Help on Spitfire 11B

[plan_D]

The Spitfire Mk.21 was equipped with four 20-mm Hispano Mk.II cannon operationally. It served with No.91 Sqdn. and undertook 154 sorties before VE-Day. Two Mk.21 Spitfires were lost to ground fire, and a Biber-class midget submarine was destroyed.

[Brain32]

SpitfireMkVc with trop filter carried 4x20mm HispanoMkII cannons too, it served in Africa. As for rockets SeafireIII could carry 4x60lbs rockets...

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Pappy

Hey everyone... I have a question.. well, more like a billion lol. Sorry for the overload but they've been bugging me:

1) Could any Spitfire carry rockets? If so, how many rockets could they carry, and which variants could cary them?

2) Did bombs and/or rockets have arming switches in the cockpit of any Spit? If not, then will the bombs just explode if the Spit goes into a dive?

3) Did the Spitfire Mk.VIII have laminar flow wings?

4) Could any Spitfire carry 1000 lbs. of bombs in the form of 2 X 500 lb. or 1 X 1000 lb.? If so, which variants (also, it may not be about Spits, but could any Tempests hold both bombs and rockets at the same time)?

5) Did any Spitfire with 'e' or 'c' type wings ever carry 4 X 20mm cannon operationally?

*pants* Whoo.. haha it's a lot and I've tried looking everywhere for the info and I've blown up a few times in the process. Thanks for any info!

Hate to contradict Gnomey but

1) The Spitfire IX could carry a 60lbs rocket under each wing to substitute for a 250 lbr. I have several photographs of Spitfire IXs armed with 2 x 60 lbr rockets and 1 x 500 lbs bomb. There were trials with up to 4 under each wing but few, if any, operational.

Seafire marks could also carry 3 60lbs rockets under each wing.

2) Don't know either. However, Spitfire Vcs flying out of Malta could chose which wing to drop their bombs from or from both together, and sometimes got 'stuck' bombs during the attack dive, so I would assume that the fuses were contact, rod or pistol type.

3) No. It had the standard Spitfire wing. Some early production airframes had extended wing tips though, but these were generally removed in service.

4) Yes, but only post war. The Spitfire Mk XVIII was cleared for 500 lbs on each of 3 weapons points, for a total of 1500 lbs.

The external armament development was

Spitfire V: 2x 250
Spitfire IX: 2 x250 and 1 x 500
Spitfire XVIII: 3 x 500

Tempests were rarely used as bomb carriers during the war, being the preferred low altitude fighter of the RAF from the middle of 1944 until the end of the war. They were cleared for 4 60lbs rockets or 250, 500 or 1000 lbs bombs under each wing. The rockets were never used operationally during the war.

Typhoons were grouped into rocket or bomber squadrons, primarily after training and operational performance had revealed that a squadron was more efficient and accurate if it specialised in one role, instead of both. Typhoons didn't carry both rockets and bombs simultaneously.

5. There were several operational squadrons out of Malta, Egypt and Australia who flew Spitfire Mk Vcs with 4 cannon armament. The SAAF was also supplied with some. For a while the 4 cannon Spitfire was the dominant fighter over Malta.

I also have pictures of an Australian Mk VIII with 4 cannon and extended wingtip, a rare combination indeed.

Apart from on the Mk Vc, 4 cannon armed Spitfires were very rare.

The 'e' wing was developed to hold the .50 calibre Browning HMG inboard of the Hispano cannon. However, it was capable of carrying an armament of either 2 Hispanos or 1 Hispano and 4 Browning .303 MGs. Generally the 'e' designation refers specifically to Spitfires with the mixed .50 cal and 20mm armament. For instance F. Mk IXe or FR. Mk XIVe

[Wurger]

Nice info there.

[Sgt. Pappy]

Wow thanks Gnomey and Jabberwockey!! FINALLY I have the info! lol
and sorry I keep wondering .. but why did the Tempest have a drop in performance above 25,000'? And I've also noticed that the Tempest has room between its undercarriage to hold a bomb.. too bad they didn't let it.

I remember that the original Mk.I Tempest was a much better performer but the large oil coolers recessed in the wings were distrusted by the Air ministry especially due to the fact that barely any Luftwaffe fighters were anywhere to be seen.

[Jabberwocky]

The Tempest's drop in performance over 25,000 feet was tied to the barebones, almost elementary, centrifugal type supercharging of the Sabre engine.

Unlike the Merlin, the Sabre never recieved a two stage, two speed supercharger. Instead it stuck with a single stage, two speed supercharger, which lost efficiency as altitude increased and the air got thinner. The Sabre was tested with an advanced 3 speed, two stage supercharger in early 1942, but it was just seen as an added and unwanted complexity to what was a very unreliable engine at the time.

Later engines like the Centarus and Sabre V on the Tempest II and VI actually had even lower full throttle heights , so obviously the lack of high altitude performance didn't particulary worry the RAF.


The medium altitude restriction actually worked in the Tempests and Typhoons favour to some extent, ensuring their place as the premier low altitude fighter and fighter-bomber, respectively, of the RAF.

The wing radiators were initially dismissed for a few reasons:

1. The percieved vulnerability of wing radiators/oil coolers. During 1941 and 1942 both the Whirlwind and Mosquito suffered combat damage after sucking debris into their wing mounted radiators. The chin radiator was seen as more robust at the time, perhaps incorrectly.

2. The expense of manufacture. Although more efficient aerodynamically, the wing radiators were more complex and expensive.

3. Space for fuel. Getting rid of the wing radiators was supposed to allow room for more fuel tanks in the wings. However, i'm unsure if this capacity was used or not. The Mk II, with wing radiators, actually ended up being the longest ranged Tempest variant.

[Sgt. Pappy]

ooo I see.. thanks Jabber!

[terriles]

hola ta muy bueno VERY GOOT