Read the forum code of contact
By: - 22nd August 2012 at 19:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=20097
Since this post we now know there was not such a thing as a Mk IXb or Mk IXc Spitfire.
Mark
By: - 22nd August 2012 at 19:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Mark - yes I'd already been through that thread, but it's almost all about later incarnations. The Bill Burge mention and photo were invaluable though - it would be great to see any others if you have them. Was he the "Alfred William" Burge I thought?
By: - 22nd August 2012 at 21:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As an aside, while on the subject of this particular Spitfire has anyone written a book solely about MH434 yet?
By: - 22nd August 2012 at 21:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The bulges over the outer .303" compartments were standard practice, to clear the rear of gun's breech block; sometimes they were right across the top surface of the cover, at others, they were just a small oval.
The "tear-drop" bulges, over the wheel wells, were a post-war modification, to allow for the different position of the wheels, when the axles were repositioned to set them straight fore-and-aft, due to running on hard, rather than grass, runways.
The controversy, over the apparent "B" wings, on several Mk.IX airframes, was caused by a late 1942/early 1943 modification to the wings' leading edges, which saw the "outboard cannon front mount casting" cut off, and faired over, since it was viewed as being redundant, due to the (almost) universal use of the "C" armament, and the use of that compartment, in the IX, to carry the hot-air pipes out to the outer .303" Brownings. This modification was rescinded in November 1943, when both of the castings were, once again, needed for the coming "E" armament. The fact that the RAF also used (unofficially) the terms "A" & "B" to designate engine types on the IX, compounded the felony even more.
It's likely that MH434 had a different, wider, bulge, on its cannon covers, at first, since the narrower bulge wasn't introduced until January 1944.
The long carburettor intake was designed for tropical use, and, initially at least, only the Mk.VIII, but the IX was also eventually included, from November 1943, especially when earmarked for the Middle East; presumably, being home-based, it was thought unnecessary to convert MH434.
The "anti-collision beacon" is actually an upwards-shining recognition light, which could be operated by the pilot as a continual light, or to transmit morse code. The RAF show it as being deleted in February 1943.
The bulged top cowling, on the IX, didn't occur until mid-1944, and was caused by the different coolant pipework/header tank on the XVI; rather than have two separate cowlings, it appears that Castle Bromwich went for a "one-size-fits-all" option. The VIII, being built by Supermarine, had no such problems.
The intake, on the right side of the top cowling, was to cool the Heywood compressor, on the engine.
By: - 22nd August 2012 at 22:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Edgar that's a brilliant reply pulling together bits I'd found here there and everywhere (not least http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html) and adding or clarifying some. I am very much obliged to you and I think I'm now there with the mods I need to effect. I still feel undecided about the wider cannon bulges - not least because photos show MH434 never had the second cannon 'stub'. Anyway thank you.
Gary
---
www.flightartworks.com
By: - 22nd August 2012 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A couple of other things to consider that were different on 434 in 1943 were the cannon shrouds and top cowling.
The cannon shrouds were of the tapered type, (take a look at MK732 & PV270), and not what I believe are the later 'e' type, as fitted to 434 today. (These type of shrouds can be seen fitted during her time with the Dutch).
As for the top cowling, I think you'll find that she was fitted with the earlier 'flat' type (as can be seen on MKVIII MV154 'MT928') as opposed to the later 'blown' type that she has today and also had while in service with the Dutch.
Oh, almost forgot the earlier type exhausts as well!
EDIT
Just seen in Edgar Brooks post reference to the later type top cowling.
Cheers
Paul
By: - 23rd August 2012 at 10:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As an aside, while on the subject of this particular Spitfire has anyone written a book solely about MH434 yet?Not yet - it was a pre-recession idea currently on the 'back-burner' I understand.
By: - 23rd August 2012 at 11:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just read in the Belgian aviation magazine Aeronews of Belgium (Jul/Aug 2012 issue) a story on MH434. When flying in 222Sq, a Fl.Lt. H.P. Lardner-Burcke (South-African nationality) flew this Spit and scored two-and-a-half kills on 27 Aug, 5 and 8 Sep. Could it be a misinterpretation / wrong spelling of names?
