greetings all
I have always been slightly confused as to what the differences are, physically and developmentally, between the mark VIII and IX Spitfires; beyond the obvious (retractable tailwheel), what exactly seperates these two marks? I have often read that they were developed quite seperately, or more precisely the VIII was a new development whilst the IX was an outgrowth of the V (and quite successful at that); please feel free to correct me here if I am wrong. Is it as simple as the fact that the VIII was a planned new version, while the IX was developed as a stop-gap measure to meet the Fw190 threat? If so, why was the development of the VIII continued, as the IX seemed to do just fine in all areas?
I guess what I am after here is an explanation of why these two very similar, yet at the same time apparently quite different machines, came about, and why.
cheers
greg v.
By: Bruce - 8th February 2006 at 11:13
Yes, a feeling I know only too well!
By: Mark12 - 8th February 2006 at 10:52
I bet you have one of each hanging on the wall….
🙂
Bruce
Bruce,
Not quite, but I have been frustrated trying to make up LH/RH pairs in condition various in years gone by.
Mark
By: Bruce - 8th February 2006 at 09:57
I bet you have one of each hanging on the wall….
🙂
Bruce
By: Mark12 - 8th February 2006 at 09:36
Ah yes but which trailing link?
I think there were well over 25 obvious external variations on Spitfire/Seafire u/c leg. Certainly several with control links to the rear.
Mark
By: Bruce - 8th February 2006 at 09:20
The trailing link leg was a conversion of the original Mk 5 leg, and uses similar forgings, albeit without the external bolts that hold it all together. If you dismantle a trailing link leg, you will see what I mean. There were however so many different types of Spitfire leg, you would need a comprehensive book to work them all out!
The tail was also different on the Mk VIII compared to the V or IX, being more similar to the Mk XIV tail again. I believe it was actually carried over from the Mk III.
Bruce
By: stuart gowans - 8th February 2006 at 09:08
Not everything on the mkVII was better than the mkV or the mkIX ,the trailing links on the U/C legs were not carried over, either because they weren’t as good at controlling side loads i.e directional stability ,or more likely the sheer complexity of the U/C door ,which compared to the mkV & mkIX ,must have been a nightmare to produce, as they don’t seem to contain any parts common to the other types. The doors I have carry the inspection stamps for Southampton, however I don’t know if they were all made there.
By: Mark12 - 7th February 2006 at 22:58
It is the wing.
There were development delays hence the jump over Mark number.
The wing was substantially reinforced and is in fact basically the same wing as on the Mk XIV.
Leading edge fuel tanks were incorporated.
Mark
By: Papa Lima - 7th February 2006 at 22:19
“The Mark VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane and . . . was allocated to the overseas commands while Fighter Command soldiered on with the Mark IX in the temperate conditions at home.” Jeffrey Quill’s conclusion on page 204 of the said book. As Archer says, it’s a vital source and provides detailed information about the differences between the two!
By: Archer - 7th February 2006 at 22:13
I cannot give you the answer from my memory, but I do know where to find it! (Helpful chap aren’t I :p )
I haven’t got the book here otherwise I would be happy to look it up, but Jeffrey Quill’s ‘Spitfire, a Test Pilot’s story’ very elaborately describes the development of the Spitfire from Mk.I to Mk.24 and beyond. I’m sure someone with a better memory will answer your question in due course, but if the subject interests you I would suggest getting hold of a copy.
Sign In
February 7, 2006 at 9:14 pm