Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum  

Go Back   Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum > Discussion > Allied and Soviet Air Forces

Allied and Soviet Air Forces Please use this forum to discuss the Air Forces of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 2nd March 2009, 19:10
John Beaman John Beaman is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
Posts: 2,155
John Beaman is an unknown quantity at this point
Malta Spitfire question

I just finished reading Osprey's Malta Spitfire Aces book. In it, the statement is made that some of the critical reinforcement convoys in the Spring and Summer of '42, delivered Spit Vb after earlier convoys had delivered Vc machines. Wasn't this a sort of retro-step? Did you not have to have different loading equipment and spares between the two versions? Why would this be done? At this point (Spring of 1942), surely there were plenty of Vcs available in England to ship a few dozen to Malta?

I've not read Malta The Spitfire Year and should, but is there an answer in there?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2nd March 2009, 22:56
Graham Boak Graham Boak is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 1,680
Graham Boak is on a distinguished road
Re: Malta Spitfire question

This is not something that is properly explained anywhere. It may well be linked to the further development of the DH Hydromatic propellor, giving a better range of pitch angles than previously available. The texts do state that this propellor was tried for carrier launches, with Malta deliveries specifically in mind. The trials were successful, and the propellor used on deliveries. As a general rule, the Mk.Vb had the DH propellor and the Mk.Vc the Rotol - I would be reluctant to be definitive about that!

However, it is perhaps less of a backward step than might be imagined. The Mk.Vc was heavier than the Mk.Vb, as a result of modifications giving a stronger wing and a wider range of capabilities. Given the same engine, the Mk.Vb could even be better than the Mk.Vc for the pure intercept roles on Malta, even without allowing for any benefit of the new prop. The standard armaments were identical, as were fuel tanks and most of the details.

Note that the Mk.Vb was generally retained for operations from the UK and the Mk.Vc sent overseas.

The majority of the early production of the Mk.Vc went to Malta: there were not a lot of spare Mk.Vc because Australia also had a high priority at this time.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 3rd March 2009, 13:02
VoyTech VoyTech is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 198
VoyTech is on a distinguished road
Re: Malta Spitfire question

Graham, are you sure that propeller issues were connected with the Mk VB vs. VC question?
In any case, in general the propellers were not connected to Spitfire variants but to their makers. Those built by Supermarine and Westland were generally fitted with dH props, those from CBAF - with Rotol. The only major exception from this rule is that CBAF Mk Vs from initial deliveries (mid-1942) were fitted with dH props which probably links with the modifications you mentioned.
I'd say the main reason for the switch back from Mk VCs to Mk VBs was that in early 1942 Supermarine's were the only makers of the Mk VC. During late spring/summer 1942 they gradually terminated their Mk V production, moving on to Mk IXs which were needed in quantity on the Channel front. Even those Mk VCs that they continued to build were mostly sent to Rolls-Royce for conversion to Mk IX standard. On the other hand, Westland and CBAF were only just beginning Mk VC production, so for a while there were only Mk VBs available.
The only major advantage the Mk VC had over the Mk VB was that the 'C' wing carried twice the amount of ammunition for each of its cannon than the 'B' wing.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 3rd March 2009, 15:26
Graham Boak Graham Boak is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 1,680
Graham Boak is on a distinguished road
Re: Malta Spitfire question

I take your point about the production availability. No, I'm certainly not sure there is a link to the propellor - I thought I had qualified my comments enough to make that clear. There does however seem to be enough to make a strong inference.

I have since consulted Malta: The Spitfire Year and the relevant deliveries are Pinpoint (July 15th) and Insect (July 21st). Shores describes the Pinpoint deliveries as Mk.Vcs - from Spitfire the History and other sources I make them a mix of Mk.Vb and Mk.Vc from the BR, EN and EP blocks. Insect are all Mk.Vbs from EP but for (maybe) three AR Mk.Vcs. The text describes one Malta veteran's (Ogilvy) comment. "This time we launched with greater authority.... The new Spitfires had laminated wood hydromatic propellors...." So a little confusion there? Rotol were wooden, DH metal. Ogilvy was not with the earlier Pinpoint mission.

The Pinpoint aircraft were delivered to the MUs in May, the Insect aircraft in June.

Somwhere there is a specific reference to a solitary carrier take-off to prove the value of the Hydromatic propellor but I haven't found that yet.

The EP aircraft were Merlin 46s as opposed to the ENs with Merlin 45s - could this be relevant to the propellor change? (Perhaps not, the BRs were Merlin 46 too.) Possibly it is relevant to Ogilvy's pleasure at the performance.

I've long regarded the tropicalised Mk.Vc as the overweight dragmaster of the Spitfire family. Carrying twice the cannon armament pushes the weight difference up further - giving with one hand whilst taking away with the other.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 4th March 2009, 20:05
John Beaman John Beaman is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
Posts: 2,155
John Beaman is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Malta Spitfire question

Thanks Graham and VoyTech. What you both say makes sense. British policy can often be perfidious .

Graham, BTW, I thought the Merlin 46 was optimised for low level in an attempt to deal with the "tip and run" raiders?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 4th March 2009, 21:03
Graham Boak Graham Boak is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 1,680
Graham Boak is on a distinguished road
Re: Malta Spitfire question

Aircraft with the Merlin 46 are just considered as F variants rather than LF. The low-rated variants had an M suffix - 45M, 50M and 55M. There does not seem to have been a 46M - there was a 46N but I know nothing about it, other than it was not a low-rated engine.

I don't know the differences between the 45, 46, 50 and 55, for that matter.

The low-rated engines may have been inspired by the Jabos but were widely used as a way of lengthening the effective lifespan of the Mk.V, being very potent at low-level (the fastest climbing fighter of WW2, from sealevel) which is why the FAA standardised on them for the Seafire.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 5th March 2009, 13:16
VoyTech VoyTech is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 198
VoyTech is on a distinguished road
Re: Malta Spitfire question

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beaman View Post
Graham, BTW, I thought the Merlin 46 was optimised for low level in an attempt to deal with the "tip and run" raiders?
Quite the opposite, I belive. Merlin 46 was the high-altitude optimised development of the Merlin 45.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Friendly fire WWII Brian Allied and Soviet Air Forces 803 8th July 2023 16:47
Heinz Baer's vic total NickM Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces 12 21st February 2010 16:59
Spitfire from HMS Eagle to Malta - twice. Graham Boak Allied and Soviet Air Forces 0 24th October 2007 00:05
Thunderbolts and Mustangs versus the Jagdwaffe (split topic) Ruy Horta Allied and Soviet Air Forces 98 9th August 2007 17:22
The remarkable William Tex Ash, 24 March '42 Brendan Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces 3 4th February 2005 19:55


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net