1/48 Airfix Supermarine Type 356 / Spitfire F Mk 21 - decals on, mostly

[CplPunishment]

[NOTE: For some reason in this post my images keep getting un-linked from their source and disappearing. If you see a bunch of such missing images please message me and I'll re-link them - this only applies to posts authored by me originally.]

 

If you want to see a clean view of this build, without missing images, then go to my website... Vexillum Militaris

1/48 Airfix Supermarine Type 356:
As a kid it was impossible to find a Griffon-engined Spitfire model: my local newsagent only stocked Airfix kits! It is not surprising then to find I am having some sort of throw back desire to add that sleek nosed airframe to my collection. In fact, almost every Spitfire I've built of late has been a Griffon version. [Actually just finished an Airfix new-tool Mk Vb - see here]
My desire to build more has not lessened and I've now accumulated a collection of Spitfire spare parts for my spares box, the most notable 'spare' components being a set of Seafire 46 wings - suitable for any late mark Spitfire! These wings can't be wasted so the time has come to build that hybrid throw-back which is the Spitfire F.21.
The Spitfire F.21 retained the high-back fuselage of the mark XIVc and combined the newest stiff wing design featured in the last Spitfire and Seafire versions. My intent is to build an F.21 from these left over '46 wings and combine them with Airfix's new Spitfire Mk XIX release. The resultant model will be 100% Airfix!!

My goal:
Most operational airframes I see when studying WWII photos, those long-in-the-tooth, drab grey/green, piston fighters - and who wouldn't rather fly a nice new shiny silver jet with bright red white and blue markings?- seem faded, stained and very worn. As well as trying to recreate one of the last RAuxAF's Spitfire Mk 21s, just prior to their conversion to sleek high-speed-silver Meteors, I'll be attempting to recreate that same time-worn, faded and blotchy look of a well used operational machine.
In particularly, I intend to focus on two specific modelling aspects; keeping my chipping down and, practising my airbrushing to create that very faded and blotchy appearance.

 

 

This thread:
I am sure most, if not all of you, have built a Spitfire before so you don't need me to write a detailed and fully sequenced account of the build. I'm just going to focus on what steps I took to create my F.21.

The kits:
Having made a couple of Spitfire XIX kits already, I have to admit, I've fallen in love with this kit - for the price! It is not a perfect kit. It does suffer from some sink marks and ejector pin issues, its detail is a soft around the cockpit walls and the panel lines may be considered too deep. But oh; oh what a lovely profile!
It becomes obvious quickly that this kit has a smashing 'Mk XIV' or 'late 2-stage Griffon' profile, ripe for use elsewhere. The relatively low cost of this kit makes it a useful donor for any 2-stage Griffon 'fire airframe: given that the Acadamy kit has such a poor profile and the Aeroclub conversion kit seem hard to come by and expensive.

Airfix 1/48 scale Spitfire PR XIX...

Since the Mk XIX was basically an Mk XIV airframe the kit lends itself for any early high-back Mk XIVc or XIVe and, if you fancy wielding the razor saw, the front and tail ends would provide the best parts for a nice low-back MkXIV or even a contribution toward a Mk XVIII. In my case, I will use the whole fuselage for my F.21.
The Seafire kit is older and unlike the Airfix XII, XVII and XIX it does not seem to share the same base dimensions. The XII, XVII and XIX fuselages all match up dimensionally together and the XII and XVII are almost a perfect fit. The Seafire 46/47 doesn't fit these other kits as well. Anything used from the 46/47 kit will require some fettling as if one was using a kit from another manufacturer. Anyway, it is a fair kit and most importantly, it leaves you with a spare pair of Seafire 46 (or Spitfire MK 22/24) wings.

 Airfix Seafire Mk 46/47

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment
EW

[CplPunishment]

Photographic Observations:
While doing some research on the F.21 (internet trawling mostly) a few things come to light... (by the way, if I've got something wrong here, please let me know)...

