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.

Did we not already agree on this back in the great Universal Wing debate of 2004 complete with photos?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20000&highlight=Spitfire+Wing

Being a Spit XII nut, all I have besides the Spit V Manual is a photo copy of the Spit XII manual where it references the “Universal wing type main plane as fitted to the Spitfire Vc” but never designating it a Spitfire XIIc.

Dan

To pictures from Friston in May 1943 when the Spit XIIs of 41 Squadron moved in.

The pilots in the one photo are: F/L Hugh Parry (with the sledge), F/O Herb Wagner (center) S/L Tom Niel (right). F/O Peter Cowell (holding the stake) Possibly MB854 EB-Z in the background, but I’m not positive on that.

Other photo shows the rather primitive conditions at Friston.

Dan

I spend a bit of time flying in an online flight sim where the guys I “fly” with all fly 38s, so I did some fictional nose art just for fun, based on the 475th FG, and the 80th FS.

Mine is Miss Fire II since I’m a lousy shot, usually single engine etc. Including a couple others.

Dan

Wow! What a beauty. I hate not being wealthy enough to have one!

Now about EN224? When do we see pictures of that bird? 🙂

Dan

One of the first kits I ever built, probably at about age7-8 was the Revell 1/72nd scale Spitfire. Awful to look at now, but we’d slap them together, forget the gear as that doesn’t look like it’s flying, snap off the prop blades as that doesn’t look like it’s flying, and then fly em! 🙂

After too many wrecks, the pyro in us would come out and there would be a crash and burn. I tracked this kit down for nostalgia’s sake years ago.

And probably the best ‘bang for the buck’ kit ever made, the 1/48th scale Monogram P51B Mustang. I’d still pick this one if forced to choose one kit to build the rest of my days. Came with a Malcom hood, drop tanks and enough accuracy and detail to really go to work.

This is an unbuilt kit in the original 1960s box. I have 4-5 of them sitting around still.

Dan

Beaufighter or Typhoon

Thanks Dan, “Nanette” certainly is one of the best books I’ve read and up until now I’ve not found anyone else who has heard of it. Edwards Park has written another book I believe not sure what it’s called but I think it’s along the same lines as “Nanette”.Any one know of or read that one?

It’s called “Angels Twenty” It covers a bit more time frame and is more of a ‘factual’ account of his time with the 41st FS, 35th FG. Worthwhile if you’ve read “Nanette”. Why it has a flight of TBM’s on the cover is beyond me however 🙂

Dan