Spitfire Mark designator

Would anyone like to venture the designation for the HFL Burmese Mk IX.

Following its conversion to photo recce capability but maintaining the wing armament would this make a PRLF IXe?

I’d suggest just FR.IXe. Not sure if it’s a genuine designator, but in keeping with the later FR.XIVe. I’ve not seen any primary sources with FR.IX listed as a mark, but I know that the RAF did had armed Mark IX’s with cameras.

After a hefty bit digging in my files to support a conjecture on another forum, I have come to the conclusion that there is or was no such thing as a Spitfire F.Mk IXb or F.Mk IXc….they just did not exist.

Although used widely in post war publications to date, I can find no such designator in official documentation.

Can anybody confirm otherwise?

Mark

As was touched on by others, it was not uncommon during the war for squadrons to call those Spitfires equipped with Merlin 66 engines Spitfire IXB.

Here’s a typical example from a combat report:

This excerpt from a February 1947 Air Ministry report “Air Fighting Tactics Used By Spitfire Squadrons” could be viewed as “official documentation”

HFL’s Burmese Mk IX

Would anyone like to venture the designation for the HFL Burmese Mk IX.

Following its conversion to photo recce capability but maintaining the wing armament would this make a PRLF IXe?

Spitfire WX-F MA843

Voytech

Couple more pictures of the said Spitfire – you maybe have them already?
Kelvin

Ooops!
Hopefully the photo gets there this time.

This is a photo believed to show two Polish Spitfire pilots on 302 Sqn’s MA843 WX-F, one of the numerous Spitfires in MA800-MH400 serial range that seem to have been built from the outset with the ‘single chimney pot’. To me the cannon here looks like perfectly standard ‘C’ wing unit, certainly without the distinctive ‘B’ wing ‘chimney pot’ on the wing leading edge. The photo was taken at Northolt during late September or early October 1943.

Off topic, the sergeant near the fuselage is Alfred Krzysztof Wlodarski who had flown operationally with nos. 315 and 316 Sqns. He was subsequently killed in an accident while ferrying Typhoon IB JR127 on 14 July 1944.
The F/Sgt near the cannon is Kazimierz Benzinski, who served with 302 Sqn and then joined the RAF after WWII, flying Spitfires well into 1950s. During his service he flew several survivors in Polish or RAF squadrons: MJ783 WX-F and MK959 WX-F in 302, TB863 in 691 and 17 Sqns, and possibly also VN485 in 80 Sqn in Hong Kong.

;1062902
There appear to be some slight differences (there are some fixing strips on the join), but it looks the same barrel type as fitted on MH434 although I suppose a close up of one of the barrels on 434 would have made for a better and more detailed comparison.

Any thoughts on this?

Am I barking up the wrong tree? :confused:

Is it possible to fit an ‘e’ wing barrel (both types were screw threaded as I recall) to a ‘c’ wing extension?

Time to hand over to the experts I think! 😉

Cheers

Paul

Paul.

Cannon Shrouds.

These are the sheet metal covers that locate over the cannon barrel at the front, locate on a spigot at the Chimney pot or extension at the rear and are secured by a couple of small bolts riveted to a tag on the rear of the shroud. They are non structural.

There were two types on Mk IX/XVI. Initially they were straight tapered and this may be the type originally fitted to the cannon armed lower marks. Then came the curved or parabolic type, presumably more aerodynamically efficient, and seen principally on late Mk XVI(e) fitted with .5 Browning and in consequence no extension.

Extension Piece.

The extension to the chimney pot is a heavy duty full machining made from either a casting or a thick wall tube and it is securely riveted to the inner aperture. It takes the full load of the front mounting of the cannon, harmonising eccentric etc and is fully structural

All we are seeing on the Dutch post war East India Spitfires is the later shroud fitted to single or dual chimney pots with extension.

Mark

I actually said “to a large degree synonomous with wing structure”, which is slightly different. The A weapons fit won’t go into a B wing so there is clearly a relationship between wing structure and weapons fit. The C wing structure was designed to be adaptable to take more than a single weapons fit so is rather the exception that proves the rule.

Think we’re getting off the track here. The reason they designated the Spitfire V with the Universal wing the Vc was because the V also had two different wing types besides. The A wing and the B wing.

A Spitfire Vc with 8 303s would still have been a Spitfire Vc. The Universal wing was set up to handle 8 303s if needed. The A wing itself was completely different from the Universal wing.

Because the Spitfire IX, VIII, XII, etc were never intended to use the earlier designed A wing or B wing, there was no designator for the Universal wing on those birds. There were only ever going to have the Universal wing. So no Spitfire IXc etc.

It wasn’t until the later development of the E wing and armament that the E designator was added to the Spit IX and XIV and XVI

I would assume that the Spitfire XVIII never had the E designation because it never had any other wing unlike the XIV which started with the Universal wing before settling in with the E wing.

No, it isn’t. Vast majority of Mk VCs flew with 2×20 mm + 4x.303 in. (which equals the ‘B’ weapon fit), you can hardly say that it was “synonymous with wing structure”.

I actually said “to a large degree synonomous with wing structure”, which is slightly different. The A weapons fit won’t go into a B wing so there is clearly a relationship between wing structure and weapons fit. The C wing structure was designed to be adaptable to take more than a single weapons fit so is rather the exception that proves the rule.

The wing structure had to be altered to allow cannon fits, so weapon fit is to a large degree synonomous with wing structure.

No, it isn’t. Vast majority of Mk VCs flew with 2×20 mm + 4x.303 in. (which equals the ‘B’ weapon fit), you can hardly say that it was “synonymous with wing structure”.

Well, not exactly. ‘C’ was a wing structure, and (initially, at least) it could take various weapon fits.

