Calling Edger

[Douglas skipper]

Hi Edger, and of course anyone else who responds to this plea for help!

J. Johnsons Spitfire LF Mk.IXc JE-J MK392 can you give me some help please.

1: I understand that this aircraft has the early style rounded rudder, not the later type pointed rudder, is this correct?

2: Wing cannon bulges, some people model this aircraft with the early style wide bulges, whilst others model it with the latter style thin bulges, which would have been correct?

3: I have the ICM kit which includes an engine, now it says that the engine should be painted overall aluminuim with a dark grey supercharger unit, however all the RR Merlin engines I have ever seen in museums always had an overall matt/satin black finish. Where they left unpainted (I.e. Aluminium) or where they given a coat of black? (I know that the Packard Merlin copies where often left unpainted (Aluminium) so have ICM get this wrong).

4: The Maple leaf emblem on his aircraft I am told was green not red, do you have any knowledge of this?

5: Finally the inside (side & roof) sections of the underwing radiator pods, paint aluminium or Interior Green?

Thank you in advance for any help you can give me on this matter, I have read so many different articles and build reports for this aircraft and all of them at some point differ, to tell the truth it's giving me a serious headache!!!

Doug.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Douglas skipper

[Grant in West Oz]

You've over-researched the most 'whatever' marking set of a Mk.IX that ever was kitted.

Under no circumstances let doubt stop you from building. Ever.

We all make minor muck-ups and none here will think the less of one who does their best.

Johnnie Johnson. Salute.

[Edgar]

Without a photo, I can't commit myself on the rudder, but illustrations show it to be rounded; the "XII" rudder was introduced on February 7th., and MK392 went to the M.U. on the 12th., 5 days after, so could have missed out.

There is a photo of Johnson, sitting on the wing (of MK392, presumably) just after D-day, and it's been converted to an E wing configuration; there's no clue as to the date this happened, but, since it had to be done by Supermarine, it's entirely likely that the narrow bulged cover was also fitted, and the modification wasn't introduced until May, 1944, which was several months after the covers were produced. Of course, that puts the cannon (and bulge) in a totally different position.

Rolls-Royce engines were black (semi-matt); this, apparently, was to make oil leaks more traceable.

Regarding the maple leaf, Johnson said it was (camouflage) green; members of his Squadron said it was red. I'll leave the choice up to you.

I'd go with silver (paint or n/m) for the radiator interiors; I've never seen green interiors, and, since they'd stopped painting the interior of the IX's fuselage, from September, 1943, I can't see them singling out the radiators for special treatment.

Edgar

[Douglas skipper]

Thanks Edger,

Will add all that info to my databse and then get around to building the kit.

Hope they get Britmodeller back-up and running soon, three days now!!!!

Doug.

[agboak]

I would expect Spitfires in this serial range to have the narrow cannon bulge. This is true of both aircraft in Monforton's book, but how original these are is uncertain. Probably.

[Jennings]

Here's the text from the Victory Productions Spitfire sheet, circa 2002. This research was done by Robert Bracken and a bunch of other *very* knowledgeable Spit boffins (not me):

* Notes on the Universal or "E" wing: This seems like an appropriate point to note that the Universal or "E" wing has caused a good bit of confusion, not only in the modeling community, but also in the aviation history world. There is some debate about when the "E" wing actually appeared in squadron service. According to some of Robert Bracken's sources, it may have been as early as April 1944, much earlier than commonly believed. Regardless of the date of introduction, there was a shortage of the "E" wing. In addition, the RAF was in an absolute panic to equip Spitfires with bomb racks to allow them to go against the V-1 launch sites along the Channel coast. Early operational flights with the "E" wing, equipped with both the 20mm cannon and a .303 machine gun plus the bombs, led to wing stress problems. As a result, the cannon and the machine gun were reversed in the wing to balance against the bomb rack and thus alleviate the stress problem. So while the external appearance was that of an "E" wing, it was really more of a hybrid wing. To confuse matters further, there were field conversion kits to convert "C" wings to "E" wings. More confusing still, Spitfires delivered with "E" wings in the first half of 1944 did not have the inboard .50 caliber machine gun fitted. Although they had the "E" wing breech covers, they were delivered with "C" wing armament of one 20mm and two .303s in each wing. Even the Operational Record Books (ORBs) are not a help on this. ORB references to the IXe did not appear until much later in 1944, perhaps even into 1945, to help us unravel this mystery. In mid-1944 they only referenced the IXb, but the "b" referred to the altitude rating of the engine, not the armament!