• In order to improve the C.of G. position, the radio equipment seems to have been moved further back in the fuselage. The normal rear radio hatch on the port side is omitted in favour of one further back on the starboard side - one fuselage frame further back even than starboard camera hatch on the Mk XIX.
• Some F.21s appear to have the Mk XVIII-style rudder; a slightly modified shorter fin with a taller and broader rudder. This modified rudder also has a kinked and notched trim tab similar to that of the Mk 22/24. All my photographs of contra-prop airframes show a 'Mk XVIII' fin/rudder while the five-bladed versions seem to have a standard Mk XIV rudder.
• There seems to be a mix of 3- and 4-spoke wheel rims in use on the F.21. The mod to change must have been issued sometime in the operational life span of the F.21.
• The radiator tubs are wider with a more curved plan view, and slightly different in profile, than those provided in the Mk XIX kit.
• Some 3-view artwork shows extended span horizontal tailplanes, similar to the Mk 22/24 airframe (which had the so called full 'Spiteful' tail - which included larger horizontal tail, fin and rudder). I could find no photographic evidence that the F.21 had the larger horizontal tail. As far as my photos show, where they do show, the horizontal tailplane looks standard. To my understanding, tail modifications employed to cure handling and stability issues with early 21s took the form of configuration changes to rudder and elevator control mechanisms and changes in elevator balancing.
• Exhaust studs appear to be horizontal and tubular. Early war-time machines appear to have 'fish-tail' type stubs - notably the prototype. At least one photo shows a contra-prop machine, with XVIII-style rudder, having downward angled 6-stub tube exhausts (wearing squadron codes 'GO-G').
• Recognition/signal lamps; the second production machine seems lacking in any lamp (either the old-style single central fuselage lamp, the later Mk XIV single more rearward lamp, the Mk XIV wing-mounted lamps or the later bank of three down the fuselage). But the F.21 machine that was hanging in the museum in Glasgow clearly shows the later style bank of three.
• Gun camera port; on the Glasgow machine this appears in the starboard wing root (same as the F.24 at Hendon).
• Fitting of hooks for attachment of long-range belly tanks; I only have one photo, head on, that shows anything that remotely looks like these hooks - and it is difficult to see. I have no photos showing a long range tank fitted (odd since I have plenty of F.22 photos with hooks only or hooks with tank fitted).
• Beam approach aerial; not seen in any photos of the F.21. This seems to disappear with the F.21. (F.22 prototype PK312 being an exception).
• Undercarriage geometry; my understanding is that the main gear oleo was lengthen around 2.4mm at 1/48 scale. Yet the F.21s don't appear to sit nose high. The prop diameter was increased to 11 feet on 21s from 10 foot 5 inches on XVIIIs and XIXs. This is an increase of 3 inches on the radius - about 1.5mm at scale. That is, ground clearance was reduced by 3 inches. In my view, the reason the 21 doesn't look like it's nose is in the air with their longer legs is due to the change in undercarriage geometry. Looking head-on at the airframe the main gear looks far more 'splayed' out from the centre than previous marks. Splaying out the gear, or widening the wheel track helps stability but will also lose some height through simple trigonometry. Despite this angle change, the wheels still retain that classic slightly positive camber angle. Here's a series of photos comparing the XIX and 21 from the front. You can see the relative angles between oleo, leading edge and radiator tub walls.

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[CplPunishment]

Getting on with the job:
On first look, offering up wings and fuselage, one can see the fit isn't perfect. Viewed from above, the wide, flat and on-its-side 'V' shape of the wing root joints are not the same between the two kits. The apex of the 'V', and what might be the position of the main spar, is not in the same place. In addition, the fuselage's wing joint is wider by about 1.5mm and there is a difference in length of about the same amount. The bigger issue is that the '46 wing lower piece is two camera ports short of closing the XIX's fuselage. Filler will be required!

 

 

One big surprise is that the XIX's fuselage appears to be narrow. I had planned to use a very nice and spare windscreen (correctly moulded with the armour on the inside) from a Tamiya kit, but proved to be 1.5mm too wide to be of any use. I offered up the '46's cockpit windscreen to the XIX fuselage. Interestingly, this too is a bit big but with some fitting will be made to work.