Really, the two go hand in hand. The wing structure had to be altered to allow cannon fits, so weapon fit is to a large degree synonomous with wing structure.

Yes, and as ‘c’ and ‘e’ were more properly the armament designators than wing structure ones anyway.

Well, not exactly. ‘C’ was a wing structure, and (initially, at least) it could take various weapon fits.

Not as simple as that, I’m afraid. Early PR variants of the Spitfire were designated with letters that had nothing to do with the letter designators for wings in fighter variants. So, it wasn’t really the ‘D wing’, it was the ‘PR type D’ Spitfire wing. This was preceded (among others) by ‘PR type B’ and ‘PR type C’ Spitfires, and these were not fitted with the ‘B’ or ‘C’ fighter-type wings.

Yes, and as ‘c’ and ‘e’ were more properly the armament designators than wing structure ones anyway.

‘d’ was the unarmed wing

Not as simple as that, I’m afraid. Early PR variants of the Spitfire were designated with letters that had nothing to do with the letter designators for wings in fighter variants. So, it wasn’t really the ‘D wing’, it was the ‘PR type D’ Spitfire wing. This was preceded (among others) by ‘PR type B’ and ‘PR type C’ Spitfires, and these were not fitted with the ‘B’ or ‘C’ fighter-type wings.

Just so. The early PR types used letters to designate camera and fuel tank fits rather than the wings and later were redesignated as PR III/IV/V etc

The ‘D’ wing was the unarmed PR aircraft wing. Again, as no other wing was carried by the types that used it, a designator wasn’t used

Not as simple as that, I’m afraid. Early PR variants of the Spitfire were designated with letters that had nothing to do with the letter designators for wings in fighter variants. So, it wasn’t really the ‘D wing’, it was the ‘PR type D’ Spitfire wing. This was preceded (among others) by ‘PR type B’ and ‘PR type C’ Spitfires, and these were not fitted with the ‘B’ or ‘C’ fighter-type wings.

O.K, if you bear with me, here’s part of that question, (well I suppose it’s not really a question) but the following might give me the answer! 🙂

Going back to the original IXb/cannon & wing type thread, if you recall, the conclusion from the photo evidence (and how MH434 is configured today) was that the Dutch fitted a different cannon barrel to the extension (I hope I’ve got that right – it is the casting fitted to the wing?) of the ‘c’ wing MKIX’s, ‘chimney pot’ or no ‘chimney pot’, they had in service.

All the photos I’ve seen of Spitfires in Wartime RAF service with the ‘c’ wing, regardless of whether they where a MKV, VII, VIII, IX or XIV – in the case of the IX, with a ‘chimney pot’ or not – had the tapered barrel fitted to the extension, as can be seen in the 1943 Hornchurch picture of MH434 for example, or in the more recent picture of MKVIII MV154 shown below:

I don’t think we ever established though where these barrels the Dutch fitted actually came from, but having looked closely at the various cannon barrel types on both wartime and currently airworthy examples of the marks in question, it seems to me that the barrels they fitted to the extension were the later ‘e’ type ones as seen in this shot of TD248 below. (Note: I say ‘later’ as they appear to have been introduced on later ‘e’ wing IX’s & the XVI,XIV & XVIII – earlier production ‘e’ wing IX’s seem to have had a tapered barrel – something else we can discuss & clarify later!) 😉

To my eye, the shape of the barrel on TD248 looks the same as that fitted to the extension on MH434 in the pictures taken when she was in service with the Dutch, and as she is at today:

I’ve noticed that a few of the airworthy ‘c’ wing Spitfires have this type of barrel also, when originally they would have had a tapered one fitted to the extension. Whilst not a MKIX, AR501 is an example that springs to mind:

There appear to be some slight differences (there are some fixing strips on the join), but it looks the same barrel type as fitted on MH434 although I suppose a close up of one of the barrels on 434 would have made for a better and more detailed comparison.

Any thoughts on this?

Am I barking up the wrong tree? :confused:

Is it possible to fit an ‘e’ wing barrel (both types were screw threaded as I recall) to a ‘c’ wing extension?

Time to hand over to the experts I think! 😉

Cheers

Paul

Hi
just curiosity, and slightly O/T
but if an a, b & c wing did exist,
what would the ‘d’ wing have been …
a 2 x 40mm ? as per the hurricane ?

or is my mind straying
cheers
jerry

The ‘D’ wing was the unarmed PR aircraft wing. Again, as no other wing was carried by the types that used it, a designator wasn’t used

This topic has suddenly sprung back to life on AWF with a fascinating insight on the paperwork from Bob Sikkel.

Only suitable for dedicated followers of Spitfire minutia.:)

Mark

http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6843&sid=9660a388ca554e5c89463fd649da82ec

No fair cheating by throwing in DP845 with the 6 cannon wooden mock up look 🙂

Does this mean DP845 started with an A wing, later changed to a Universal or was it a Universal wing to begin with, without cannons?. Those early photos of DP845 with rounded tail and no cannons makes me wonder

Dan

This topic has suddenly sprung back to life on AWF with a fascinating insight on the paperwork from Bob Sikkel.

Only suitable for dedicated followers of Spitfire minutia.:)

Mark

http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6843&sid=9660a388ca554e5c89463fd649da82ec

Mark

Many thanks for that link.

Very interesting read. 🙂

Not wanting to complicate or confuse this issue further, but I do have a question on the various types of cannon barrell, but I think I’ll leave it till later! 😉

Cheers

Paul

This topic has suddenly sprung back to life on AWF with a fascinating insight on the paperwork from Bob Sikkel.

Only suitable for dedicated followers of Spitfire minutia.:)

Mark

http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6843&sid=9660a388ca554e5c89463fd649da82ec