the mark VIII wing had other changes.

Plenty of early Spitfires, mostly mark V, ended up as IX and some could have had the B wing as built but in fact the IXB was an unofficial designation for the LF.IX when it was introduced 8 months after the F. The replacement of the 0.303 inch with 0.50 inch was simply an ability of the c/universal wing and not considered worthwhile to record. Later the mark XVIII could be considered to have introduced the E wing when it eliminated the structures for the outboard 0.303 inch machine guns.

Then there is the use of the LF designation to mark V, the RAF February 1943 to June 1944 census *only* uses LF for VIII and IX.

The only low altitude engine for Spitfires built was the 55M, meant for Seafire, The Ministry of Aircraft Production has no record for Merlin 45M or 50M or conversions to them. The Merlin 45 ceased production in June 1942 apart from 74 built November 1942 to January 1943, there were 729 Merlin 50 built November 1942 to June 1943, replaced by the Merlin 55/55M.

Having said that dropping in on AIR 16/1085 The Fighter Command Order of Battle January 1942 to December 1943, for 30 December 1943, as written, where L.F is mentioned
9 Group, 222 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) VB
11 Group, 501 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) V (L.R) plus some IXF, 322 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) V (L.R), 349 Squadron Spitfire (L.F) VB (L.R)
12 Group, 64, 611, 316, 402, 416 squadrons all (L.F) V (L.R), 234, 140 squadrons (L.F) VB
13 Group, 485, 504, 453, 118 Squadrons all Spitfire (L.F) VB

Now all you need are the definitions if L.F and L.R, note the Command has very few day fighter squadrons with the latest types.

For most of 1942 the RAF was after altitude performance for the Spitfire at least, the Typhoon problems and the increasing use of low level Fw190 fighter bombers resulted in the Spitfire F.XII. Then on 14 October 1942 the ADFU reported on what happened when you clipped the Spitfire wing. In early/mid November 39 kits were ordered with 20 meant for 91 squadron Spitfire VB as a trial, it is therefore no surprise it became a Spitfire XII squadron in April/May 1943, joining 41 squadron which also converted from VB but in February/March. Forming the core of what became a low altitude Spitfire force in 1943 joined by Spitfire V squadrons with low altitude rated engines as they helped escort the increasing allied light and medium day bomber force.

Apart from the VI, VII and some VIII which had extended wing tips all Spitfires were delivered with standard wings well into 1944. The obvious possible/probable exception would be the XII, which stayed in production until September 1943. Clipped wings were conversions limited to experiments and some of the low altitude force during 1943.

The mark V is the transition to the new wing, C, engines do not matter when designating the version. After that it is engine matters, not wing, when designating the version.

Nonetheless, the Merlin 45 to 56 Marks inc were a very complex range of Spitfire engines with major differences from 1941 onwards. The detail covers: improvements to optimise the single stage supercharger performance, to offer a range of engines with different altitude matched ratings, to introduce 2-piece cylinderblocks on some engines and to incorporate different carburettors in attempts to achieve anti-g operation, ranging from the early cut-out prone SU AVT 40, to the failed RR Diaphragm-carb modification, to the SU AVT 40 again but with the RAE Restrictor and finally to the modified SU AVT 40 RAE anti-g carb.
The range of engines is covered by Lumsden as the Merlin-45, 45M, 46, 47, 50, 50A, 50M, 55, 55A, 55M, 55MA and 56. The Merlin type designations were RM.5S, RM.5M and RM.6S showing the major differences with the versions, the RM.6S ones being derived from the Merlin 46 which introduced the larger circular-arc guide vane impellor.
All engines listed for Spitfires and Seafires.
In all, a very complicated range of engines during a heady period of Merlin development.

Eng
 
c01d2ffe9bf99c46ce36760d2e637052.jpg

Well, I am going to 'assume' that there were at least 4 MK XIIs with clipped wings as I can only see well enough to make out 4 planes with clipped wings ;)
Maybe other people can make out the further planes better.
I have no idea if they varied wing tips as built in the production batch or if any got different wing tips in the field.
1st and 3rd planes in the formation have serial numbers 89 apart.

It was not that hard to "clip" wing tips in the field. Unbolt existing wing tip from the end of the wing (the spar stopped before the last 2 feet of wing tip). Bolt the new tip/faring strip, across the opening using the existing holes. Navigation light fit seems to have varied.
See this for some modelers views.
 
It was not that hard to "clip" wing tips in the field. Unbolt existing wing tip from the end of the wing (the spar stopped before the last 2 feet of wing tip). Bolt the new tip/faring strip, across the opening using the existing holes. Navigation light fit seems to have varied.
See this for some modelers views.

This is my understanding of the issue, that the change from 'clipped' to 'normal' and even to 'HF' (I think?) was fairly easily done in the field and didn't require even a regional depot to do. So if a given unit was flying mostly low level escort missions for a period of time, the wings might be clipped, if they were flying high, this could be reversed. If Ju 86 are flying over or, I don't know, AR 234s? maybe they even put the HF tips on
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back