So overall, the job looks fairly simple, right?

From these pics you can see I've already made some effort to change panel lines for the fuselage hatches and lopped off the crude triangle lumps from the top surfaces of the '46 wings - they are supposed to be open flap mechanisms. Hmm.

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[CplPunishment]

Parts from donor Seafire 46/47 kit:

• Mk 46 wings; 3 pieces, two tops and the lower full span piece.
• Main flaps, items 60 and 61. Use the Mk XIX 'down' optional items for the smaller inboard flaps.
• Undercarriage doors and legs. Using these would leave the Seafire 47 airframe incomplete. This is unacceptable to me so I intend to clone them using my own casting methods (silicone rubber and 2-part resin; more details later).
• The long barrel 20mm cannon covers (or buy new ones).
• Seafire 46 windscreen.
• (With hindsight...) One might use the carburettor intake parts too.

Parts from elsewhere:

Required, from other sources other than the two kits:

• A gyro gunsight and mount. Mine will be scratch built.
• New decals, or I might make my own - undecided yet.
• New fuselage rear cockpit framing to replace the Mk XIX's rear pressure bulkhead. Mine was scratch built.
• Whip aerial made from stretched sprue (or whatever you normally use).
• IFF di-pole aerial from stretched sprue.
• Wingtip navigation lights. Made from scrap clear sprue.

Optional (and obviously there are more possibilities here, such as some PE, for your own improvements):

• Since I like displaying my Spitfires with the cockpit door open I scavenged the spares box for a replacement standard Spitfire cockpit door suitable for and unpressurized airframe (from an ICM kit I think - a MkVII!).
• The XIX's 5-bladed prop and spinner are good looking, more so than that of the 46's, and would be the item of choice to use here. The '46's has a spinner about 0.5mm in diameter too big for the XIX fuselage and the blades have a very strong twist. The real Mk XIX prop measured 10 ft 4.5 in in diameter. The F.21 used an 11ft prop so I bought a new scaled 11ft diameter resin item to use instead of either XIX or '46 kit parts (Barracuda Studios BCR48026).
• New long-barrel 20mm cannon covers from Quickboost (by Aires) QB48064. I could have made do with the kit items, leaving the short-barrel versions for the Seafire 47, but these replacements look better.

Edited May 29, 2014 by CplPunishment

[Beard]

This looks interesting, to say the least, I'l be watching your progress (in a nice way). Good luck.

[CplPunishment]

Fuselage skin modifications:

• Panel changes on fuselage; mainly filling camera-related doors. Both the port and standard camera doors on the XIX are to be filled, including the small D shaped door forward of the starboard camera hatch. A new access door was needed one door's width aft and slightly below that filled on the starboard side. The pressurisation intake on the nose under the port engine exhaust and the exhaust outlet just behind the cockpit on the fuselage spine both need removing and filling too. In the photos below the red rings show where I am filling (including some sink holes around the cockpit and some mould marks just behind the cylinder head covers). The blue ring shows the rough position of the new hatch to be.

 

 

 

• Cockpit door. This is a mod since the late version Mk XIX kitted by Airfix has no side door panel lines moulded. It was easy to see where the door should be by taking note of the inner cockpit framing structure. Removing was a simply a matter of scoring and cutting. In the photo below the replacement ICM door was used to make sure the whole size was correct.

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[Alan Kelley]

Think I will follow this project. Very interesting keep up the good work.

[CplPunishment]

Wing skin modifications:

Just a couple of tweaks here.

• Under wing cannon blisters. On the wing under-surface of each wing (on the kit '46 wings), just aft of the shell case ejection chutes, is a blister shaped like a rounded rectangle. According to my limited references, these blisters should be slender and more pointed and tear-drop in shape. I removed the originals and added my own, shaped and sanded, from more plastic card.

