Spitfire Mk. T.IX (MODIFIED)

I may be wrong Daz (and I am sure that PA will correct me if I am), but the aircraft converted by Vickers (like 407) don’t count as modified, where as those done as a modern conversion to two seaters are modified. – thats my guess in any case 😀

I may be wrong Daz (and I am sure that PA will correct me if I am), but the aircraft converted by Vickers (like 407) don’t count as modified, where as those done as a modern conversion to two seaters are modified. – thats my guess in any case 😀

Hmm. If that’s the case, then SM520/G-ILDA should have the same description, but doesn’t. :confused:

Hmm. If that’s the case, then SM520/G-ILDA should have the same description, but doesn’t. :confused:

I don’t think SM520 was one of the Vickers conversions, unless it was IAC160?

158
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF7722 MJ627

159
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF7269 MJ772

160
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF????

161
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF9590 PV202

162
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF8643 ML407

163
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF11432 TE308

I don’t think SM520 was one of the Vickers conversions, unless it was IAC160?

Thats what Daz is saying!

That if the modified term applies to non Vickers conversions then why doesnt SM520 carry it as well?

Jon

Thats was Daz is saying!

That if the modified term applies to non Vickers conversions then why doesnt SM520 carry it as well?

Jon

I see that now – I’ll get my coat:D

Total guess, because PT462 was fitted with the shorter mark 8 style of aileron?

More likely because that’s how the permit application was filled in at the time.

Surely a little thing such as shorter span ailerons won’t make much of a difference?

If that’s the case, though, was PL344 ever certified as such, as I recall most Charles Church Spits had the aileron mods….?

I know nowt about Spits, but wouldn’t shortened ailerons have a greater effect on actual flying characteristics, compared to other mods?

Hmm. If that’s the case, then SM520/G-ILDA should have the same description, but doesn’t. :confused:

Hi all SM520 was converted to aT9 in 2003 .

Steve

I don’t think SM520 was one of the Vickers conversions, unless it was IAC160?

158
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF7722 MJ627

159
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF7269 MJ772

160
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF????

161
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF9590 PV202

162
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF8643 ML407

163
Supermarine V.S. 509 Spitfire T.9
CBAF11432 TE308

Oh, here we go again, all the Irish Spitfires were to Specification 502.
I am now about to put my head down…down…lower…
Tony K

Trainer nomenclature

One interesting point is that in all Vickers’ documentation the terms T.8, T.9, Tr.8, Tr.9 – and their Roman equivalents – simply do not exist.

The documentation simply refers to the two seaters as “Spitfire Trainer” – with “Trainer” ofter appearing as “TRAINER”.

It’s a dilemma when I’m writing “the book” … as are the L.F.IXb and c … which never existed …

(Running for cover)

One interesting point is that in all Vickers’ documentation the terms T.8, T.9, Tr.8, Tr.9 – and their Roman equivalents – simply do not exist.

The documentation simply refers to the two seaters as “Spitfire Trainer” – with “Trainer” ofter appearing as “TRAINER”.

It’s a dilemma when I’m writing “the book” … as are the L.F.IXb and c … which never existed …

(Running for cover)

Hold on G-ORDY for a minute as I raise my head slightly.
Vickers documents in relation to the Irish Air Corps contract used the following terms,
1/ SPITFIRE TRAINER AIRCRAFT (all capitals)
2/ SPITFIRE MARK IX TRAINER – EIRE (all capitals)
3/ Spitfire Dual Control Trainer Aircraft Mark 9 ( written in that form)
4/ And under general states….The aircraft will be converted from Mark IX Spitfires Ex RAF

HTH

darrenharbar
Spitfire 160 was CBAF 1721 ex MK721

Regards
Tony K

darrenharbar
Spitfire 160 was CBAF 1721 ex MK721

Regards
Tony K

Thanks Tony – that’s useful info, as I wondered what the other aircraft’s ID was. 🙂

Hold on G-ORDY for a minute as I raise my head slightly.
Vickers documents in relation to the Irish Air Corps contract used the following terms,
1/ SPITFIRE TRAINER AIRCRAFT (all capitals)
2/ SPITFIRE MARK IX TRAINER – EIRE (all capitals)
3/ Spitfire Dual Control Trainer Aircraft Mark 9 ( written in that form)
4/ And under general states….The aircraft will be converted from Mark IX Spitfires Ex RAF

HTH

darrenharbar
Spitfire 160 was CBAF 1721 ex MK721

Regards
Tony K

Thanks for the clarification Tony – I probably oversimplified my original comment, which was to say that the currently used “T.9” etc was not a term used by Vickers at the time of manufacture.

I always assumed that the Type 502 only covered MT818/G-AIDN and that all of those converted from Mk.IX Spitfires were Type 509?

Gordon

Oh, here we go again, all the Irish Spitfires were to Specification 502.
I am now about to put my head down…down…lower…
Tony K

I know we have been there before Tony but Type 502 was specific to the Mk VIII TRAINER. There is no commonality and interhangeability between Mk VIII and MK IX fuselages and wings.

I suspect that with no take up with the Mk VIII TRAINER with the RAF or major Air Forces, Vickers opted to convert the simpler, cheaper and widely available MK IX, the type 509.

The Irish Air Corps may have initiated their contract when type 502s were still on the table but what they received were type 509 Mk IX TRAINERS. All the Vickers drawings available, and they are substantial, support this nomenclature.

I would suggest that the IAC documentation is just sloppy contract management

Mark

It’ll all be in the book. 🙂

Something that always struck me as odd when looking at the register entry for Spitfire Tr.9 G-CTIX/PT462 was the term (MODIFIED).
What’s modified about ‘462? I had thought it was the low-profile “Grace” canopy, but ML407 doesn’t have (MODIFIED) in its entry.

Perhaps it relates to the paint scheme having been “modified” by our American friends into one of their finest US representations of RAF camouflage…High gloss of course. If only the CAF Wildcat could be here for a duo of how not to do it! :rolleyes:

Maybe our American friends would point us in the direction of her British scheme circa 1987!

Maybe our American friends would point us in the direction of her British scheme circa 1987!

But that was authentic, didn’t CC say so, so it must have been…;)

Perhaps ‘cos PT462 & SM520 have Packard-Merlins ??

I know we have been there before Tony.

The Irish Air Corps may have initiated their contract when type 502s were still on the table but what they received were type 509 Mk IX TRAINERS. All the Vickers drawings available, and they are substantial, support this nomenclature.

I would suggest that the IAC documentation is just sloppy contract management

Mark

It’ll all be in the book. 🙂

Hi Peter,
I know that we have discussed this before and knowing some of the people who were responsible at the time both in the contracts section and the Chief Aeronautical Engineers section of the Air Corps I would not go down the road of sloppy contract management. I certainly would not suggest that the Vickers -Armstrong Advice and Release Note for Spitfire 159 dated 5 June 1951 ( the date it was delivered to Ireland) which specifies type 502 was also the result of sloppy management. Its there in black and white.

ah feck it Peter, when are we going to get the BOOK!
Regards
Tony