Spitfires ...

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:20 pm

Indian head wrote:

It's always fascinating for me to see images of the aircraft in the field, showing what they really looked like. The variation in markings and colours should be a real education for those who like to micro-analyse Spitfire colour schemes, there may have been an official factory standard but out there on the squadrons, almost anything could occur.

Yes and no, I'd say. It's a reasonable remark, but not helpful being very general.

The closer to the UK, and the more stable the campaign, the closer marking, uniform and protocol stayed to specified requirements. The greatest variation seemed to occour in N Africa.

'Almost anything' implies a lot of variation, and there were, indeed a few remarkably original schemes on Spitfires, but, for instance the camouflage layout of the green/brown or green/grey, or roundel types location and application stayed very consistent throughout, and I'd suggest the opposite - considering their was a war on and paint was relatively minor compared to food and ammunition, it's remarkable how closely schemes stayed to the specs (as they changed, as well). Squadron codes were applied and changed remarkably carefully.

Regards,

k5083 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:08 am

+1 James. Important not to go down the slippery slope of concluding that just because there were lots of field variations, "anything could be right" or "there is no point micro-analyzing."

August

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7856

Source, San Diego Air and Space Museum archives

Supermarine Spitfire MkVb BL680 USAAF

Supermarine Spitfire MkIXc Lt Col E P Allen 9th Tactical Air Command England 1944

Supermarine Spitfire PRXI PA892 USAAF

Supermarine Spitfire MkXVIe SL718R Aux AF 612 Sqd 1949 Cooper Air Race Elmdon AB July 1949

Supermarine MkV Spitfire

Supermarine Spitfire MkVb BL676 Seafire Prototype 1942

Supermarine MkIX Spitfire

Supermarine Spitfire MkXIV PM694

Supermarine FMk22 Spitfire

Supermarine Spitfire PRXI PL775A of No 541 Squadron RAF

Supermarine Spitfire Prototype Trainer

Supermarine Spitfire MkVb AA945 72 Sqd RN-C 1941

Supermarine Spitfires MkI 65 Sqd Aug 1939

Supermarine Spitfire MkVGI-H

greatgonzo · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:46 am

The MkIX RNoN is in fact MkIIA.

It was clear vision panel indeed as it is stated in MkII instructions. It was discontinued with the new Malcolm hood. The panel has been found obsolete by other producers too, e.g. P-47.
It is also hard to disagree with JDK. There were a lot of changes from standard, or factory finish, but most of them were result of changing orders, or logistics. The free interpretation of camouflages happened rather on squadron level with small repairs or code changing and were not a common thing.
When You study the camouflage lines of MkII's produced in CBAF it is surprising how similar to the smallest detail they are. The fuselage roundels location differed by some two inches in CBAF compared to home production and this detail is a clear spot sign allowing recognition of the producer of the frame throughout the war. Not much of chaos in Royal AF.

DarenC1 · **Joined:** Sun May 07, 2006 8:10 am **Posts:** 235

The Spitfire F.22 was the one owned and restored by Jock(?) McCulloch, which later crashed into the ground and was destroyed.

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3332

DarenC1 wrote:

The Spitfire F.22 was the one owned and restored by Jock(?) McCulloch, which later crashed into the ground and was destroyed.

That would be Jack Malloch

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7856

... Not much info on these guys ...

Prototype Spitfire being inspected by King Edward VIII 1936

The Speed Spitfire 1939

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

Why does the Mk IX have a deeper chin than the Mk V?

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3332

bdk wrote:

Why does the Mk IX have a deeper chin than the Mk V?

Brandon,

The V has an oil tank that forms part of the lower cowling. The IX has a one-piece removable lower cowling, with the oil tank underneath.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

So the oil capacity is larger then?

DarenC1 · **Joined:** Sun May 07, 2006 8:10 am **Posts:** 235

The second photo shows a Mk.VII, I think (I'm pretty certain it's not an VIII because the cockpit door looks absent).

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3332

DarenC1 wrote:

The second photo shows a Mk.VII, I think (I'm pretty certain it's not an VIII because the cockpit door looks absent).

EN474 perhaps?

DarenC1 · **Joined:** Sun May 07, 2006 8:10 am **Posts:** 235

That had crossed my mind.

mike furline · **Joined:** Wed May 05, 2004 3:45 pm **Posts:** 2644

Mike wrote:

DarenC1 wrote:

The second photo shows a Mk.VII, I think (I'm pretty certain it's not an VIII because the cockpit door looks absent).

EN474 perhaps?

The one and same, on display at NASM. The pic was taken at Wright-Pat.. USAF collection NARA.

DH82EH · **Posted:** Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:01 pm

Another tip off that it's not a Mk VIII is the small intake under the nose.

One could spend a lifetime understanding all the permutations of Spitfires.

I'd love to know what R.J. Mitchell would think of what became of his design.

I think he only ever saw K5054 fly.

Hey Mark. Is this thread just to get us inthe mood for all the machines about to appear out of Burma?

We wouldn't want to become blase about Spitfires.

Andy Scott

Warbird Information Exchange

Spitfires ...

Who is online