Spitfire Mk IX vs Spitfire Mk XVI

JDK, I agree with you on that Mk IIb display.I was there in 2002 and all I saw was the left part of the wing and fuselage with the right part being stuck in some wall. Pretty sad if you ask me. The Spitfire at Rockcliffe was better displayed and I like the display of the bust and RAF wings of George Beurling too.

I also read somewhere that the slight bulge over the Merlin 266 intercooler on the top engine cowl of the Mk.XVI caused slight pitch instability at high speed.

In fact that bulge was on the IX, to clear the coolant pipework, which was interfered with by the filler point, in the cowling, for the 266’s engine-mounted header tank. Presumably to save production time/difficulties, the same cowling was used on both Marks, so it was simply bulged out of the way, so it didn’t matter which airframe had it. Quill did mention having trouble with one aircraft (can’t remember which Mark,) which had a larger-than-usual bulge.
Edgar

There’s an aviation museum not too far from me in Hamilton Ontario called The Canadian Warplane Heritage.It has an actual low back Mk XVI on static display.It’s in mint condition and doesn’t seem to need much work to get it airworthy.

It’s one of three belonging to the National Aviation Collection of Canada, and therefore isn’t available for an airworthy restoration. The other two are in the (changed name since I last looked!) Canada Aviation and Space Museum / Musée de l’aviation et de l’espace du Canada, Rockliffe, ON (the NACoC’s ‘home’) and the appallingly displayed ultra-rare Mk.IIb in the Canadian War Museum, Ottawa.

AFAIK, and I defer to he Spitfire experts, the Spitfire’s cockpit width never effectively changed – certainly not between high and low back versions. But it was always narrower than the Defiant’s!

You lucky dogs, actually sitting in one. I’m 6′ tall and kind of wide shouldered ,so that answerers my question. As far as I’m concerned that plane was deadly and beautiful ,best looking fighter ever built. Reginald Mitchell got it right.

I’m not entirely sure what the width of the cockpit is, but I remember sitting in the cockpit of the Clive DuCros replica of K5054 a few years back, and the walls of the cockpit weren’t much more than six inches from either side of me – and I ain’t that big a guy!

Great input guys.
There’s an aviation museum not too far from me in Hamilton Ontario called The Canadian Warplane Heritage.It has an actual low back Mk XVI on static display.It’s in mint condition and doesn’t seem to need much work to get it airworthy.I’ve been up to it a few times and the cockpit looks narrow.Anyone know what the width of it is? I don’t think a wide shouldered guy could fit in it.Like the saying goes “you don’t climb into a Spit ,you strap the wings on”.
I’ve always liked the high back though,It had that classic look to it.

You are right, Daz. The cameras need the high back space in the PRs, and the pilot needs the extra visibility the R.V. fuselage gives in the FRs.

Begging your pardon, but there were an awful lot of FR (that’s Fighter-Reconnaissance) Spitfire Mk.XIVs – with a low-back.

I suspect the reason there weren’t any pure low-back recce Spits was simply the room needed to house the barrage of cameras used for this kind of work….?

Perhaps the more measurable differences are in aerodynamics. The high back fuselage most Mk.IXs have probably has slightly lower drag than the R.V. low back that most Mk.XVIs have. I think you will not find a PR Spit with a low back, partly for this reason. I also read somewhere that the slight bulge over the Merlin 266 intercooler on the top engine cowl of the Mk.XVI caused slight pitch instability at high speed.

Thanks Edgar, just thought that the Packard may have had the advantage due to the fuel injection type carb.

The Rolls Royce engines were using pressurised Bendix-Stromberg carbs by then anyway, a form of fuel injection.

Packard proberbly leaks less oil!!!

Thanks Edgar, just thought that the Packard may have had the advantage due to the fuel injection type carb.

Neither; there’s a report, in the National Archives, and, in tests, the A.F.D.S. could find “no practicable difference.”
Edgar