By: - 23rd August 2012 at 11:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just read in the Belgian aviation magazine Aeronews of Belgium (Jul/Aug 2012 issue) a story on MH434. When flying in 222Sq, a Fl.Lt. H.P. Lardner-Burcke (South-African nationality) flew this Spit and scored two-and-a-half kills on 27 Aug, 5 and 8 Sep. Could it be a misinterpretation / wrong spelling of names?
Both Pat Lardner-Burke and Bill Burge flew MH434 with 222 Squadron.
Mark
By: - 23rd August 2012 at 13:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both Pat Lardner-Burke and Bill Burge flew MH434 with 222 Squadron.
Mark
Indeed. I think you'd have to be a pretty sloppy clerk to misspell one of your pilot's names repeatedly! That said, who would be responsible for writing the Record of Operations on a daily basis...?
By: - 23rd August 2012 at 22:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not yet - it was a pre-recession idea currently on the 'back-burner' I understand.
Ok thanks for that Mark V.Look forward to end of the recession eh?:)
By: - 23rd August 2012 at 23:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok thanks for that Mark V.Look forward to end of the recession eh?:)Indeed - hopefully both will happen.... :)
By: - 24th August 2012 at 05:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi
curiosity is getting me.:confused:
i always thought the early IX's were converted Mk Vb & c.
so as these aircraft being converted already have the b or c wing,
when converted to IX, would they not be a b or c wing MK IX,:confused:
or did the conversion to IX include standardising the wings as well.
cheers
Jerry
By: - 24th August 2012 at 06:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The wings need two radiators, so it's impossible to just shove the engine on the front, and leave it at that. The "C" configuration also had two compartments in the cannon bay, and the outer one, on the IX, was used to carry the heating pipes from the back of the radiators out to the pair of .303" Brownings.
By: - 24th August 2012 at 10:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The finished picture whose preparation prompted this thread, if anyone's interested:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyeason/7849834692/in/photostream
Critique welcome!
By: - 24th August 2012 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The finished picture whose preparation prompted this thread, if anyone's interested:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyeason/7849834692/in/photostreamCritique welcome!
I see you have painted it at 250th of a second. :)
In the many years I have observed Spitfires flying I have never been able to see or count the propeller blades.
That aside, a damn good painting.
Mark
By: - 26th August 2012 at 10:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I see you have painted it at 250th of a second. :)
In the many years I have observed Spitfires flying I have never been able to see or count the propeller blades.That aside, a damn good painting.
Thanks Mark. Ah, I've debated that very point with myself! http://www.garyeason.co.uk/2012/02/props-.html. Welcome people's thoughts on the subject.
G
By: - 27th August 2012 at 02:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Name That Program....
A slight thread-drift, but;- Many years ago, in either the very late 1970's or early '80's, there was a TV documentary dedicated to MH434. Can anyone here remember what it was called..? I wonder if it is still available....? Tt may have been for the old Thames TV, and would have been prior to Sir Adrian Swire selling the machine.
By: - 27th August 2012 at 08:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not "dedicated" per se, but there is the documentary where MH434 is flown by Neil Williams for the last 10mins or so of the film. Stunning stuff. I'll see if I can find the clip.
There was, however, a film made regarding '434 a few years back. I think it was called "A Spitfire's Story" or something similar.
By: - 27th August 2012 at 08:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty sure this is the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzsJBjbCyvM&feature=share&list=PLF74F546C58BDD22B
Posts: 58
By: garyeason - 22nd August 2012 at 18:29
I know MH434 has been much chewed over but I'm unclear on some details if anyone can definitively help, please.
I'm trying to depict its condition as of December 1943 (222 Squadron, ZD-B). I've arrowed the bits I'm not clear about in this upload (mainly wing blisters):
http://flickr.com/gp/garyeason/00998r
Also, at the time the pilot was shown in the Ops Record as a F/O Burge. I've come across the name Bill Burge in this connection, does anyone know for sure if that would have been him? And is he = Alfred William Burge, RNZAF (later DFC)?