Talk:Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin-powered variants)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled/unsigned

According to some reports, one of the major problems with the early cannon installations trialled by 19 Squadron was the result of the thin section requiring the cannon to be mounted on their sides. This caused friction between parts that were not designed to come into contact and hence premature failure.

Spitfire V/VIII/IX powerplant

The Merlin 45 engine fitted to the Spitfire V did not have a two-stage supercharger. It had a new single speed, single stage supercharger designed by Stanley Hooker.

The two-stage supercharger was introduced with the Merlin 60 series engines as fitted to the later Merlin-powered marks. There was a consequent lengthening of the fuselage ahead of the firewall to reflect the greater length of the two-stage engines.

Actually Merlin XX/45 had a two-speed single-stage supercharger. The article is correct, you need to check your sources. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, my reference for this is the technical drawing in Gunston, B. (1995) Classic World War II Aircraft Cutaways. Osprey. ISBN 1855325268 which clearly shows the two-speed single-stage design. Perhaps you are confusing stages and speeds? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually never mind. It appears that Gunston has tried to be too generic by bundling Merlin XX with 45 in all respects. Merlin 45 had the low-altitude supercharger gear removed. My bad. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Spitfire F.IX was the first Merlin 60 powered version to enter service. It was basically a F.V (=II, =I) airframe with the new engine bolted to the existing firewall, and the existing oil cooler replaced with a full-size radiator. The F.VIII, which entered service later, was a complete airframe redesign, but at least in early versions was only distinguishable from an F.IX by its fully retractable tail wheel. Later F.VIII models had a broad chord fin.

The Spitfire VIII was the 'proper' two-stage Merlin variant but due to the time taken to re-tool for the airframe differences the temporary 'lash-up' Mark IX, a simple conversion of the Mk V, was introduced as a stop-gap in order to get a 60-Series Merlin Spitfire into service as soon as possible. In a way typical of such things the Mark IX then went on to be produced in greater numbers than any other Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

P-51 Mustang#P-51B and P-51C

Rolls was at that point starting production of the Merlin Series 60... fitted Merlin 68 engines to four Mustang Mk.IA airframes... The result was astonishing. The transformed Mustang could outfly anything in the air including the latest British fighters

I guess from this article the latest British Spitfire would have been the Mk. XIV ? Is it true? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quote might be correct if it were referring to outflying a 45-series engined Spitfire (Mk V), however the performance of the Merlin-Mustang and Spitfire IX (having the same engine) was broadly similar, although the Mustang had the longer range the Spitfire was more manouverable. A Spitfire XIV had a considerably higher performance than a Spitfire IX. The quote you have sounds more like an example of publicity or press hype. 82.111.65.142 15:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The sentence was from P-51 Mustang#P-51B and P-51C "The transformed Mustang could outfly anything in the air including the latest British fighters" and it was revised on 07:56, 17 July 2005 to "Although the Mustang could not live with the Supermarine Spitfire in a dogfight, its extra range with the use of drop tanks, enabled the mark to excel as bomber escort. ". Is the new sentence more accurate than the old one? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Revision is correct. Looking at a tactical comparison conducted in '44 between P-51B & Spitfire XIV it's clear the first statement would not be accurate. The Mustang is clearly ahead in endurance, both are similar in speed. However in terms of 'dogfighting' the spitfire move ahead. It can out climb, out turn and out roll the mustang which only has the advantage in the initial phase of the dive.Alci12

Speeds

The main description box quotes a type V which is not really the most representative variant and I can find little in the rest of the article or the variants article to cover changes in speed over the marks. The Mark I managed 355 the mark XIX 460. All marks from VII onwards (bar XII)exceeded 404. I'm not sure where we need to add this but we need to give a more representative picture.Alci12

The easiest way is to make specs tables for several subtypes (Mk.I, Mk.Vb, Mk.IXe and a late type, XIV or 24/26 would represent the whole evolution). I did this for the F-101 Voodoo and it's (IMHO) fairly unobtrusive. Emt147 19:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what I'll do today or tomorrow is make a side-by-side-by-side-by-side specs table of variants on the main page instead of the right-sided column. Emt147 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Most produced type