• As mentioned in an earlier post above, there are two small triangular wedges on the both upper wing surfaces toward the rear and close in to the fuselage. There are the crudest representations of the flap mechanism which opens up proud of the wing surface when the flaps on the real machine are deployed. These had to go.

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[CplPunishment]

Moulding Replacement Items:

And this is 'the big one'. If I couldn't do this there was going to be no F.21 (there still might not be, but this was something I needed to prove out before I went any further).

As mentioned already, a number of the Airfix Seafire 46/47 parts are needed to complete the build. Since there are two sets of wings in the kit, a complete Seafire 47 is still possible but the F.21 needs a number of parts that are not duplicated, notably the undercarriage components. In order to provide these items for my F.21 I have moulded my own parts direct from the Seafire items.

Here's how I did it.

Creating The Mould:

1. The first task is to mount the required part in a new 'sprue' to make a mouldable pattern (see pic of the oleo leg below, as an example). The part may be big enough not to need this, but I have found that doing this helps resin flow and air bubble reduction. My intent is to make a mould that is essentially a long slit that can be squeezed at the ends to open it up to allow the resin to fill it completely. And squeezing it flat will help push out trapped air pockets. To make a 'slit' I add flat plastic card to the sides of the part being moulded. Some thought is needed however. You need to think about which way up the part needs to be when pouring the resin; typically the bigger/thicker end needs to be at the top. As well as attaching the flat card I also build up some ridges that will become wider pour tubes in the mould. Here's the trick; the plastic card is carved to closely follow the side contour of the part - a millimeter or less is ideal. I leave two 'legs' touching the part by which the flat card can be glued. When dry, the gap around the edge is filled with a dab of Kristal Klear which, due to capillary action, runs around the gap. Leave to dry and there'll be a very thin film filling the gap. It's important that there are no holes through the whole pattern otherwise it won't come out of the mould.
2. Once the pattern is dry it is mounted on some modelling clay which is smoothed and blended with the pattern. The clay will form the top of the mould and the clay volume will be the resin mounting block from which the part will be cut.
3. A plastic card 'dam' is built to fit around the pattern (see pics below).
4. Before mixing and pouring, the inside of the dam and any modelling clay should be smoothed over with light gel-type grease (a branded product called 'Vaseline' is usually part of most women's makeup kit! There are others). Cover the parts completely but keep the coat light.
5. Before the dam is installed around the pattern, the silicone moulding compound is mixed. I then use an old brush to dab the silicone into the holes and detail of the pattern. This will help prevent air bubbles in the mould (which will create spheric lumps on the finished part).
6. While still wet, the dam is installed around the pattern, and modelling clay seal is formed around the outside bottom edge of the dam.
7. The silicone is poured carefully and slowly into the mould away from the pattern. The silicone should be allowed to flow around the pattern in its own time. The pattern should be covered completely by a good few millimeters of silicone.
8. When dry, the solid silicone mould can be eased out of the dam, then the pattern can be eased out of the resultant mould.
9. Once the pattern has been extracted the original part can be freed from the card - just like cutting it from an original sprue, The Kristal Klear should peel off. The part may need a little clear up before use, and a wash, but that's a small price to pay.
10. The mould then needs cleaning out i.e. make sure there's no modelling clay left in.
11. The fresh silicone has a tendency to gather and hold dust. Keep it away from your work bench - I store mine in little sealable plastic bags until ready for use.

 

 

 

 

 

Casting The Parts:

1. With the silicone mould ready for use, the 2-part resin can be mixed according to the manufacture's instructions. I use a very runny equal parts fast drying resin so I need to work quickly.
2. Once well mixed I pour the mixture into the mould to about half or two-thirds full and then squeeze the mould repeatedly from both ends and sides. This squeezing seems to help the resin fluid around the walls of the mould and reduce air bubbles being trapped in the detailed cavities.
3. The mould is then topped up with more mixture and set aside to dry - about half an hour or so. As an additional step with the F.21's new oleo legs, I inserted a thin metal rod down the main leg void into the liquid resin. When dry this provided additional strength to the part - like making reenforced concrete.
4. Making sure that the resin has hardened, peel back the mould from the part and gently prize it out.
5. The new part, like the original and commercial resin parts, will require some clean up. You may find you need to make a couple before you get a good one. And you may find that your best one needs a bit of filler to fill in a couple of air bubble pockets.
6. Wash the part before using it on the model.

