100 post question for you.......

Hi Migs
Single bombs only on the bomb carriers and they were only rated to a 250 lb max. The 500 lb bomb was not always carried. Sometimes they would load a 30, 45 or 90 gal. slipper tank or the 45 gal. Torpedo tank.
The above post makes no sense to me at all. If sphealy is referring to exhaust stacks you really can't rely on the six stacks per side verifying the Spitfire as a Mk IX. Many Mk Vc's did indeed have the six stacks fitted. In fact there is a photo of one on page 26 in the Squadron Spitfire In Action book, but the author hasn't a clue so he states that it is a Mk V fitted with a Merlin 61 (a Mk IX engine) because it has six stacks. This is totally ridiculous but since it appeared in a "Squadron" book, it has become gospel. When that book came out I went and bought another one, highlighted all the mistakes, wrote in all the explanations and corrections, and then sent it back to Squadron Signal Publications. They not only ignored me but actually reissued the book years later with all the mistakes intact. That shows you how much they care about accuracy---zilch.
Migs, I enjoy your questions or from anyone else for that matter.
Cheers
Bob S.

out of interest bob, the early Aurora Spitfire is pictured built at
http://groups.msn.com/BOXART/aurorapublicidad.msnw?Page=2
pic 11
was that a single bomb load of 250lb on the c wing or would the 'racks' take two each without the central load to the same total ?
no more questions, apprechiate all the info ..............
(did the above post mean exhaust stack thingys and mean 6 thingys on a MkIX ?)

The art is really bad, but the Spitfire can't be Mk.9 or above because of the radatior having three thingys insted of four.

Hi Migs
I doubt if the Aurora people had ever heard of a PR Spitfire. Back then it seems that the going thing was just a "British Spitfire" and Battle of Britain and that was it. It was actually Airfix I think that got modellers to realize that the Spit was continually developed through the entire war and was a front line fighter still in 1945. No other fighter a/c had that distinction, not even the Me 109 which was pretty well at the end of it's development with the 109 G. The Luftwaffe pilots by then called it "the Bulge".
The later Aurora box art isn't too bad considering, but of course a Mk Vc would never have been painted in BoB era paint scheme, but BoB was synominous with the Spitfire still, especially with Yanks.
The "c" wing was almost always seen in what you call "b" configuration but really that need not be said as it was standard loading on the "c" wing. Very few Spitfires loaded all four cannon in a "c" wing. It was just too heavy. The "c" wing had other advantages over the "b" wing such as the u/c raked forward a couple degrees and the ability to fit bomb carriers (Yanks call them "bomb racks"...in the Spit manual it is a "bomb carrier") on the wings for 2 X 250 lb bombs. The belly bomb carrier could take 1 X 500 lb bomb so then you had a 1000 lb bomb load on a short range a/c that could really defend itself after bombing the target. Later the "e" wing, which was loaded with 2 X 20 mm cannon and 2 X .50 cal machine guns, was introduced. The change was in the armament, not the wing. The basic "e" wing was really the "c".
Bottom line---The Spitfire is one complicated a/c to study but there have been many who instead of researching further, have reorted to "guessing" and I am not refering to just people like Cuda, I am talking about books such as the awful Squadron attempt and Osprey's terrible Spitfire modelling book by someone who hasn't a clue about Spitfires and misleads everyone into believing them once their gusses are in print.
My Spitfire library is up to 85 books now and some are not worth the paper they are written on while others are indispensable. I also have shop manuals for the Mk V, Mk IX, and Mk XVI and the engineering drawings for the Mk V and IX along with the Vickers factory Spitfire painting drawings and diagrams for markings. I have worked on real Spitfires from 1976 to present (a Mk IX and a Mk XVIe).
Cheers
Bob S.

thanks Bob, was hopeing you'd reply, am i right to say that the wing is c in b config on the MkV - and any chance those bars of soap are PR Spitfires ? or is that just peeing in the wind !
cuda - beuty is in the eye of the beholder
are thes kits seen much in the US these days ......

Hi Migs
I didn't realize that there was a later box art for the old Aurora Spitfire. The blue drawing looks like something carved out of soap and the other is actually a Mk Vc. Of course the markings are wrong but when I enlarge the drawing you can see that it has the circular section oil cooler of the Mk V and what appears as a"c" wing.
Sorry Cuda, I don't know where you are getting your information from but you are way off. The Squadron book on the Spitfire has some nice pictures but is full of mistakes and guesses. Almost useless. There are way better and accurate Spitfire reference books available. Go into back issues of FSM and read the article that I wrote in the Feb 2001 issue.
Cheers
Bob S.

Hey Migs;
well the Spitty are pretty easy to find out which MK they are, the MK 1's & 2's have 4 machine guns per wing then the MK5's had 3 types of wings the MK Va is the same wing as the MK 1's & 2's, the Vb wing they have the 20MM cannons, Vc wings have the 20MM cannons & the wing tips cropped, also the oil & coolent cowls on all these wing are different sizes, then we go to the MK 8's and they look like a MK Vb but the cowles are the same size, and some of these where high altitude planes and the rudders & wingtips where inlarged, then most of the planes had upgrades to the engines & props for the higher MK #'s but those are the fastest way to explain the differences, the best book to get would be Squadrons Spitfire in Action they go over all the MK's and their differences
Ugly Butt Deadly Effective Hawgs
Cuda