Read the forum code of contact
By: - 8th October 2010 at 12:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it had a different engine: Merlin 266 (a Merlin 66 build in the USA by Packard).
By: - 8th October 2010 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are far more expert people who i'm sure will reply to you in detail however in a nutshell you are correct.
The difference between a IX and a XVI is the engine. The XVI uses a US manufactured Packard Merlin.
Edit: Beaten to it!
By: - 8th October 2010 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Correct. It's basically a Packard-engined mk IX.
By: - 8th October 2010 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Basically, yes, it's the engine, but beware:
Low-back Mk.IXs
(from www.saafmuseum.co.za)
High-back Mk.XVIs
(from www.simplyplanes.co.uk)
;)
By: - 8th October 2010 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They didn't make it easy, did they?
By: - 8th October 2010 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where's the fun in that? ;)
By: - 8th October 2010 at 13:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh Lordy! I knew this would get complicated!:)
So, are there any external visual differences between a Mk.IX and a Mk.XVI with similar 'backs' then?:confused:
By: - 8th October 2010 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Top cowling shape differed between early Mk IX and late Mk XVI, but is subtle.
Lower cowl shape also differed; early Mk IX's didnt have the airbox, late ones, and XVI's did.
Wing detail could vary - mostly in panels, and position of gun ports.
There are early and late style rudders - many Mk 9's had the Mk 5 style; Later ones and the XVI's had the pointy version.
I'm sure Mark12 will come up with some I've missed!
By: - 8th October 2010 at 14:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It always amazes me that Supermarine knew what they were building at any one time!
By: - 8th October 2010 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So no XVI with the rounded rudder then?
Moggy
By: - 8th October 2010 at 14:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It always amazes me that Supermarine knew what they were building at any one time!
Maybe they didn't and had a bucket full of luck. Their post-Spitfire line isn't exactly a rose garden....
By: - 8th October 2010 at 16:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm pretty sure all XVI aircraft had the tall broad-chord rudder.
Detail here:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html
By: - 8th October 2010 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'Recommend Paul Monforton's book on the Mk.IX/XVI if you are a serious Spitaholic.
By: - 8th October 2010 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, are there any external visual differences between a Mk.IX and a Mk.XVI with similar 'backs' then?:confused:
No, in fact the XVI didn't exist, as a Mark no., in its own right, until August, 1944; prior to that it was known as the L.F.IX with Merlin 266, and there was a meeting, in May of that year, to discuss any necessary mods.
The "Mark XII (aka pointed) rudder" was introduced from February 7th., 1944, so XVIs should have had them, but it's not guaranteed.
The cowling lines were identical to those of the VIII, until a modification, caused by the header tank on the Packard, meant that it had to be bulged upwards; although it was designed for the IX, probably due to a need for commonality, the XVI had the same type.
Wing panels/compartments remained the same, only the contents changed. When the low-back XVI, with its fuselage fuel tank, appeared, the wing was made "E" (1x20mm + 1x.5" Browning in each wing,) and the redundant compartments were used for the compressed-air and oxygen bottles. I'm guessing that it was done to keep the CofG within limits.
Edgar
By: - 8th October 2010 at 17:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The outer wing panels on the XVI very often didnt have ejector chutes, so although they were the same basic panel, there were differences.
In my experience, no two aircraft are alike!
Bruce
By: - 8th October 2010 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Easiest way of finding out if a Packard 266 is fitted (provided you can get up on the aircraft) is to look for the inter-cooler filler cap access flap on the rear of the top cowl. If its close to the rear edge of the cowl its a RR built Merlin, if its about a foot forward its a Packard built engine - the reason being the Packard had an integral inter-cooler header tank fixed to the engine - the RR version used a seperate 'kettle' like tank fixed to a firewall mounted bracket.
By: - 8th October 2010 at 19:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then of course you get Mk 9s that have a 266 fitted.
ML417 and Mk356 to name a couple.
So what mk number are they then? :D
By: - 8th October 2010 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was about to say that! ;)
Though, I suppose they should be referred to as their correct variants, as these are what they were built as at the factory.... :confused:
By: - 8th October 2010 at 21:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And you get others such as PL965 that were built with a RR engine (Merlin 70), were then restored and flew with a Packard 266 for 18 years but then had the original engine over-hauled and re-installed - and started for the first time in 60-odd years - today!! :)
By: - 8th October 2010 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, in fact the XVI didn't exist, as a Mark no., in its own right, until August, 1944; prior to that it was known as the L.F.IX...
Ah stumbled across LF.IX the other day, going to sound like a total loon but what does the L stand for?
Posts: 789
By: MarkG - 8th October 2010 at 12:01
I never thought I'd be asking about Spitfires on here :) but would welcome some advice from the experts!
My knowledge of certain Spits is very limited to say the least, but I need to find out a bit about a mark I know virtually nothing about - the Mk.XVI.
To my thoroughly non-expert eyes it looks like a Mk.IX with clipped wings and a low back/bubble canopy, but I'm sure it can't be that simple!
Can anyone enlighten me further please?
Thanks,
M