Here's what I got for my efforts... (by the way, it took two attempts to get a good result with each oleo).

The light coloured parts are mine, the darker ones are the kit's. The outer doors are also done.

(one of the legs needs a bit of repair due to my own inability to handle a sharp knife!)

 

Moulding Supplies:

There are plenty of moulding and casting suppliers out there. I used to following supplier and products:

MB Fibreglass:

• Polytek EasyFlo 60 Polyurethane Liquid Plastic Casting Resin
• Polycraft Food Grade Addition Cure Silicone Moulding Making Rubber

With hindsight I would use a slower drying resin next time.

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[CplPunishment]

Cockpit mods:

• The XIX kit comes equipped with cameras and fuselage structure to mount them. All this was omitted from the normal fuselage build, all the cameras and the three gas bottles right behind the seat - all added to the spares box ready for the Mk XI future build. However, I used the kit's pressure bulkhead as a pattern for a non-pressurised version of fuselage framing. The picture below shows, on the right, my creation from plastic card:

• As well as the bulkhead replacement I also removed the camera switch and control box from the cockpit instrument panel - it's mounted where the gun sight should be. After clean up of the area I then added brackets for the gun sight (yet to be made) from more plastic card.

I'm not one for detailed scratch building of every detail in the cockpit. There are other builds that detail the addition of plumbing and other pipe work - I'll leave that up to you. For me, I painted the available moulded detail and followed the XIX kit instructions for the rest of the cockpit build.

More on the cockpit later.

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[Troy Smith]

Getting on with the job:

On first look, offering up wings and fuselage, one can see the fit isn't perfect. Viewed from above, the wide, flat and on-its-side 'V' shape of the wing root joints are not the same between the two kits. The apex of the 'V', and what might be the position of the main spar, is not in the same place. In addition, the fuselage's wing joint is wider by about 1.5mm and there is a difference in length of about the same amount. The bigger issue is that the '46 wing lower piece is two camera ports short of closing the XIX's fuselage. Filler will be required!

One big surprise is that the XIX's fuselage appears to be very narrow. I had planned to use a very nice and spare windscreen (correctly moulded with the armour on the inside) from Tamiya kit, but proved to be 1.5mm too wide to be of any use. I offered up the '46's cockpit windscreen to the XIX fuselage. Interestingly, this too is a bit big but with some fitting will be made to work.

So overall, the job looks fairly simple, right?

From these pics you can see I've already made some effort to change panel lines for the fuselage hatches and lopped off the crude triangle lumps from the top surfaces of the '46 wings - they are supposed to be open flap mechanisms. Hmm.

The main spar may have been in a different place, it was a completely new wing. You might want to consider attaching the upper wings to the fuselage first, with trimming as best, and backing the joint with thin plastic card.

These can of questions don't always get noticed in WIP, and are worth a separate thread in WW2 section.

The Tamiya kit is noted for being a bit fat...while the Airfix XIX is a bit slim in the nose.....which will be noticeable...

• The XIX's 5-bladed prop and spinner are good looking, more so than that of the 46's, and would be the item of choice to use here. The '46's has a spinner about 0.5mm in diameter too big for the XIX fuselage and the blades have a very strong twist. The real Mk XIX prop measured 10 ft 4.5 in in diameter. The F.21 used an 11ft prop so I bought a new scaled 11ft diameter resin item to use instead of either XIX or '46 kit parts (Barracuda Studios BCR48026).

a chap on Aeroscale tried this, and found the Barracuda spinner to be a bit big compared, the nose ring has a 28" baseplate, the Airfix is 26 in scale IIRC.

