Volunteer required to analyse the serials in 485, 222 and 349 ORBs (that was the planned order) and the corresponding Form 78s ….

Well, I haven’t had the chance to do that, BUT…

I did an analysis using the individual histories, and that shows the following:

222 Sqn got their first IXs (from Vs) in late Mar ’44, into April. I did not note a wholesale change of aircraft after that date (until Nov or so). Not sure if this means 222 got them first, or just that something’s missing.

485 Sqn got a new batch of IXs at end April/first few days of May. The prior batch got dispersed to new units from 8 June.

349 Sqn got a new batch (which I take to be the ‘e’s) about 15 June. Prior to that they took on some of the IXs shed by 485/222.

[Erroneous statement removed]

XIVe was issued from sometime in July, as I recall.

Now, about those dates. I have noticed that the dates given in the individual aircraft records often are a little off the dates recorded in ORBs, etc. Thus a whole batch (16 or so) might show “349S 15 June” but the OOB might indicate that 349 was re-equipped as of 8 June. I surmise that this reflects the paperwork catching up with reality. Also note that in the first half of 1944 there seems to be a general lack of documentation for exchanges/ issues to squadrons in the individual records.

In the case of 485 (for example), there is good consistency of “a squadron’s worth” of aircraft issued within a few days or so, if not a bunch on the same day. The previous group, however, do not show issue to other squadrons until about 8 June (which, by the way, is an extremely busy date for transfers!). I surmise that in a case such as this, when the new batch came the old batch were sent to servicing/ storage and then issued (individually) as required. It is also possible that, until the ‘e’ had proven itself, some ‘c’ were retained, but the general intention was homogeneity within a squadron (in fact, within a wing).

In the case of a swap between squadrons the individual records usually tie-up pretty neatly, although often they are off by a day or two from one direction to the other. Sometimes this is probably accurate (based on the logistics of movements, etc) and other times it probably reflects the flow of paperwork!

Now, as for ‘e’s, as stated the first issues were straight from the factory. Likewise, XIVe’s were delivered as such- that is, in that configuration, if not bearing that actual designation! I would expect that subsequently some IXs and XIVs that had been ‘c’ [term used descriptively] got converted to ‘e’, but I have found no information yet about this. I currently suspect that it happened less often than I previously imagined, but I honestly don’t know.

There are some relevant files at Kew that I never got a chance to look at…

bob

Huh?

Mod 1029 was not issued, as a leaflet, until 21-4/2-5-44, and, although I don’t have a copy, at present, its wording was very similar to 1214 (issued as leaflets in May, 1944,) which did the same mod to the XIV; it said “The work is to be effected by a contractor’s working party under Air Ministry arrangements……,” which seems to preclude M.U.s, and the like.

It’s entirely possible that the “E” winged IXs were, in fact, XVI airframes, since the XVI, as an official Mark no., did not exist until 4-8-44, though the IX, with the Merlin 266, did.
Edgar

I can’t see why you would propose that “E” wing equals XVI ‘airframe’. The XVI was simply a project to use up a batch of engines that were surplus to requirements, by installing them in IX airframes. It was decided to keep those at “home” (including 2TAF) so as not to further complicate the supply chain for the Spitfire in other theatres. And I’m pretty sure that I have a memo along the lines of “we’re getting ready to issue these to units, so we need to settle the designation question.” They were not serving as “LF.IX with Merlin 266” before they got around to assigning a new designation.

The project for the .5″ installation was already in the works for the IX/XIV, at the request of Fighter Command/ 2TAF. If IXs for 2TAF were to be ‘e’ configuration, then logically the XVI for 2TAF would also be.

I’m not clear on the specific application of a mod leaflet, but I don’t imagine that it would have to come before a mod could be accomplished by the company. I don’t think that’s what you’re suggesting, but I don’t want anyone to infer that if the leaflet wasn’t published until late April, there couldn’t be any ‘e’ aircraft prior to that.

bob

I don’t really think it was for technical reasons. Differences in engine installations of the various Mk Vs were no less than those between Mk IX and XVI. But, Packard Merlins were delivered under Lend-Lease Act which put important limitations on what the Crown was able to do with them if not used by the RAF. Note that after the war Mk IXs (all-British made) were sold worldwide, while Mk XVIs (with the Lend-Lease engines) were retained in RAF use. The only country to actually buy ex-RAF Mk XVIs was Greece which used a lot of the US military funding anyway.

I’ve seen nothing to indicate that “ownership” was an issue at all. The designation was definitely at the behest of FC/2TAF, and when I get it all together I’ll post a document to that effect.

Keep in mind that the XVI was simply a way to use up some surplus engines, owing to the decision to keep Canadian Mosquito production on single-stage instead of switching to two-stage. A little over 1000 XVIs were built, as compared to almost 4000 LF.IX (and another 1600+ HF and F), and I suspect a fair number were consumed during the six months of fighting in Europe [edit: at very rough count, about 150-160 lost on ops, and another 125 or so SOC or otherwise out of service by the end of July ’45 (date chosen arbitrarily)]. They were kept at home during the war to simplify the supply chain (and thereby freeing up IXs for Southern Europe). There may be a bit of “keep it British” at play with exports, too, and also there would be a lot more spare engines and spare parts available.