Details:

• Johnson preferred the older style gunsight over the newer gyro sight.

• The aircraft was delivered as a IXc, and may have had "C" or "E" wing armament, but likely did have the "Universal" wing style breech covers. Given the confusion described above, it is nearly impossible to tell for certain. Robert Bracken’s research showed that it was the practice of the Canadian wing (No. 144) to remove the outer most .303 (as was the practice on Malta), so it is incorrect to say that they were delivered as "C" wings and changed to "E" wings. Most of the Spitfires had "E" wings all along (in 1944) but no .50 cal guns (the .303s were retained in their stead).

• One well known photo of Johnson, standing in front of his aircraft, with his dog Sally, was taken not long after D-Day. This photo clearly shows an "E" wing, but there is some confusion if this picture was in front of MK392 or MK329 (JE-J Jr.).

• Standard wingtips.

• Bulged sliding cockpit hood.

• Hemispheric rear-view mirror on windscreen frame.

• Five-spoke wheel hubs.

• IFF antenna below right wing.

[agboak]

I suspect you are adding to the confusion, at least to mine. The earliest reference to 0.5in armament is in "2TAF Spitfire", where Johnnie Houlton's armourer puts the date at late 1943. This is not generally accepted, as it is before known dates of Boscombe tests, and sometime just before D-Day being usually accepted. Doesn't sound a long way from April 1944 to me.

Moving the cannon outboard is not a important distinguishing feature - that was always possible with the C or universal wing, indeed it was possible to fit four cannon. You see 4 cannon on early Mk.Vcs on Malta (where often the inner cannon was removed rather than the outer) and SAAF aircraft in Italy, and even on a Mk.VIII in Australia! What makes the e wing different is the modified structure introduced to fit the 0.5 and its ammunition in the inboard position. It should be possible to distinguish a Spitfire without the 0.5 fitting, that is a c wing with only the cannon moved, by the presence of a faired stub inboard rather than a flat-fronted tube. I must admit I have never seen such a photo, nor any photo of a Mk.IX with an outboard cannon and the original blister (which would indeed have been required for such a fit). Who would doubt what a crazy Canuck would do - but I suspect photos would exist. Perhaps they do, but no-one has pointed to them and said "That's not just another Canadian Spitfire......" The broad blister plus outboard cannon on a Mk.IX - another Holy Grail for Spitfire researchers?

The problems with the Spitfire in bombing missions is normally described as being later (if dates are mentioned), after some experience had built up, and linked to the use of the e wing (probably wrongly, I suspect). I don't recall seeing any good reason put forward for the movement of the cannon, so this story does have that going for it.

The suggestion that Spitfires on Malta also had the outboard mgs removed is also new to me, but I suspect this may be a distortion of the early deliveries with four cannon, where the outer bays were used for ferrying important goods - pilot's shirts, ciggies, etc.

Edited October 23, 2009 by agboak

[Edgar]

Malta Spitfires had both of their outer .303" Brownings removed, to save weight, in Gibraltar, since AOC Malta agreed that they had enough stock to replace them. Mike Crosley, in "They gave me a Seafire," relates how they removed the outer .303" from Seafires, and cut down on the cannon ammunition, since this meant that they could cope with the 190; I've found no evidence that Malta did the same.

