…..But the solution soon presented itself in the form of Bruce Moffett’s logbook. While going through the entries I was surprised to see that in January of 44 F/L Moffett made a tour of many of the USAAF fighter and bomber bases in MB858 EB-D. And one of the stops was Raydon, where the 357th and Merle Olmsted happened to be stationed at the time.

Funny how those things worked out. MB853 at the AFDU in late 44-45 became MB858 EB-D at Raydon on January 14, 1944

It was also a quick lesson in not believing everything I saw, while researching the XII

Dan

They were really living the high life in the Spring of 43 🙂

B Flight 41 Squadron’s home.

Dan

I do believe we’ve reached a consensus.

Thanks Mark and all. I very much enjoyed the mutual detective work, opinions that went into this discussion.

Gotta love learning something new too 🙂

Dan

Originally posted by Mark12
Dan, Voy Tech, Bruce et al,

So far as I can tell, Bruce, it seems to me, the XIV and XVIII are referred to ‘e’ armament, not ‘e’ wing. That is provision to carry the .5 Browning adjacent to the 20mm Hispano cannon.

Yet another trawl through the books is enlightening. The mammoth combined Spares Schedule for Mk V & IX has clear sections for Va, V b & Vc but only one section for Mk IX. Ditto the Pilots Notes as already mentioned.

The more I dig into this the more I am inclined to think there never was a Mk IX a, b, or c. Just Mk IX. With the introduction latterly of the .5 Browning installation we see reference to the Mk IXe and from thence on they are referred to and distinguished as ‘early and late Mk IX aircraft’.

From the Mk IX manual diagrams, which are not full engineering drawings, the basic construction and layout for both single and twin cannon aperture ‘chimney pot’ types are effectively the same. In all probability the twin is an iteration of the single aperture design to provide provision for twin Hispanos per wing for potential tactical requirement. As we now know, for the RAF in WWII, they were not needed on the MK IX and were blanked off, and the reason clearly is that the later installation and hitting power of the massive .5 Browning compared to the .303 was the optimum combination for tactical superiority for the Merlin Spitfire.

I suspect it us latter day ‘historians’ who have quite logically transferred the clear designators of ‘b’ and ‘c’ armament from the Mk V over to the Mk IX and I suspect we were wrong.

The challange:-

Who can find or locate any official document of any type were there is reference to a Mk IXb or Mk IXc Spitfire?

Mark

I think you are on to something Mark.

I can only go back to the Mk XII manual as I don’t have one for the IX, but I would suspect the introduction for the Mark IX is similar.

“1.The Spitfire F. Mk. XII(NOTE NOT XIIC) is a single seat fighter, low-wing monoplane powered by a Griffon III or IV engine, driving a Rotal four blade, 35 degree pitch range, constant Speed propeller.

2.The aircraft is fitted with the universal wing type main plane as fitted to the Spitfire VC…….”

That may be the key. No mention of XIIC, just XII, fitted with a Univeral wing, not C wing, but referencing the Spitfire VC

I’d just about bet the house the IX manual says the same and us historian types did exactly what Mark12 suggests by making the connection to the VC even though it isn’t offically called an IXC or XIIC for that matter.

SO MH434 for example was just an LFIX that had a universal wing that had a single aperture ‘chimney pot”

Does this mean we now have to send all the books back to the printers to correct this? 🙂

Dan