Supermarine Spitfire and Seafire

[The Wooksta!]

Yes.  The Seafire 17 got longer stroke oleos and the 20 series wing had the u/c track widened.  Wheel tracking changed post war as concrete runways were degrading the wheels, which necessitated a teardrop shaped bulge above the wing (it's on the Hasegawa and Airfix VIII/IX kits and the Heller XVIe and needs removing for wartime aircraft).

Wheels got larger - aircraft carrying bombs got the 4 spoke wheel hub and post war aircraft got the three spoke hub on a slightly larger wheel.

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^Thanks

[Aircav]

I've a question about the 1/48 Revell Spitfire IX/XVI kit. How come its a XVI when all the photos I've seen of the XVI are of bubble canopy Spit's. I ask this as don't know that much about Spitfire Marks as I'm more into Hurricane's. 
Thanks

[Gondor]

I've a question about the 1/48 Revell Spitfire IX/XVI kit. How come its a XVI when all the photos I've seen of the XVI are of bubble canopy Spit's. I ask this as don't know that much about Spitfire Marks as I'm more into Hurricane's. 
Thanks

Short answer is that the Mk IX had a Rolls Royce Merlin engine and the Mk XVI had a Packard Merlin

Gondor

[kitnut617]

I've a question about the 1/48 Revell Spitfire IX/XVI kit. How come its a XVI when all the photos I've seen of the XVI are of bubble canopy Spit's. I ask this as don't know that much about Spitfire Marks as I'm more into Hurricane's.  
Thanks

I've been re-looking at my volumes of 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers' just lately, there's a photo of a Mk.XVI in one of them which practically looks like a regular Mk.IX.  Incidently and just to confuse matters, some later Mk.IXs were bubble tops too.

[perttime]

Rolls Royce's and Packards Merlins, and their installations, were different enough that you had to keep Mk.IX and Mk.XVI separate, to make sure you didn't try to install incompatible parts.

[Aircav]

I've been re-looking at my volumes of 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers' just lately, there's a photo of a Mk.XVI in one of them which practically looks like a regular Mk.IX.  Incidently and just to confuse matters, some later Mk.IXs were bubble tops too.

NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the info guy's, so from what I can make out, as long as I keep the engine covered up a IX could be a XVI and a bubble top XVI could be a IX. 

[PR19_Kit]

Even if the engine is visible most would be pushed to tell a Packard Merlin from a R-R one.

[andrewj]

Even if the engine is visible most would be pushed to tell a Packard Merlin from a R-R one.

The Packard Merlin cowling has a slightly humped topline, but it's almost impossible to discern in most photographs.

[kitnut617]

Rolls Royce's and Packards Merlins, and their installations, were different enough that you had to keep Mk.IX and Mk.XVI separate, to make sure you didn't try to install incompatible parts.

Just putting the wrong bolt in could cause an engine problem, the Packards all used US Standard AF fasteners (bolts, nuts, screws etc.).  I find it interesting when I read about Lancasters that had a mix of the engines, wonder if that 'reeally' happened

[wuzak]

Rolls Royce's and Packards Merlins, and their installations, were different enough that you had to keep Mk.IX and Mk.XVI separate, to make sure you didn't try to install incompatible parts.

Just putting the wrong bolt in could cause an engine problem, the Packards all used US Standard AF fasteners (bolts, nuts, screws etc.).  I find it interesting when I read about Lancasters that had a mix of the engines, wonder if that 'reeally' happened

This is incorrect. Packards used British standard fasteners, and I believe most parts were fully interchangeable with British built versions. Two stage Packard engines used an epicyclic 2 speed supercharger drive, single stage engines kept the same Farman type gearbox as the British Merlins. They used American built injection carbies too. V-1650s (for US consumptions) got standard US SAE #50 spline propellor shafts, whereas British bound Packard Merlins received the British standard propellor shaft.

Not sure if there were any differences, other than the source of the engine, between the IX and XVI.

[perttime]

This is incorrect. Packards used British standard fasteners, and I believe most parts were fully interchangeable with British built versions....
...
Not sure if there were any differences, other than the source of the engine, between the IX and XVI.

Had to go and check my best Spitfire source (by Morgan&Shacklady). Looks like you are probably right about the engine.

M&S say: "[XVI] had some minor fitments to the [IX] and the F XVI designation was an aid to the ordering of spares. Apart from this both aircraft were virtually identical."

It doesn't say what exactly the differences are.

[wuzak]

It makes sense as Packard was contracted to supply engines to the British, with the proviso that one third of the engines were to be for the US. It wouldn't have been a good idea to supply a non-interchangeable product for your major customer, and redo all the designs to suit US fasteners. The drawings were redrawn to suit US customs.

[wuzak]

Here's a diagram of the Merlin 266 installation (Packard version of Merlin 66) for a Spitfire

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/packard266-engine-installation.jpg

[KJ_Lesnick]

kitnut617

In the RR Mustang FTB, the Griffon engine was just behind the cockpit with the center of the engine just over the main spar, the engine could be moved a bit further forward than how Greg has it.  In this photo you can see that the front of the engine is just under the rear of the canopy.

I never saw that design before.  Is that just a WHIF design or something real?


Jschmus

Spitfires in space! I saw these on x-planes.  It's concept art from the Doctor Who episode, "Victory of the Daleks":

The ship in the corner seems more interesting to me than the "Space-Spitfires"


PR19_Kit

Whoah!  Badass!