There were no "field mod" kits, to change C wings to E configuration; Supermarine insisted that they must do the work, since it involved removal of some wing "plumbing."

The modification 1029 "To install 2 x .5" guns in lieu of 4 x .303" guns (mod 820 must be embodied)" was not issued (as a general leaflet) until May 1944. This was for the IX (only); mod 1214, for the same change, but for the XIV, was issued at the same time. The first "dedicated" E-armed IX was MK197; it was the first of an order for 60 similarly-armed Mk.IXs, with MK197 expected to be delivered w/e 5-2-44, with the rest at approximately 12 per week. All 60 were allotted to 66 & 504 Squadrons at Hornchurch.

Fixed, and removeable, parts for wing bomb installations were not introduced until June, 1944, so it's difficult to see how they could have affected the earlier C-to-E mod; Peter Cooke was told, way back in the 60s, that it was done simply to make cocking the .5" easier, by moving it forward.

There was no such thing as an "E wing," on the IX, so there was no shortage, except in the (lack of) foresight in those senior officers who dragged their feet over the introduction of the .5"; all wings had the same number of bays, so armament could be as the Squadron desired, but could not be swapped back-and-forth as the whim took them. The only Marks with dedicated E wings were the XIV (some, and probably quite late,) and the XVIII, which was an entirely new wing. As early as March 1943, it was planned (as mod 820) that the outboard cannon casting should be removed from the wings of the V, IX, and XII; this was swiftly rescinded by mod 1029, and was eventually applied (as SEA mod131) to Seafire wings.

Single (narrow) blister doors were introduced from 7-1-44 (that's January, remember) under mod 782, on the V and IX; since this was listed as a retrospective item, the chances of seeing a broad-blistered E wing are slim, to say the very least.

Edgar

[agboak]

The 4-cannon Spitfire Mk.Vc were not delivered to Malta via Gibraltar, but directly from the UK on board the USS Wasp in Operations Calendar and Bowery. Statements about the use of the outer gun compartments can be found in a number of sources, perhaps the best is NZ ace Jack Rae's account? The outer guns would not be needed with four cannon. In the specific case of the second delivery (Operation Bowery) the Spitfires were intended to go into action immediately on arrival - and did. Rearmament could (and presumably did) occur in more leisurely times.

Earlier Spitfires (Mk.Vb) and later (Mk.Vb and Vc) were delivered via Gibraltar, but it seems that these had the conventional armament of only two cannon. However, photographs of these deliveries are in short supply, particularly those from Eagle in Bowery. Some of the later deliveries were from the same serial batches as the Calendar/Bowery aircraft - at least one appears to be an aircraft that did a round trip on the Wasp after unserviceability. I don't remember any of the later delivered aircraft showing four cannon, or the cannon only in the outer position, but it might not pay to be too dogmatic, particularly those from Eagle on Operations Bowery or LB.

Removing the outer guns would save weight on the long ferry, with beneficial effects on fuel flow, but the ammunition bays were put to precisely the same use - personal possessions and tradeables. Given that several hundred Spitfires were ferried to Malta in 1942, it seems unlikely that none of them came with mgs. I suspect it varied with time, and that the comment is appropriate for the initial deliveries of the Mk.Vc. After all, gun barrels do wear out and need replacing after a fairly short life, and others would be lost with their aircraft. Malta did not have to cope with the Fw190, thankfully. Removal of the outer gun and ammo would also help the aircraft's agility in roll, a key point in combat with the Fw190, superb on this point. Not a good as removing the wingtips, of course....

The point about the broad blister was not that it would be seen with the e armament but that this Canadian story about moving the guns on the c wing would not be possible without the broad blister. A photo showing the broad blister, with the cannon in the outboard position, would be strong supporting evidence. Presumably, however, it would be possible to replace a damaged e panel with a broad-blister one, if that was all the unit had in stock? Perhaps unlikely...but would stock of the broad blister be retained in the units or did the normal procedures mean they were returned to MUs or reduced to produce, in the phrase of the day?

