Sporg Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 They're certainly the standard tips. As excited as I am for the MkIX, I am a bit confused in that we have a plane that is not representative. 434 has never had clipped wings. Have I read correctly that there are plans to incorporate both versions of the wing tips by treating the standard wingtips as 'ordinance' to get around having a second module? Its already been reported, a while before you guys saw it ;) The stage the Spit is in, in development, they arent stressing cosmetic stuff like skins right now, it will be changed. Thanks Sith. The funny thing is, MH434 actually has had clipped wings, only not in 1944. ;) I followed her history, and at some point while in the Netherlands or Belgian Airforce she must have been converted. In the Belgian Airforce she was registered as SM-41. This aircraft can be seen after a slight landing mishap here. Clipped wings and long intake: Source: http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/Supermarine%20Spitfire%20IX/Spitfire%20IX%20SM41.html Later she was sold and registered as OO-ARA. Still clipped wings: Source: http://www.belgian-wings.be/webpages/navigator/photos/civilpics/civil_pics_ooaaa_ooczz/Supermarine%20Spitfire%20LF.9c%20OO-ARA/Spitfire%20LFIX%20OO-ARA%20Cogea.htm So, in some way she is the perfect subject, in case ED chooses to make the module with both wing types. :D System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted October 9, 2015 ED Team Share Posted October 9, 2015 Are you sure about that? That top picture has a the different tail as well? Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted October 9, 2015 ED Team Share Posted October 9, 2015 Cool vid, cant wait to be virtually in his spot :) Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporg Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) Are you sure about that? That top picture has a the different tail as well? I think maybe it is an optical illusion, since the rudder is turned? However her history going to Belgian SM-41 is reported in two places: At Airhistory.org: http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p063.html and at: http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/birds/spitfire/registraties.htm At Airhistory.org they also write that she is later registered as OO-ARA. Edit: Airhistory.org also writes "sold A Swire 'AC-S' normal wing fitted". That seems to indicate that she has had clipped wings before that? Edited October 9, 2015 by Sporg System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted October 9, 2015 ED Team Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) I dot think so... that looks like a different tail, but you could be right: Anyways, have you seen this page? http://www.mh434.com/ Edited October 9, 2015 by NineLine Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporg Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) I dot think so... that looks like a different tail, but you could be right: I think it is definitely the lower tail on the SM-41 picture. Anyways, have you seen this page? http://www.mh434.com/ Yes, I stumbled across it in my search. :) I didn't read it much at first, was looking for pictures. And not really any from its Netherlands/Belgium years. However, it gives a plausible reason as to why the plane could have been converted, both the wings and the intake: "As H-105 - mainly ground strafing and light bombing missions - before crash-landing in Semarang, Java. After spending some time in storage, MH434 was repaired and flew again in Holland on the 10 March 1953." Since she was mainly used for ground attacks, maybe they decided to clip the wings when she was rebuilt anyway? Or they had some wings from another plane? One can only guess, but worth investigating. :) Edit: Clue number 2: The Netherlands registraties page lists two numbers for MH434: B-13 and SM-41. Maybe she was B-13 before the accident? Could be interesting if it was possible to find a picture of her when registered as B-13. :) Edited October 9, 2015 by Sporg System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 The Spitfire on its nose doesn't have a pointy rudder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friedrich-4B Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Is it just me, or does the MH434 not have clipped wings on this 1944 picture? Seems like normal rounded wing tips? Additionally it has a short air intake here. Picture is from this thread post: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?20097-MH434-And-Her-Many-Guises&p=253926#post253926 Same thread MiloMorai referenced to in his post earlier: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2446222&postcount=649 Here's a brief resume of MH434's career MH434 LFIX CBAF.IX.5562 CBAF M66 222S 13-8-43 shot down Fw190 9-43 84GSU 15-6-44 ros 7-7-44 76MU 27-7-46 RNethAF 17-3-47 as H-68 WUL later H-105 BAF as SM-41 3-53 sold COGEA as civil OO-ARA target tug sold T Davies G-ASJV sold A Swire 'AC-S' normal wing fitted used as photo aircraft in BoB film extant G-ASJV reported M76 install [c/n 552?] It's possible that MH434 had the short intake because it was built during the transition from the original style to the later Vokes 'universal' filter in the extended fairing. Yeah, apparently someone in the Supermarine/Air Ministrz Designation Department figured out that he is only required to come up with random variations of Roman numbers and letters, not necessarily following any particular order, to get his paycheck. :lol: He surely had some distant relatives in the German and U.S. Ordnance Department though, who had also figured out that the job can be further simplified by just designating every piece of ordnance as '18' or 'M 1', respectively. :megalol: Actually, it had nothing to do with someone in Supermarine or the AM allocating numbers and letters at random. The designation Spitfire IXB was devised and used by pilots soon after the IX with the Merlin 66 was introduced (spring '43), thus differentiating the new variant from those powered by the Merlin 61/63, which was unofficially called the IXA. A couple of months later, the official designations of F, L.F and H.F Mk IX were introduced, yet the pilots, and unit record books still continued referring to IXAs and IXBs for months afterwards. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klem Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Cool vid, cant wait to be virtually in his spot :) One thing I hate about those videos is that you never get to see their hand movements. Another thing I hate is that young face and clear eyes but that's another story. Beautifully smooth turns and rolls. Yo-Yo we're waiting :) klem 56 RAF 'Firebirds' ASUS ROG Strix Z390-F mobo, i7 8086A @ 5.0 GHz with Corsair H115i watercooling, Gigabyte 2080Ti GAMING OC 11Gb GPU , 32Gb DDR4 RAM, 500Gb and 256Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s + 2TB , Pimax 8k Plus VR, TM Warthog Throttle, TM F18 Grip on Virpil WarBRD base, Windows 10 Home 64bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ala13_ManOWar Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Are you sure about that? That top picture has a the different tail as well?It's an optical illusion, definitely :smilewink:. Weird anyway if she was overhauled to clipped wings and, E type weapons? S! "I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted October 9, 2015 ED Team Share Posted October 9, 2015 It's an optical illusion, definitely :smilewink:. S! Yeah, the more I look at it with an awake brain I believe that is right... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporg Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) Weird anyway if she was overhauled to clipped wings and, E type weapons? Hehe, yeah, seems weird. But on the MH434 page, they write that as SM-41 she "served at the Advanced Pilot School at Koksijd". Maybe the gun barrels were just removed? Another guess could be another set of wings entirely, after the accident? (Which we don't know about, but which must have been severe since it sent her in long storage.) Anyway, I have the feeling that some very interesting history is hidden in her Belgian or Netherlands years. :) Edited October 9, 2015 by Sporg System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I dot think so... that looks like a different tail, but you could be right: Anyways, have you seen this page? http://www.mh434.com/ The extended vertical stability helped improve the directional stability. Post-war, the longitudinal instability was fixed in the Mk IX series by increasing the horizontal stab area to move the AC forward. I hope he does not model a post war empennage. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 It's an optical illusion, definitely :smilewink:. Weird anyway if she was overhauled to clipped wings and, E type weapons? S! It was a very simple job to change from a standard to a clipped or extended wing tip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporg Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 It was a very simple job to change from a standard to a clipped or extended wing tip. Ok, interesting. Was it also simple to remove the shrouds for the cannon barrels then? I'm asking since they seem to be absent from the SM-41 and the OO-ARA? System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 A little muscle and a hacksaw. Seriously, looks like a screw in this photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongodriver Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 The extended vertical stability helped improve the directional stability. Post-war, the longitudinal instability was fixed in the Mk IX series by increasing the horizontal stab area to move the AC forward. I hope he does not model a post war empennage. The Mk IX had no longitudinal instability issues, I'm pretty sure the only significant modification of tailplane size came with Griffon powered variants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporg Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 A little muscle and a hacksaw. Seriously, looks like a screw in this photo. Hehe, of course. :) Was mislead a bit by a guy in the thread you referred to, who claimed it would be difficult. But of course, a war plane must be simple or at least manageable to dismantle in all parts. All makes sense. :) Now, lets just hope that ED makes it just as easy to change wing tips etc. Then, with the correct skins, we could have this plane in all her iterations. :) System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friedrich-4B Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) The Mk IX had no longitudinal instability issues, I'm pretty sure the only significant modification of tailplane size came with Griffon powered variants. Yep, the claim that Mk IXs were routinely fitted with enlarged tailplanes post-war is erroneous, with absolutely no evidence provided. Tests of an enlarged tailplane on one or two Mk IXs took place at Farnborough in July 1946, partly to compensate for the rear fuselage tank fitted into some late Mk IXs and late Mk XVIs. However, the enlarged tailplane did not become a standard production feature, nor was it fitted retrospectively, nor is there a mod number covering such a conversion. Edited October 10, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongodriver Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Yep, the claim that Mk IXs were routinely fitted with enlarged tailplanes post-war is erroneous, with absolutely no evidence provided. Tests of an enlarged tailplane on one or two Mk IXs took place at Farnborough in July 1946, partly to compensate for the rear fuselage tank fitted into some late Mk IXs and late Mk XVIs. However, the enlarged tailplane did not become a standard production feature, nor was it fitted retrospectively, nor is there a mod number covering such a conversion. Precisely, had it been found to be a worthwhile/necessary modification then the present day regulatory bodies would be insisting the dual seat TR9's would have it, I fear we are witnessing another attempt at perpetuating a myth about Spitfire instability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friedrich-4B Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Precisely, had it been found to be a worthwhile/necessary modification then the present day regulatory bodies would be insisting the dual seat TR9's would have it, I fear we are witnessing another attempt at perpetuating a myth about Spitfire instability. Its very simple really - no Modification number (mod) from Supermarine means no such modification; it was the SOP, which anyone who understands by-the-book procedure should know well This particular barrow of the Mk IX's so-called longitudinal instability has been pushed many times by the same person, both here and in plenty of other forums. :yawn::sleep: It's a bust. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Yep, the claim that Mk IXs were routinely fitted with enlarged tailplanes post-war is erroneous, with absolutely no evidence provided. Tests of an enlarged tailplane on one or two Mk IXs took place at Farnborough in July 1946, partly to compensate for the rear fuselage tank fitted into some late Mk IXs and late Mk XVIs. However, the enlarged tailplane did not become a standard production feature, nor was it fitted retrospectively, nor is there a mod number covering such a conversion. Ok, then the instability was never fixed. There were no design changes to move the AC and the stability Margin of the Mk IX remained the same as the Mk V. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Just because you do not understand the issue does not mean it does not exist Fredrick. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yob Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Moderators Please Prevent this from turning into another Debate about Stability of the Spitfire........... Thank You....... On a side not that i think the main point of thead is about i cant wait for the Spitfire:P 487th Squadron Section Leader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friedrich-4B Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Ok, then the instability was never fixed. There were no design changes to move the AC and the stability Margin of the Mk IX remained the same as the Mk V. Bottom line Crumpp has never provided documented evidence of the IX's so-called instability; last time he was asked point blank whether he had documents stating that the IX was unstable, he said Yes - then got stuck in South America... The purported document on the Mk IX's instability was never produced. :smilewink: Anyway, I'm not interested in feeding Crumpp's lone obsession with this non-issue, nor should this thread be diverted into further "discussion". :yawn: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts