Hello everyone,
Away from my computer for the weekend, I was doing my home work, anyway. I am much pleased to say I reached most of the same conclusions that you did.
In case you thought the matter was all explained and clear now, a few more comments.
As per fitting 4 0.303 Brownings in a C wing: the Mk V manual (the one reprinted and sold in bookshops) actually includes a drawing of how this is to be done.
About the universal (C) wing without the outer stub:
Close look into Ventura’s “American Spitfire Camouflage and Markings. Part 2” reveals that many Mk VC and Mk IX Spitfires of the 52nd FG had these outer stubs removed and the openings faired over in a not too careful way (photos on pp. 19, 23, 24, 27, 29, 38, 43). Curiously, none of the Mk VC and Mk IX Spitfires of the sister 31st FG (shown in “Part 1” of the same publication) lacked these stubs. This seems to prove that the outer stubs could be removed when required, and that at least in the USAAF it was a matter of unit policy rather than production.
I have also checked my library and photographic archive for any identifiable Mk IXs with these stubless wings.
I found four early F.IXs of Supermarine proper:
BS340,
BS342,
possibly BS354
BS546
But there are photos of other Mk IXs in the same serial range that feature the stubs very prominently, so it seems unlikely this was a production standard – to me their stubs were removed in service.
But I also found at least seven (possibly eight) CBAF built Mk IXs:
MA706,
MA807,
possibly MA834,
MA843,
MH314,
MH353,
MH378,
(Mark, do you have early photos of MH415?),
MH434.
Clearly, the latter sequence is noteworthy – they were all delivered by Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory in the summer 1943. MA706 served in the Mediterranean, so may have passed through the butcherous hands of the 52nd FG (MA743, MA747 and MA791 in Britain had their outer stubs in place). In any case, I found no photo of a Mk IX in the MA800-MH434 serial range with these stubs on! Therefore I now have little doubt that such a variation existed in production. So, I come back to my earlier hypothesis:
At some point it was decided to discard the second 20 mm cannon in Mk IX (this was decided quite early in trials of the variant and was beacuse of CoG problems, not heating, as far as I remember). For this reason designers altered the wing structure to do away with the second ‘chimney pot’. But then the (e) weapon fit was devised, so the second ‘chimney pot’ became useful once again, and went back in production.
One last thing. Have you noticed that all the official reference to Mk V wing variants is in capitals: Mk VA, VB, VC. But the weapon fit in Mk IX/XVI is invariably ‘(e)’, not ‘E’? Would that be insignificant?
Sign In