This article cites both Mk.V and Mk.IX as the most produced subtype. Which was it? Emt147 19:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends...When including what was basically the US produced MkIX - The MkXVI (MkIX with a packard built Merlin), then its the mkIX. If you want go by same Mark numbers only, then its the MkV.Xiolablu3 (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate, the Mk XVI was not US built, only the Packard Merlin. The Mk IX and XVI both carried the Type Number 361, meaning that they were regarded by Supermarine as being basically the same design, meaning the Mk IX/XVI series was the most produced subtype, by a short head.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wing types

Also, would it be worthwhile to make a separate section explaining the a through e wing types? The information is sort of in the text but you have to dig for it. Emt147 19:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There is something missing: the Mk 21 and later had wings that were a different shape and (as far as I know) always fitted with 4x 20mm cannon. I do not know the designations though. Man with two legs 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

VIII vs IX

Quote; "The Mk. VIII was an adaptation of the Mk. VII without the pressurised cabin, and was intended to become the main production model of the Spitfire. In fact, by June 1943, it had all but replaced the Mk. IX." Correct me if im wrong, but should'nt that read the other way round? i.e. the compromise that was the IX far outnumbered the VIII, as the latter served overseas almost exclusively. Harryurz 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

MkIX photo

Regarding the picture of the LF spitfire in the MkIX section, I don't believe this is a MkIX at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MkIX had the early narrow chord rudder of the MkV, whereas the picture shows an aircraft with the pointed broad chord rudder of later models.

Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Unfortunately this page had a number of misleading statements about some of the variants: for example the Mk VII was built from the outset with the new underwing radiators, the implication was that the first production aircraft stuck with the asymmetric layout of the Mk V and VI. Also, there were numerous changes made which hadn't been described. Looking elsewhere on the 'net it's amazing how much has been written about the Spitfire, yet so little of it accurately or comprehensively describes the evolution of the aircraft. Because Wikipedia is often the first point of reference people will look at I feel that by using the best available sources of information, it will be possible to provide one of the best informed sites dealing with the Spitfire. That's what I've endeavoured to do with this page. I hope it works.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right about inaccuracies (not that I'm an expert!) and you are doing a grand job. I assume there is going to be a 'part two' soon, how are you going to split the variants? Should the infobox be at the top? I have a good 'Merlin powered variants' book, will dig it out and try to spend some time in here. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire variants now in two parts

My fault! I got carried away with describing the Spitfire variants and made the article far too-o-o long. Now that the article has been chewed into bite size peices it should be possible to include more info in part one on the prototype...er...volunteers?Minorhistorian (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have missed the Mk26, see this:[1] I have got my eye on one of these, a little lottery win would help though! Might produce an article on this, plenty of other homebuilds featured in the project. Will try to help in here when I get time. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Blown canopy

I think the 'blown' canopy was officially known as the 'Malcolm hood' after a Flt Lt Malcolm who invented/designed it, you might have references for it. If not I am sure I have something. Looking good. There is a new Haynes manual for the Spitfire, highly recommended reading, will try to add it to the references then we have the ISBN number if you want to order one (about £17) Nimbus227 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the Malcolm Hood was only used on Mustang I-IIIs and was essentially the same as the normal canopy but with a bulged one-piece sliding centre section, i.e., hood, as opposed to having hinged side and top panels. The Spitfire gained a bulged canopy centre section (if I remember correctly) in the Spitfire Mark Ia version, some time prior to the Malcolm Hood being devised for the Mustang. Ian Dunster (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The early 'blown' canopy of the Mk I is not to be mixed up with the later Malcolm canopy. Effectively, the early canopy gave very little headroom and later a very small curve (about and inch or so) was added to the top. The canopy was still very narrow, so the later Malcolm canopy, introduced in 1941 or 42 IIRC, modified this early canopy with a wider, sphere-like section in the middle section. Otherwise it was similiar.Kurfürst (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about using "Malcolm hood" for the Spitfire canopy, although the version used on the Mustang I-IIIs was very similar. On a side note here, I didn't realise that the Mustang's Malcolm hood had no framing running up the front and rear until I saw this photo a few years ago; I read somewhere that the canopy was designed to break up if it hit the tailfin;

Take a look at the front edge of the canopy behind Stanislaw Skalski's head and you'll see what I mean.

Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've only ever seen references to Spitfires being fitted with the Malcolm Hood on the web, not in any of my (admittedly old) book and Aeroplane Monthly references. And AFAIR, there's no mention of them on Spitfires in Jeffrey Quill's Spitfire: A Test Pilot’s Story book.

BTW, there are some more good pictures of the Malcolm Hood on Mustang IIIs here: [2] Ian Dunster (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick review

I whizzed through both articles (as you can see!) and did some copy edits/tweakage. Both article talk pages are redirecting here? Excellent use of English and the facts are pretty well 'spot on', just a couple of claims that need direct inline cites. The WP:AIR 'police' like to see page numbers for the references (not unreasonable), I think I have the same edition 'Spitfire Story' so I am willing to help with this. I did not realise that a PR Mk V was not a Mk V with cameras in it!!! All these years! Camoutint is pink in one article and blue in the other, blue was 'PR blue' I think. It is possible that we may need a third article on the PR variants. Surprised that no one else is helping here, perhaps there are not many Wikipedians who like (and know) the Spitfire? Nimbus227 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Robin in the hood

"opened by sliding backwards". Am I right this induced a problem with jamming shut? I recall a number of accounts of this happening. Trekphiler (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (BTW, for anybody who doesn't already know, this & the Spit page have been copied here & here.)

Yep, there were problems with hoods jamming, especially if the aircraft had received battle damage in the area of the rails or after manoeuvres which may have temporarily distorted the fuselage. Later versions of the hood were fitted with stronger slide rails and a quick-release mechanism for jettisoning; if you look at the bottom side rails of later canopy types they were slightly deeper than the early ones - the latter feature can be identified by a small red rubber ball at the apex of the canopy arch. Interesting to see the articles in their entirety sans photos!Minorhistorian (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In case of difficulty exiting the aircraft the pilot's entry door may be jettisoned and/or the crowbar clipped to it used - the bar seen on the inside of the open pilot's door is actually an emergency crowbar for just this purpose. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Spitifre XIV v. Me 109 Info

There's some interesting information on the Spitfire XIV v. the Me 109 here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html Ian Dunster (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I delve into the Spitfire performance site, and the related http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ a lot. Both are valuable resources. Printing those Pdf files of various test reports? PRICELESS!Minorhistorian (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That page is certainly interesting as it is infamous for misusing and misinterpreting primary sources. Care need to be taken with those articles, as they are being selective with the information and as such they are not to be taken at face value.

We only have your word on this whoever didn't bother signing this. I note that there is a rival page out called http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/index.html of which similar claims could be made. I repeat, your personal and somewhat petty opinions on this don't matter.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an issue of some controversy but now is the time to "ratchet" down the rhetoric and concentrate on making valid and authoritative submissions to the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Name

Why is this aticle called late Merlin powered variants when a large part of it are Griffon powered variants!? The title is utterly wrong. Any idea what to do?--Fireaxe888 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did suggest at the time of the main article split that there was room for a Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon powered variants) article which still makes sense to me. The title at the moment is only partly wrong as it does cover late Merlin powered variants but does include Griffon variants as you have noticed. Suggest that this is the way round the problem. Nimbus (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The title was changed only a couple of months ago, after a useful discussion amongst several editors; the introductory paragraphs explain that the article encompasses the Griffon engined variants (for now). Getting the balance right, plus trying to satisfy everyone's opinion as to a suitable or accurate title for such an article can be a fraught exercise in futility; sometimes a certain amount of compromise is required/desirable.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems far more sensible to split it down the middle into two separate articles, Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants) and Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon powered variants). Alternatively, rename the articles to "(early variants)" and "(late variants)". The present title specifically excludes the Griffon, even though much of the article is about it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

American Spelling

Someone clearly doesn't understand that this article about a British built aircraft uses English (UK) rather than English (US) spelling; ie: "pressurised" and not "pressurized" etc. Articles on American aircraft use English (US) spelling. This is the accepted standard for aircraft articles in Wikipedia. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching that, hope that you can revert to a clean version. Has also been adding unreferenced stuff in other aircraft articles and adding new facts in front of a cite, the old tricks are the best! I will add a language talk page header here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New Article created