Cue Gaston Marty declaring disaster... oh sod it, here you go.

http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=213816&page=1

You could just use the Barracuda blades with Airfix spinner?

The other option for the UC parts [not knocking the casting, great job] is ask to buy some from Airfix. They are noted for having a helpful spares department.

The more spit obsessed could do...

IX crossed with 22/24 = Mk XVIII

XIX wings crossed IX fuselage - PRXI

XIX fuselage with 22/24 wings - Mk 21....

or .... well...many ways to skin this cat - http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234936590-theres-more-than-one-way-to-skin-a-cat/

cheers

T

[CplPunishment]

Hi Troy:
Main spar alignment: I plan to follow through with wing-to-fuselage alignment taking a datum from the leading edge. If I align the main spar on the '46 wings and apex on the XIX wing root joint I end up with a trailing edge miss-match of nearly 5mm. Too much to filler my way out of.
Spinners: Yep, the Barracuda spinner looks a little over-sized for the Airfix XIX nose. I may well indeed use the Airfix kit spinner and the longer, nicer Barracuda blades.
(And, yes, the wings from the XIX have gone straight into a Mk IX box, along with a resin extended chin and short, early carburettor intake - already for that Mk XI is US markings).

[Troy Smith]

Hi Troy:

Main spar alignment: I plan to follow through with wing-to-fuselage alignment taking a datum from the leading edge. If I align the main spar on the '46 wings and apex on the XIX wing root joint I end up with a trailing edge miss-match of nearly 5mm. Too much to filler my way out of.

I'd ask in the WW2 section, Edgar or bob will know, it's sunday, and been quiet on here, so they may well notice and chip in. There were plans for the Mk22 in Scale Models, oct 79 I think. I have the issue anyway.

But this should be eyeballable from decent photos and comparing to the 46/47 fuselage postion.

or here...http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/3

gives the spar line.

Spinners: Yep, the Barracuda spinner looks a little over-sized for the Airfix XIX nose. I may well indeed use the Airfix kit spinner and the longer, nicer Barracuda blades.

(And, yes, the wings from the XIX have gone straight into a Mk IX box, along with a resin extended chin and short, early carburettor intake - already for that Mk XI is US markings).

you could take the surplus bit of IX fuselage from where the camera windows will go to use as pre shaped infill?

cheers

T

[CplPunishment]

Markings:

Nothing like drooling over a nice clean fresh decal sheet to keep up the motivation through the boring build phase...

At the moment I am undecided; ocean grey/dark green or high speed silver with a polished metal cowling? At the moment I think it's going to be Ocean Grey/Dark Green.

Here's the front runner:

 

 

I just love Freightdog Model's decals!

(Interesting that on this line art they have drawn in the beam approach aerial. I can't find any photo evidence for this, yet)

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[gingerbob]

Hi, I'll do what I can to help:

1) Some F.21s appear to have the Mk XVIII-style rudder; a slightly modified shorter fin with a taller and broader rudder. This modified rudder also has a kinked and notched trim tab similar to that of the Mk 22/24. All my photographs of contra-prop airframes show a 'Mk XVIII' fin/rudder while the five-bladed versions seem to have a standard Mk XIV rudder.

2) I could find no photographic evidence that the F.21 had the larger horizontal tail. As far as my photos show, where they do show, the horizontal tailplane looks standard. To my understanding, tail modifications employed to cure handling and stability issues with early 21s took the form of configuration changes to rudder and elevator control mechanisms and changes in elevator balancing.

1) Correct- the "XVIII" rudder is pretty much the larger rudder that was developed for Griffon contras, including 21s. For a 5-blade 21 use the standard "Mk.XIV" rudder.

2) Correct- standard tailplanes. The elevators are metal-skinned, and there is a subtle change to the elevator horns- I believe they were "rounded off" a bit (on the inside edge, not in plan shape). This is illustrated in one of Alfred Price's books, if I remember right- I'll have to do a bit of looking around. Probably not even worth worrying about unless you're having the elevators in "relaxed" position.