The “Mk IX wings built with Mk Vb front castings” theory seems to have been born from the “Mk IXB” designation in some documents. …I can’t see a reasonable way of using the Mk VB-style cannon chimney pot with the Mk VC-style cannon installation.

Actually, I think Mark12 either proposed or agreed with the suggestion that the mysterious “one pot C” might have used up some extra ‘b’ castings since the outer cannon bay was surplus to requirements in the IX (until the ‘e’).

Personally I’ve seen no evidence that the lack of a second pot ever happened at the factory, and what little information I have, including mention of the mod that Edgar brought up, indicates that it was for retrospective action (or at least possible to be). I will admit that the few IXs I’ve seen with this are from a pretty tight serial (or delivery date) range, but there are also Vs to be found without the stub. I suspect that the amount of work for little gain explains why few seem to have been modified.

—–
Getting back, well, if not on track, then at least to another tangent: If I interpret Edgar’s suggestion correctly, it is that Merlin 266 Spits might have been in use as LF.IX(e)s before the new designation (XVI) came in.

When I started looking into my files, for a moment I had the fear that he might have been onto something. The weekly statements of deliveries DO show too many IXs from Castle Brom, and do not show XVIs until the week ending 28 Oct 44. However, I also have a note from Contracts to Vickers agreeing their figure of 191 “Mk.XVI” delivered to end of October, and when that is taken into account the figures can be brought into agreement. Naturally they would have been counted as IXs until the new designation became known- but if it was approved in August, why did it take until the end of October for Castle Brom to know about it. Didn’t they get the e-mail?

Equally importantly, the aircraft that I’d identified as XVIs when I did an analysis of issue to squadrons adds up to the right number according to agreed totals delivered, so there aren’t a significant number that I’m counting as IXs but that are really XVIs (that is, with Merlin 266). My analysis shows about six squadrons at least beginning to get XVIs by the end of November, divided between 2TAF and Fighter Command (and starting sharply on the 9th according to the record cards.) This seems to agree with the information I’ve seen about the appearance of XVIs- unless of course they all also missed the point about aircraft that hadn’t caught up with their proper designation yet. But there is no real conflict of XVIs being issued as replacements to LF.IX squadrons, either, which I would expect if there were some “LF.IX (Merlin 266)” units that had equipped before November. The need to segregate them was the reason for the new designation in the first place. There may have been a little overlap, but they basically switched outright from LF.IX to XVI, not a gradual transition.

Well, I hope you, dear reader, were able to follow my convoluted reasoning!

bob

Here’a tricky one to answer. At what date, +/-, did the number of Spitfires in service exceed that of Hurricanes?

I can’t answer “in service”, but it appears that October ’43 is the month in which total production of Spitfires overtook that of Hurricanes. This includes exports, I assume. (August if you include Sea Hurris and Seafires, but there aren’t many counted as Sea Hurricanes- presumably the rest are conversions.)

I thought at one time I had counted the number of squadrons on each type, but I’m not finding it right away, and it isn’t something I can do promptly.

To expand on Graham’s comment, the total fighters required for the current expansion scheme, by the set target date, was 900. It was expected that Hawker could do about 600 Hurricanes (as it became) in that time. Supermarine could be expected to do the remaining 300 with their design. While perhaps a bit of a gamble, that gamble ran both directions- new technology might throw a spanner in the production plan, but the aircraft might also turn out to be a pretty good one.

By the time of the production plan/orders (June ’36), the gleam in the Air Ministry’s eye was the next great thing, not the “current” state of the art. The Hurri persisted because it was in quantity production and was useful- and because the intended replacement ran into difficulties. The Spitfire persisted because it was (eventually) in quantity production and showed unexpected growth- and because the intended replacement ran into difficulties.

Well, Britmodeller thread (<- that’s a clickable link, which is hard to tell on my screen) has an image from aft, but I don’t see anything on the rudder. And I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that you’re part of that thread. Still, it might refresh someone’s memory?

p.s. Isn’t the correct serial L4670?

I’m pretty happy with “Hope and Glory” meself! (But an hour of well shot Spitfire footage sounds good, too.)

Surely fabric ailerons discount a Mk V?

Well, not entirely- some early Vs (including Vas) were built with early oil cooler AND fabric ailerons. (A little while after I posted I remembered the callout of fabric ailerons in the first post.) Still, the oil cooler might be a good corroboration. I don’t see any evidence of cannon in the wing, though I’ll put more faith in other people’s interpretation of that detail.

Also, is not the center “dot” of the roundel the proportion associated with Supermarine, and not Castle Bromwich? If so, that (likely) eliminates the Mk.II…