Dealing with the Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon powered variants). This should give more scope for those wishing to work on the Griffon powered Spitfires. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PR Mk XI propeller

No discussion of propellers is present. PR Mk XI had fixed-pitch wooden prop...correct? Anyone know details on it, and on other late Merlin propeller variants? 2601:0:7280:55D:E464:1C2A:AA4D:F2BA (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A 4-bladed Rotol constant speed prop according to p.45 of the February 1992 issue of Aeroplane Monthly.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

All Merlin 60/70 powered Spitfires used Rotol 4 blade constant speed props, apart from some test aircraft which used either six-blade contra-rotating c/s props. Different marks of Merlin 60/70 could drive different models of Rotol props. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Some aircraft had Rotol CS propellers with the blades themselves made out of compressed wood. These can be seen splintered when aircraft have belly landed. But otherwise they were normal constant speed propellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.143 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

'Hydulignum' compressed wood propeller blades in a 1942 Flight article here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, these types were used because they were lighter in weight than metal blades, and were less likely to shock load the engine in case of a belly landing, and the shattered blades could be repaired without too much trouble.[5] and [6] IIRC, the Germans also used wooden blades on some of their late-war Me 109's and Fw 190's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

LF XVI

The article makes the false claim that the LF XVI was 'optimised for low-altitude operations'. The LF XVIs were mostly used at low to medium altitude, but 'LF' in Spitfire terms does not mean 'Low-Altitude Fighter' as most people would understand the term. The original Spitfire IX (Merlin 61 or 63) was geared for maximum performance above 25,000ft. But German fighters were no good up there, so the action was usually lower down, and the RAF settled on the LF IX (always known at the time as the 'IX B'), with the Merlin 66, which as Al Deere remarked 'attained its best performance at 22,000ft, or roughly the same altitude as the Fw190.' (Deere, Nine Lives, quoted in Alfred Price, Late Mark Spitfire Aces 1942-45, Osprey, Botley, Oxfordshire, 1995, ISBN 1-85532-575-6, p.14.) It's really just a question of when the engine's barometric aneroid (the automatic boost control) allows full throttle, though on a two-stage two-speed Merlin this will also affect the automatic supercharger gearing. The LF XVI's Packard 266 was, except for the US blower drive gear, a Rolls-Royce Merlin 66. And, except for the prop spline hub adapted for the Spitfire, it was the exact same Packard engine as the V-1650-7 that powered the USAAF P-51D, known as the 'Merlin 69' when fitted to RAF Mustang IIIs and IVs. US and RAF Mustangs were often used for ground attack at low level, but are most famous for bomber-escort operations above 20,000ft. You won't find US 8th Air Force Mustangs with that very engine being described as 'low-altitude fighters.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This may just be my own confusion and/or ignorance, but this section includes the bold statement that all production MkXVI aircraft had clipped wing tips, but the accompanying photo shows an aeroplane with unclipped elliptical tips. The photo is captioned "Late MkXVIE" but the "E" designation isn't referenced in the text. There also seems to be much ambiguity over the razorback vs bubble-canopy versions. Some sources say only the early MkXVIs still had the full-height rear fuselage because they were using existing part-built fuselages, with the cut-down fuselage and bubble canopy being used on all the "new-builds". But the description of the (full-height fuselaged) one in the photo as a "late build" would not support this suggestion. Then I look around and find examples like Spitfire MkXVI TD248 (currently registered as G-OXVI, carrying CRoS codes) which has a cut down fuselage and full elliptical wing. Can anyone add some clarifying notes on the various MkXVI configurations (perhaps including the meaning of the "e" version?).

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin-powered variants). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224084001/http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/ to http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304223524/http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/spitfire.html to http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/spitfire.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128143713/http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/home.htm to http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/home.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014145920/http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/Spitfire.cfm to http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/Spitfire.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706102018/http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/spitfiremkxvi.cfm to http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/spitfiremkxvi.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)