Spitfire IX /XVI

Thanks for that chaps, something else I never knew!

Definitely possible, and done on at least three preserved examples (two XVIs and an 18 to my knowledge).

TE184 (Mk.XVI) – originally a low-back, restored to a high-back. Under restoration at PPS, Booker
TE392 (Mk.XVI) – originally a low-back, restored to a high-back. Airworthy with Lone Star Flight Museum, Galveston TX
TP263 (Mk.XVIII) – restored to a high-back Mk.XIV. Displayed at the National War and Resistance Museum, Overloon, Netherlands

Right, so was this conversion ever carried out in the factory or while in service, or was it purely a private owners thing?
Like you say it seems that you loose alot of the airframes originality.

TE308 (Mk.IX) – originally a low-back, converted by Vickers to a high-back Tr.9

Right, so was this conversion ever carried out in the factory or while in service, or was it purely a private owners thing?
Like you say it seems that you loose alot of the airframes originality.

Is that possible?
You would think that the internal structure would be too different between the two different fusalage dimemsions.

The conversion was accomplished in 2 different ways, one was to cut all the frames from 11 to 18 at the horzontal datum point, and reattach new build top halves, and a new spine; the disadvantage with this method, is that the low back frames are a thicker gauge (18g) than the high back ones (20g), and you have very obvious joining plates, which are visible at the cockpit end.

The second way is to replace the whole of the frames and the spine, which is asthetically better, but you lose a lot of aeroplane, (especially if you replace the skin as well).

Is that possible?
You would think that the internal structure would be too different between the two different fusalage dimemsions.

Definitely possible, and done on at least three preserved examples (two XVIs and an 18 to my knowledge).

Tha Mark XVI has a retractable tailwheel

Nope. Fixed.

Wasn’t the different cowl top down to differing manufacturing methods at Southampton and Castle Bromwich?

Did I note on the deCadinet Spitfire XVI (TE184)(a low back converted to high back) …
Kurt

Is that possible?
You would think that the internal structure would be too different between the two different fusalage dimemsions.

Tha Mark XVI has a retractable tailwheel; nearly all operational XVIs had clipped wings. The wing cannon are usually “inside out” with the longer cannon barrel in the outboard position. Most XVIs had the pointed rudder.

IIRC TB863 is a highback Mk XVI.

Cheers

Cees

Oh yes, Cees. You, Mark V and Mark12 are correct. Thanks for the enlightenment.

All looks ‘Double-Dutch’ to me.

RNethAF.

Mark

Indeed! 😮 Apologies Dutch Air Force…my memory is fading me in ‘Old Age’ 😀

Thanks Daz, Thats the one. Interesting it was taken out of a museum to fly, It’s usually the other way around!

I guess she’s work in progress with ARCo/HFL

All looks ‘Double-Dutch’ to me.

RNethAF.

Mark

found a picture of it…

http://www.airshows.org.uk/2006/airshows/duxfordsept/photographs/spitfires_new_3.jpg

Sounds like the machine that crashed in South Africa in a sad fatal incident.
Her mortal remains went to Australia.

That was TE566, was it not?

Interesting, I’d also wrongly assumed that ‘low-backs’ were XVI’s 😮 Ooops. Cant say I ‘d noticed the ‘Bulged cowling tops before’

Slightly off thread 😮 at Duxford, couple of years ago a Spitfire was on shown, Dark Green in ‘Czech’? markings? at a Spitfire Day? Does anyone have any information as to what the current status of this aeroplane is.

I seem to recall it had a serial similar to MH434? Something like MH435 or similar.

Cheers
🙂

MJ271 perhaps?

Sounds like the machine that crashed in South Africa in a sad fatal incident.
Her mortal remains went to Australia.

Interesting, I’d also wrongly assumed that ‘low-backs’ were XVI’s 😮 Ooops. Cant say I ‘d noticed the ‘Bulged cowling tops before’

Slightly off thread 😮 at Duxford, couple of years ago a Spitfire was on shown, Dark Green in ‘Czech’? markings? at a Spitfire Day? Does anyone have any information as to what the current status of this aeroplane is.

I seem to recall it had a serial similar to MH434? Something like MH435 or similar.

Cheers
🙂

IIRC TB863 is a highback Mk XVI.

Cheers

Cees

As are RR263, SM411, TB252, TB382, and TB752 and (presumably?) TB885. TD135 is pictured as a high-back version, but could this have originally been a low-back?

One af the biggest visible differences is that the MkXVI had the Packard Merlin 266. I think this had an integrated intercooler/header tank that required a slight bulge in the top engine cowl.

Speedy,

You are correct about the intergrated intercooler header tank, but I think you’ll find later MKIX’s had the bulged top cowling also. You’ll notice this type appears to be used on all of the airworthy MKIX’s today, even if they didn’t have it originally, like MH434 for example. 😉

Here’s some scans from the A.P showing the intercooler installation on the Packard 266:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/packard266-intercooling-system.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/packard266-engine-installation.jpg

I’m pretty sure this subject was talked about here before, although I can’t recall if there was a mention of what time period the later type top cowl was introduced.

Cheers

Paul

IIRC TB863 is a highback Mk XVI.

Cheers

Cees

Correct.