Treadstone,

You might want to check here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

I’m pretty sure that there is some turn rate comparison charts in the various Spitfire v’s 109 variants sections.

It truly is a great site, and now has a companion site called WWII Aircraft performance:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Cheers

Paul

I think Tester summed the up the take off and landing issues with the 109 very well.

I’ve read many modern day pilots reports on flying the 109/Buchon, and it seems they all agree that once the drama of the take off is over (the landing you can worry about later!), and whilst heavy on the controls (especially the elevator), it is actually a nice aircraft to fly.

The main reason it’s ground handling/directional stability is so poor is that the CoG is so far aft of the main wheels, which means it will swap ends without any provication, hence the tailwheel lock. Combine this with the U/C design & layout, you have all the ingredients for a nasty accident, as many wartime and current 109 pilots have found out!

As for the two seater, I believe Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown flew one, and found it a rather nerve racking experience whilst flown from the back seat, pretty much for the reasons Tester mentions.

Cheers

Paul

Is It Really Racism?

Whilst I agree BB is an example of the kind of dross on TV these days, I do not agree about there being any racism towards Shilpa Shetty. I think the whole ‘race’ issue has been blown out of proportion, and unfortunately, it’s political correctness rearing it’s ugly head again. 😡

From what I’ve seen, I really can’t see any sign of racism or bullying towards Ms Shetty, and even the media seem confused, as one minute it’s racism, the next bullying! :confused:

It’s nothing more than women bitching for god’s sake!

What puzzles me is, if the likes of Jade Goody & the other women were racists, why aren’t they making racist comments towards Jermaine Jackson? (I didn’t think racists were that selective). And if I recall correctly, didn’t he call Jade’s mum ‘White Trash’ the other day? Funny how this seems to have slipped the media’s memory! :rolleyes:

I think the worrying thing is that these days, if you happen to call someone who’s skin is not the same colour as yours, something as innocuous as an ‘Idiot’ or have an argument or disagreement with them, you’re instantly branded a racist! That can’t be right, and that’s exactly what we are seeing here – three women who happen to be white and English and don’t get on with another, who happens to be Indian.

I wonder if this would be national news and hot debate if Shilpa and two of the other girls where showing the same sort of hostility towards Jade for example?

I think not!

Cheers

Paul

Paul,

Although I can direct you to many hundreds of post-WWII books and photo captions to the contrary, there are no references in Air Publications to Mk IX Spitfires having ‘B’/’b’, ‘C’/’c’ or ‘Universal’ wings. They just did not exist.

It was just basically F.Mk.IX plus prefix change for engine rating and latterly referred to as ‘early Mk IX’ Spitfires in the AP’s with the introduction of the .5 Browning with the designation F.Mk IX(e).

Clearly the Mk IX uses the MK VC wing as the starting point for upgrade/redesign but the IX was only originally to be a stop gap measure until the Mk VIII was sorted. In the event they just kept on building.

I and I guess many others have fallen in to the trap of seeing Mk IX Spitfires with single or twin aperture ‘Chimney Pot’ castings on the leading edges and applied the logic of the MK V armament attribution. We were wrong.

So shock horror, MH434 was not originally built as a LF Mk IXB.

Single or twin ‘Chimney Pot’ castings is more to do with using up stock of Mk V leading edge components and utilising existing tooling, as a short term measure, and carrying a capped off and redundant pot in the case of the twin. The down stream anticipation of the introduction of the .5 Browning, when service and reliability trials were complete, may also have an influence here.

Mark

Mark, you are of course correct and I should have learnt from the recent posts on the subject! Indeed, I made the same observation about their only being an ‘e’ suffix in the MKIX Pilots notes! As someone who’s always trying to tell people that there was never officially a IXA, IXB, FIXB,LFIXB etc, it seems I’ve fallen into a similar trap with the wings! 😮

Paul, can you really see it in the photo? Gosh, I will have to see a doctor about my eyes.

Voytech, the Spitfire nearest the camera (MK202/S) has the cannon extension (can’t see the chimney pot) so one would assume it also had 4 x 303’s and therefore not an ‘e’ wing. On some of the others, you can just see the cannon shroud which is too long for the ‘e’ wing.

As for the cowlings, I don’t know if the terms were correct, but I meant that some have the earlier flatter type as can be seen on MK202, whilst some have the later ‘Bulged’ (I’ve seen it refered to as this) such as (can’t make out the serial) OU-Y.

Cheers

Paul

Might not be quite what we looking for, but attached below is a scan of a picture of 485 sqn taken at Bovingdon, March 1944, from the book ‘Spitfire In Action by Jerry Scutts.

There seems to be a mixture of MKIX’s – some with broad chord and the earlier type rudder, flat & blown top cowlings, but what is clear on the aircraft where you can see them, is that they have the ‘universal’ wing with cannon extension and ‘chimney pot’, or possibly without as per MH434.

According to the caption, the identifiable machines are:

MK347/P, MK249/J, MK293/A, MK202/S & MK246/M.

Would it be fair to assume that MK732 had the ‘universal’ wing (as she does today) as all the pictures I’ve seen of aircraft in this serial range appear to have them. And I’m pretty sure the few wartime shots I’ve seen of ML407, whilst not to clear, show it with the ‘universal wing’ with a ‘chimney pot’.

And come to think of it, the wartime shots of both MK356 & ML417 show the ‘universal wing’ fitted, but they were of course restored with the ‘e’ wing or at least the castings for the barrels!

Cheers

Paul

Photo Credit: USAF

Those 40ft containers sure are deceptive, must be the “Tardis” principal they use in Area 51. Still you all know best……………….
Never knew P-38’s had a 266 up front though:p

Could this be Tom Blair’s PL344 perhaps? 😉

Cheers

Paul

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