Whats in a name?

Thanks Mark, so do any of the airworthy Spitfires have non-identical legs?

Stuart

Well obviously to be avoided but the A.P. for Mk XIV for example does say that some legs can be paired with others and it lists them.

For many of the legs a dedicated gear door is required. At a basic level ‘front link’ doors do not fit on ‘rear link’ legs but it is much more complex than just that.

Mark

Thanks Mark, so do any of the airworthy Spitfires have non-identical legs?

Stuart

Thanks for that Mark, I’d never seen such a comparison before.
Twice the weight and twice the power…..impressive.
The undercarriage loading statistic is interesting, I thought that Seafires had a reputation for having a weak undercarriage and frequent collapses from the violence of carrier landings, yet in the table is rated at three times the loading of the Spitfire mk1. Was this a problem with earlier Seafires that was fixed by beefing up the undercarriage on the 47?

Stuart

Stuart,

I think on my last count I had seen over 25 external variations on the development of the Spitfire/Seafire main gear. Permutations of spline type, forward and rear scissor link rotational control, axles at various ‘toe ins’ and camber.

Increasingly heavy duty body forgings and axles followed by lightened versions to save a few ounces of weight. Seafire ‘add-ons’ etc etc. When you get to the 20 series wing, a complete new u/c design, massive by comparison to the early spline type originals and even at this late stage in the war, with relatively limited production, there were still at least three major design iterations.

This is one of the reasons collectors looking for legs struggle to match a pair. It is a bit like a game of ‘Spitfire rummy’.

Mark

Thanks for that Mark, I’d never seen such a comparison before.
Twice the weight and twice the power…..impressive.
The undercarriage loading statistic is interesting, I thought that Seafires had a reputation for having a weak undercarriage and frequent collapses from the violence of carrier landings, yet in the table is rated at three times the loading of the Spitfire mk1. Was this a problem with earlier Seafires that was fixed by beefing up the undercarriage on the 47?

Stuart

I read once that the increase in weight between the first and last Spitfires was the equivalent of a Mk.I taking off complete with 32 airline passengers and their luggage!

Don’t know where they’d sit…

Very interesting comparison there Mark, fascinating reading.

I wouldn’t want to have been the man who had to measure the rate of roll in a Spifire 1 though. Max level speed 362mph, max diving speed 450mph, and he not only gets asked to measure the roll rate at 400, but manages to establish that it is 14.0 degrees per second!! Yikes!!

Spitfire re-name

At the change of wing profile with the ‘torque box’ design at the ‘twenty series’ a change of name to Victor for the Mk 21 was mooted but not taken up.

That said if you compare a Mk I Spitfire fuselage and a Seafire 47 fuselage, the centre line of spar attachment, the upright firewall and the tail annulus frame, the pilot position and controls are all in the identical position.

What sets the Spitfire basic design in a class above its peers was the ability of it to be developed to such an amazing extant whilst still retaining its flying qualities well within the scope of a typical service pilot.

I’ll dig out some of the comparative figures.

Mark