There certainly were shortages of the 0.5 Browning, not due to any staff myopia but because the massive expansion of the US armed forces meant that their priorities took up the vast majority of the production capacity in 1942 and 1943. The supply problem eased in 1944, hence the introduction of this gun on the Spitfire and its wider adoption in bomber turrets. I rather doubt that it affected the fitting out of the Spitfires, rather than the timing of the modification, but maybe, locally. As far as the fighters were concerned this was only of secondary importance anyway, as the main armament was the 20mm Hispano - ideally four of them, but the Spitfire was a bit of a disappointment there. The intention was to use this weapon in bombers too, but that just proved too difficult in the timescale. It was eventually achieved on Shackletons (and Lincolns?).

[Jennings]

As I said, I didn't *do* the research, I just did the artwork. I'm in no way any kind of expert on Spit wings... Just passing along the information from the guys who are/were.

J

[Edgar]

Jennings, please don't think that this is an exercise in oneupmanship. It's entirely possible that information simply wasn't available. I don't know when Bracken started his work, but files in Kew have a minimum closure time of 25 years, so just weren't available until the 1970s. It's also so much easier for people like me, now, because I simply have to go onto the Kew website, and ask for the files, on any subject, and a list appears. There are hundreds on the Spitfire (try Malta, and it reaches thousands,) and each has a brief resume of what's inside. If Bracken had to search through the master files, in Kew, his job would have been infinitely more difficult that mine, now.

To return to the E wing saga, right on cue, last Saturday, I found a brief flurry (well, two, actually) of messages regarding this, and the first signal says that MK197 was to be the first dedicated E wing Spitfire, and that it was planned for a total of 60 to be produced, at a rate of approximately 12 per week; the second signal states that 66 and 504 Squadrons were earmarked to receive them. According to Morgan/Shacklady MK197 went straight to Boscombe Down (understandable,) and it seems to have stayed there. It should be possible to check the following serials, and pick out which went to those Squadrons, but that might take a little while, especially as there's no mention of MK197 being a IXe, so it's doubtful that any of the others will be. MK197 was delivered on February 11th; if Castle Bromwich kept to the 12-per-week schedule, the delivery of the 60 would have been completed in late March, making the likelihood of any other Squadron getting any before April very slim indeed.

Edgar

[Jennings]

Okay, so being thoroughly confused beyond words at this point, is there provision in the Tamiya kit for doing an E wing, or do we await the aftermarket?

Also, from what I can discern, other than the E vs C wing differences, the kit could feasibly be built as a Mk.XVI, since nobody is going to know the difference in a RR Merlin and a Packard Merlin in 1/32, right? Essentially, a high backed XVI was almost identical to a late IX, correct?

J

[agboak]

For a Mk.XVI, you will certainly need the "balloon" cowling top, where the upper line is raised near the rear. You will for some late Mk.IXs, too. Other changes are internal, or follow the same chronological variation as the Mk.IX - wheel bulges for example.

[Edgar]

Also, from what I can discern, other than the E vs C wing differences, the kit could feasibly be built as a Mk.XVI, since nobody is going to know the difference in a RR Merlin and a Packard Merlin in 1/32, right? Essentially, a high backed XVI was almost identical to a late IX, correct?

As Tom has been known to say to Jerry, "Don't you believe it." Also, the bulged cowling was caused by the XVI, but it was done to the IX. With both Marks being produced on the same production line, though, we believe that it was decided make the bulged cowling a common item. Any XVI flying before 25-7-44 would, almost certainly, have had the "normal" smooth cowling, since that was the date that the bulged cowling entered production.

Edgar

[Edgar]

Further to the above (and I fear that it slams the door shut on your hopes,) the XVI didn't exist, as a separate Mark no., until August 4th., 1944, which is after the introduction of the bulged cowling (probably explains why the XVI didn't get a mention in that mod.)

Edgar