Looking for PRU Spitfire Experts.

Thank you Antoni, thank you All.

I had mistaken the windscreen from a photo of a PR.IX and my not-to-clear photos of the FR.IX. I now see the internal bullet proof windscreen, thank you.

Further measurements of the cockpit structure last night indicate that the channel selector will fit near the Type 35 but it is tight. I think I will go ahead and put it there.

cheers

.

Without even looking, I can tell you that the Fr.IXs flown by 16 Squadron DID have bulletproof windscreens, and full armament.

Planes of Fame Vol 5 article by Dr Alfred Price Spitfire Spyplanes

It would beg the question, “Why remove the bulletproof windscreen for low-level ops?” Surely that would be where it was most needed, to offer protection against AA-fire, enemy aircraft and, quite possibly, bird-strike?

Isn’t that why PL965 currently has the same windscreen fitted?

This shot of a ‘pink’ 16 Squadron FR IX by Fl/Lt Jimmy Taylor, together with others, shows the cannons still apparently fitted and operable and also the internal armoured Mk IX windscreen.

Technically the ‘armourglass’ could have been removed and replaced with say .375″ perspex and a spacer…but I doubt it.

Mark

Without even looking, I can tell you that the Fr.IXs flown by 16 Squadron DID have bulletproof windscreens, and full armament.

Hi Colin,

Thanks for your input. I see what you mean but regarding the FR.IX there is some evidence that it was stripped down. At least one had cannon removed (I have seen a photo of this). I also know from records that most of the FR.IXs were factory conversions, not “on base”. The Radios that it did carry were moved forward and the oblique camera gear intruded on space normally reserved for radio.

The Type 35 was mounted on the left cockpit wall. As a pilot, I can’t quite get the utility of moving the selector..I would have thought that the Type 35 would have sat just as comfortably and accessibly above the rudder trim. I have seen no evidence (nor even suggestion) of where the selector would/could have been moved to. In fact in a drawing of the cockpit layout it makes comment that the gun camera footage counter can be fitted at that spot in lieu of the Type 35.

Perhaps, though, this is a clue. Maybe the Selector fits forward of the Type 35, re-examining the cockpit photo’s I have, this seems possible. It would be a tight fit though from the look of it.

I must admit that having the selector and the ’35 would be a bonus and look good in the cockpit….but I want it to be as accurate as possible.

Re “Dicing”. I think that because of the low level these missions were flown as quietly as possible. It was hard for the enemy to intercept an outgoing Recce at 35000 over the channel, not nearly as hard to catch a low flying Spitty heading home. Oxygen starvation was, of course, not an issue either. Low level navigation was more so. Position information may have been helpful!

I confirm it is the dusky off white/ pinkish FR.IX that I am building. They appear to have had mostly normal armaments but lacked the bullet proof windscreen, sporting the PRU version instead.

I am still researching flight plans and operating proceedures.
cheers

FR.IX is Fighter Reconnaissance not pure PR

Just to clarify, the FR.IX was a fighter reconnaissance version of the Spitfire IX. It’s primary area of operation was low to medium altitude, not high altitude like the pure PR Spitfires such as the PR.X and PR.XI. It was intended for shorter range tactical reconnaissance rather than longer range strategic reconnaissance, so did not have the ‘wet’ wings and full camera fit. The usual camera installation was a single oblique F.24 camera installed in the rear fuselage pointing out to port. As such the degree of modification carried out on the FR.IX in relation to reducing weight was minimal. It carried armament, had a gun sight and the usual R/T and IFF gear as would apply to a normal Spitfire IX. They were used by a number of Squadrons, in a range of camouflage, ranging from standard day fighter scheme to the ‘pink’ FR.IXs used by No.16 Sqdn on ‘dicing’ sorties.

In relation to PR.XIs, they normally carried full R/T gear. Instances of PR.XI pilots calling for a homing in bad weather are well recorded, as are instances where PR.XI pilots suffering oxygen starvation called in to their home base and had to be talked into heading in the correct direction to get home safely.

Whilst there were ingress and egress lanes, they were not the be all and end all to controlling aircraft in and out of the UK. IFF played a big part in that and even PRU aircraft would give a radio call at a designated point on re-entering the coast to confirm their identity and to let their home base know they were basically home and safe. It would normally be a simple call of a sortie callsign and a codeword given on a defined frequency for the sector control of the Fighter Command sector they were coming into, so their radio traffic was in amongst all the other radio traffic for that sector and as such would not stand out. They would retain radio silence on the way out and for most of the sortie, but on returning home and clear of the enemy coast, requests for homings were conducted just as routinely for fighters, bombers and other aircraft.

HTH.

Surely, on return, RT traffic with the goodies isn’t going to interest the baddies anyway? Also, some PR flights were made to show the baddies they were being recce’d….. i.e. to deceive the baddies that we hadn’t broken their encryption.

Hi Speedy,

Actually in any set defensive system, there are specific egress and ingress lanes. Listening in on traffic both ways is valuable intelligence. So the baddies would be more than happy to receive position and tracking info on a Photo Recce.

And yes, many PRU flights were to say “we are watching you” but most of those were actually to say “we are watching you here” whilst in fact distracting attention away from the real target…ie recon of Pas de Calais to distract from the real D Day invasion targets

.

Surely, on return, RT traffic with the goodies isn’t going to interest the baddies anyway? Also, some PR flights were made to show the baddies they were being recce’d….. i.e. to deceive the baddies that we hadn’t broken their encryption.