Spit identification

That teardrop bulge on the cowling wasn’t on many Mk.IXs either.

It was to cover the Coffman starter mount on the Merlin 61/63A. It was fitted on those to use for the cabin blower.

The bulge generally wasn’t present when the aircraft was fitted with a Merlin 63 or 66.

The stbd side engine cowling on a mk XVI doesn’t have the teardrop bulge (located at the front of the cowling) ;presumably the bit of kit (technical term elludes me) that is located on the side of the reduction casing is either deleted ,or else a modified item, not taking up as much space.

I am not an expert but I was just wondering what the main driver was in building MKXVI was over the MKIX LF variant. Shortage of RR engines perhaps?

I was once told by a wise old sage that the continued production of the Mk XVI was more to do with a surplus, or rather a commitment to purchase American built engines, rather than a lack of the RR built variety. In effect we had a commitment to buy these motors so it was natural to continue to make something to put them in! I have not researched the validity of this statement though.

I was always under the impression that the exhaust stubs were a slightly differant shape. Is this the case???

Not a feature that is 100% exclusive to the XVI.

Ah, the mysteries of the different MKIX/XVI cowlings!

As in the case of MKVIII MV154/MT928.

Paul, I was trying to refer to the position of the access panel for the inter-cooler filler as being a feature that will tell you with 100% certainty if a Packard Merlin 266 is ‘under the bonnet’, not the shape of the top cowling as this seems not to be exclusive to this installation.

I was always under the impression that the exhaust stubs were a slightly differant shape. Is this the case???

If I recall correctly, it was because of the differences between the RR Merlin and the Packard Merlin that they decided to issue the Packard-engined aircraft with a new Mark number.

Feel free to correct, of course.

Dear all, Thanks for all your posts and clearing that up.

I am not an expert but I was just wondering what the main driver was in building MKXVI was over the MKIX LF variant. Shortage of RR engines perhaps?

For that matter why not just concentrate on building the MKXIV if the low altitude performance was satisfactory. I guess the production facilities at Keevil were somewhat limited compared to CBAF.

Yeah, I vaguely recall that cowling thread, too.

Ah, the mysteries of the different MKIX/XVI cowlings!

This will tell you if a Packard 266 is under the cowlings but, of course, this engine was only exclusive to the Mk XVI during service so will not be of too much assistance today.

As in the case of MKVIII MV154/MT928. 😉

Accoriding to G-INFO, this has a Merlin 266, but if you look closely, you’ll see it has the earlier style ‘Flat’ Top cowling (attached is picture of it and one of TD248 for comparison) as fitted to MKVIII’s & early IX’s (I’ve never seen any wartime pictures of VIII’s with the later ‘Blown’ type).

I believe when this came up for discussion before, Mark12 mentioned that VoyTech had written a detailed piece on the various cowlings, something I still haven’t yet managed to get hold of!

Cheers

Paul

Blimey, thanks for that bit of info – still so much I don’t know about the good ol’ Spit! :rolleyes:

Not sure if it was the website linked below, but I remember reading somewhere that the XVIs had a slight bulge on the upper cowling, and the filler cap access panel relocated.

This will tell you if a Packard 266 is under the cowlings but, of course, this engine was only exclusive to the Mk XVI during service so will not be of too much assistance today.

Not sure if it was the website linked below, but I remember reading somewhere that the XVIs had a slight bulge on the upper cowling, and the filler cap access panel relocated. No doubt this info’s come from one of the hardcopy Spit tomes anyway:

http://folk.uio.no/hungnes/avia/spitfire/mkixvar.htm

Specifically:

On later examples, and on the MkXVI, this swelling in the upper engine panel contour is significantly exaggerated. I have not seen “official” explanations for this change, but there must have been some good reason, as the view from the cockpit was limited enough as it was. The modified contour is typically seen on MkXVI’s and many MkIXe’s. It may have been introduced to make room for the modified intercooler of the MkXVI’s Packard-built Merlin 266, which had an integral header tank. The Merlin 61,63, 66, and 70 had a flat-topped intercooler and a separate, firewall-mounted header tank. The Mk.XVI was built in parallel with the late Mk.IX’s, more or less on the same Castle Bromwich assembly line. The difference in header tank configuration between the Mk.IXe and Mk.XVI is also reflected in different positioning of the filler cap access panel. As far as I’m aware, this might be the only external difference between the two marks. Most kits and drawings show this hatch in the forward position, perhaps due to the fact that many currently flying examples use Merlins with the integral tank.

As the guy says, many later IXs had it too, even if it was a mod introduced for the XVIs Packard. So no more useful in separating IX from XVI than the pointed rudder, but hopefully of interest nonetheless to those who haven’t heard of it.

that would be the markXI you were thinking of DJ

You’re right. I apologise.

😮

Jay

No External difference whatsoever.

that would be the markXI you were thinking of DJ

Been looking at a few photos on the photographic forum, SEMAE’s of TD248 and TA805 and am now not at all convinced that wasnt ********.

Jay

I’m no expert and only going on my memory of seeing the marks at airshows, but doesnt the underside of the nose bulge further forward on the Mk XVI than on the MkIX, which has a smoother curve to the packard merlin version?

I am sure someone more informed might set me straight.

Jay

Then you’ve also got lowback MkIXs and XVIs to add to the fun! 😀

Serial Number 😀

Seriously though I can’t think of one as some IXs had pointed Rudders. Unless there’s some small difference in the shape of the top cowl, as I’m fairly sure that the RR and Packards used different shaped Charge/Inter Coolers. There was a big thing about this a few years ago when the various new 1:48 scale spits were released, maybe someone else has a more conclusive answer.

Tom