Some other thoughts:

It is possible (though I haven't looked for evidence) that the gunsight might not be fitted? I'm probably utterly wrong, and will see for myself, unless you answer it in the meantime. Just thinking they might prefer the forward vision and lack of danger to face if something goes wrong? (This in the context of a late-service RAuxAF aircraft.) (Edit: First shot I found has a gunsight.)

Check the shape of your gear doors (and don't forget the wheel covers, too)- they're probably right, but there may be a different shape between Sea 46 and Spit 21/22- I obviously haven't been thinking about this lately! (They made the cut between the two different to get the forward edge of the gear door (oleo cover) out of harm's way from the arresting cables.)

You're already ahead of me when it comes to hatch locations, etc- I confess that's a detail I've paid insufficient attention to!

The main spar may have been in a different place, it was a completely new wing. You might want to consider attaching the upper wings to the fuselage first, with trimming as best, and backing the joint with thin plastic card.

Edgar or bob will know, it's sunday, and been quiet on here, so they may well notice and chip in.

You rang? While the 21 wing was structurally quite different, it was evolutionary, so the spars haven't moved (they did for the laminar wing, which was one of the most significant "points of departure" in the evolution of the Spiteful as a really new type, rather than as a new & improved Spitfire). These wings should, in theory, share the same "footprint" at the fuselage. (I just compared the XIX wing to the Eduard Spit IX wing, and for all intents and purposes they agree perfectly (though there's a bit of difference at the fuselage join, as usual.)) Note: it is possible that there is some difference in the wing fillet, but again I'd need to study photos to answer that question.

In this case, I'd get the bottom wing part established first (without ignoring the top 'interface'), since it has to "agree" with the fuselage underside anyway. Then you've got a solid anchor for the upper wing parts, and can do whatever it is you need to do. I'd be afraid of building in some misalignment if I fit top wing to fuselage first! My gut reaction to the one photo above is that, if necessary, I would just fill the trailing edge fillet to meet the 21 wing, rather than try to cut back (assuming that you line up the leading edges). However, I think I'd want to play around with the kit parts before I committed myself!

I'll be back...

bob

Edited May 18, 2014 by gingerbob

[CplPunishment]

Guys, thanks for the input. All fascinating stuff!

• I am glad to have confirmation that the horizontal tail is pretty much standard rather than a 'Spiteful' size as some 3-views would indicate. Obviously, this would of made a big difference to the look.
• On the wing-fuselage mating; here's a couple more shots from a different angle, see below. Having just spent a few more minutes playing with this, I am still of the view that lining up the leading edge is the way to go. If I do this I think a make things much easier; around the carburettor intake and under nose panel, and at the trailing edge and rear wing root intersection. The only chore will be the main wing root joint - and I've seen kits with worse issues than this. Also, at the very rear, surprisingly, the very back edge of the '46 lower wing part, where it joins to the fuselage (where the camera ports should be) does line up with the XIX panel lines. There is still the camera port gap to fill, but obviously that was always going to be a job to do anyway. (In the images, I've dropped the fuselage down into position without any side-to-side trimming. This means that more of the underside fillet is visible than will actually be there for trimming - i.e. the whole fuselage, in the images, has yet to be moved about 1mm to starboard. The narrowness of the XIX is a factor still in that the '46 rear section mating under the fueslage is a tad wider.)

Here's the photos...Blue shows the gap to be filled due to the loss of camera ports. Red is general wing alignment. The Green and 'Apex Issues' shows the 'miss-alignment' of panel lines associated with the main spar - although who knows if the panel lines equate to spar front edge or rear edge or centre line, or is this inaccuracies in the kits. Regardless, at the moment, I plan to live with it (or I may just fill and re-scribe the panel line on the fuselage, under the upper green arrow).

 

 

 

All good fun!

Edited September 26, 2017 by CplPunishment

[CplPunishment]

On 18/05/2014 at 11:16 AM, gingerbob said:

Check the shape of your gear doors (and don't forget the wheel covers, too)- they're probably right, but there may be a different shape between Sea 46 and Spit 21/22- I obviously haven't been thinking about this lately! (They made the cut between the two different to get the forward edge of the gear door (oleo cover) out of harm's way from the arresting cables.)

