Spitfire IXe and rocket projectiles...

[EAF19_Marsh]

"I got a little toasted but I'm OK"

[LukeFF]

So, I took advantage of the free downloads the British National Archives are offering right now to pick up the ORBs for 74 Squadron for 1945, to see if I could track down when/where RPs were used. The Record of Events logs mention nothing about RPs being used, only about attacks being made with bombs.

 

In the Summary of Events logs, the entry for January 29th, 1945 says "All aircraft bombed up and briefed for close support but weather conditions again unfavourable due to low cloud base." So nothing by the end of January 1945. 

 

Meanwhile, re-equipment of the squadron with Spitfire XVIs began on 6 March 1945. Re-equipment with the XVI is complete by the 16th (on an interesting note, there is a remark that performance of the new mark is "poor" in comparison with the Mk IX, with some 10-15 mph lost due to the poor workmanship of the engines). Practice bombing is noted as having been performed on 22 March 1945. But no mention of even practice missions being flown with RPs.

 

So, my conclusion of all this is that RPs were never used operationally by Spitfires, and any photos that are out there are from rear-area trials. 

 

 

 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@LukeFF It is unrelated but I wonder if there are reports of +11 boost being used for Typhoons? There is one report from ww2aircraftperformance page from the No. 439 RCAF squadron from February 1945 talking about the pilot and mechanics crews being lectured on the use of 150 octane fuel for their engines, and following that it's mentioned the change of sparkplugs to accept the new fuel.

[=621=Samikatz]

 

4 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

(on an interesting note, there is a remark that performance of the new mark is "poor" in comparison with the Mk IX, with some 10-15 mph lost due to the poor workmanship of the engines).

 

Didn't the 266 also have issues with spark plug fouling, too? I know the ones with cut back fuselages had higher stall speeds, so if they're slower and less pleasant to fly I can't imagine they would be very popular with pilots

[LukeFF]

11 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I know the ones with cut back fuselages had higher stall speeds, so if they're slower and less pleasant to fly I can't imagine they would be very popular with pilots

 

Yes, the rest of that entry is interesting, in that it says most of the defects could be fixed with a lot of work, but that pilots would still have to accept the planes for what they were. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

24 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@LukeFF It is unrelated but I wonder if there are reports of +11 boost being used for Typhoons? There is one report from ww2aircraftperformance page from the No. 439 RCAF squadron from February 1945 talking about the pilot and mechanics crews being lectured on the use of 150 octane fuel for their engines, and following that it's mentioned the change of sparkplugs to accept the new fuel.

 

Good question! I'll go back in and have a look.

Edited April 24, 2020 by LukeFF

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Good question! I'll go back in and have a look.

 

So, I had a look through 181 Squadron's Summary of Events logs for January and February 1945, and I didn't see any specific mention of them using +11 lbs boost (although, the entry for 21 February says "The C.O. had a chat with the ground crews on various points"). That's in line with the 439 Squadron entry and other entries at the same time regarding increased boost usage.

Edited April 24, 2020 by LukeFF

[LukeFF]

On 4/24/2020 at 11:29 AM, LukeFF said:

So, I took advantage of the free downloads the British National Archives are offering right now to pick up the ORBs for 74 Squadron for 1945, to see if I could track down when/where RPs were used. The Record of Events logs mention nothing about RPs being used, only about attacks being made with bombs.

 

In the Summary of Events logs, the entry for January 29th, 1945 says "All aircraft bombed up and briefed for close support but weather conditions again unfavourable due to low cloud base." So nothing by the end of January 1945. 

 

Meanwhile, re-equipment of the squadron with Spitfire XVIs began on 6 March 1945. Re-equipment with the XVI is complete by the 16th (on an interesting note, there is a remark that performance of the new mark is "poor" in comparison with the Mk IX, with some 10-15 mph lost due to the poor workmanship of the engines). Practice bombing is noted as having been performed on 22 March 1945. But no mention of even practice missions being flown with RPs.

 

So, my conclusion of all this is that RPs were never used operationally by Spitfires, and any photos that are out there are from rear-area trials.

 

Update: I finally, finally found the elusive proof that 74 Squadron indeed carried rockets on operational missions. From Appendix B for February 1945, there is the following line: "Rockets fired on 72 sorties ... 144". In the appendix for January 1945, no such info is shared in the section on Operations, so I think we can safely say that rockets were used by 74 Squadron on a limited basis in February 1945. I say "in February 1945", because there is no further mention of operations with rockets in further reports. That's probably because they found that arming a Spitfire as such wasn't of much use.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by LukeFF