Re: Is ‘e’ or nothing?

Originally posted by Mark12
Ok let’s try this.

In the armament section when discussing ‘early Mk IX aircraft’ it does not mention a suffix. When discussing’ later Mk IX aircaft’ it mentions (e) armament .

Here is the first para. of the ‘Introduction’ of the Mk IX manual at level March 1945 when all aircraft have been built.

Note that : – ‘and suffix letters indicating special armament’ .

So the suffix refers to armament and not to the wing.

Whilst this may have been precise in the Mk V manual with designations ‘a’, ‘b’, & ‘c’ it is not so defined on the Mk IX or indeed the MK XIV.

Just looking at a random selection of Movement cards of IXs and XIVs, ‘e’ appears in the designation with later aircraft but in those I have studied there is no ‘b’ or ‘c’ designator

Indeed it may just be that it was ‘e’ or nothing officially and that we have carried over the generic from the V.

For some they have carried over the perception of wing structure for others the pure armament fit capability.

They key to this discussion will be a study of the early and mid period Air Publications for the Mk IX.

Mark

Would we agree that the internal structure of the early Spit IX wing was the “Universal” wing? This then was what was referred to as the “C” wing on the Spitfire V but may not have been called specifically that with the IX as your latest info may indicate?

It makes sense that for production reasons they would not have gone back to producing the wing that was the “B” wing for the Spit V, due to the different internal design. In particular as the “Universal” wing allowed for twice the ammo load per cannon.

Dan

Originally posted by Mark12
Three against two then?

Bruce,

Care to comment on the magnitude of changing or modifying those leading edge castings from single to twin aperture?

If on a Mk IX there is no station to fit the second cannon it is not ‘Universal’ and if it isn’t ‘Universal’ it isn’t a C wing in my view.

Mark

Ahh but that is where the confusion seems to be. If the internal wing HAS the station to fit the second cannon, as it clearly does in the diagram for the “IXB” then it would be a C wing in my mind as it is clearly a different design to the B wing that could only have one cannon.

To throw more on to the fire.

I don’t have the manual for the IX but I do for the XII and it says the following:

“The Aircraft is fitted with the universal type main plane as fitted to the Spitfire VC but without wing tips and the armament is restricted to the following:

Two Hispano 20mm MK I or MK II guns and four Browning .303 in guns.”

The XII wasn’t allowed to carry 4 cannon. It doesn’t specify a reason but having a second opening, despite the second cannon bay in the C wing was pointless. Yet th XII has the cannon plug and the second cannon and ammo bay of the Universal C wing.

Did this apply to the IX as well at least early on? Might there have then been a decision early on to build the leading edge without the second chimney pot as it wasn’t going to be used anyway?

Was the IX restricted from carrying the second cannon like the XII?

Could it be for ease of production between the VC, VII, VIII, IX and XII they settled on the C wing with the two openings since some of those variants could carry two cannon and it made little sense production wise to make the single opening Universal wing for the IX?

Once again, the diagram for the single aperture “IXB” shows the internal structure of the C wing.

Dan