Just had a look at undercart doors... Bob, you are right, there are differences. From my photos it looks like 21s had a set of doors with less of an angle on the leading side - more likely to foul an arrestor wire I guess. Seafire 46s and 47s seem to have a steep leading angle on the main U/C door. But... I have a couple of pics of 21s with the same 46/47 type door (notably LA139). But there's another 'but'... the kit parts from the 46/47 seem to reflect the angles on the majority of 21s! Go figure! Was there are mod retrofitted back onto some 21 after the improvement for Seafires? Not looked at the Seafire 45 yet. I have pics of Mk 22s with the same steep angle as the Seafire. Here's a pic to show the extent of the difference:

• First pic is a Seafire 46. One can see the steep leading angle on the main wheel door.
• The second pic shows, not very well (I have better photos in a book) a Spitfire 21.
• The third pic shows another Seafire and overlaid is a scrap of the outer kit door. It is real clear to see that the kit door follows the F21 angles! I have a photo of an F21 underside onto which I can physically lay the kit parts. This backs up the fact that the kit parts are better shaped for a F.21 than they are for a Seafire!

 Seafire 46

 

 Spitfire 21

 

 Spitfire 21 with kit part overlay.

 

 Seafire 46 with Airfix outer door.

The more one looks, the more one sees. Looking again I see other photos of 22s and 24s with a mix of different UC door types. There's a photo of 24s under construction at South Marston with the non-Seafire type doors, yet there are photos of late 24s with the Seafire-type fitted (VN324 for example). I've now seen 24s with the Royal Hong Kong AF with both types fitted - in the same squadron (VN318 and VN485).

I assume Airfix must have kitted up their Spitfire 22/24 first and just reused components for the Seafire 46/47, not noticing that the UC doors on the earlier 22s and 24s are different to Seafires. And these Seafire doors must be a dead swap (in matched sets) for the earlier type and retro fitted at MUs or on squadron, or something like.

Looks like I should just use the Seafire 46/47 undercart parts for my F.21 and think about building some correctly shaped parts from scratch for my Seafire 47 later! That moulding my own replacements to save the 47 was a waste of time.

Seems like we need some resin improved replacements for the 46/47 kit.

Researching is the best bit about modelling, well, almost!

Edited April 19, 2017 by CplPunishment

[gingerbob]

On the wing-fuselage mating; here's a couple more shots from a different angle, see below. Having just spent a few more minutes playing with this, I am still of the view that lining up the leading edge is the way to go.

All good fun!

Indeed. Just a quickie before I wander off for a while, but I spent a bit of time playing with it too this morning (my time), and I agree that lining up the leading edge works best. The spar line sits "close enough" to where it should, in relation to the first "joint" of the wing/fuselage cover panel and the little bump there on the wing. In other words, your green arrows in the first shot- look here for a photo that shows this (first image 2nd row, and first image bottom row). And the back end (assuming you keep the 22 wing's aft center) seems like it'll fit the XIX fuselage pretty well, especially if you plan ahead to facilitate that (you might be able to flex out the XIX's fillet to meet the 22's back end without throwing anything off). I'd check the alignment of wing trailing edge (where it meets the fillet) to cockpit door/clear bits, etc, but it isn't THAT much of a difference, and you could even shave the 22 wing trailing edge a little if necessary, though personally I'd prefer not to mess with it.

More later,

bob

p.s. Sorry, meant to also say that some of the wing to fuselage adjustment comes from shaving down the root of the 22 wing, so there'll actually be less gap than first appears, though it'll definitely still exist. Following on from my earlier post, I'd cut what was needed from the 22 wing root, then "add back" a shim where necessary. Maybe if you put a shim on first you can just cut once.

Edited May 18, 2014 by gingerbob

[CplPunishment]

Radiator Tubs:

Again, it's my plan to leave the Seafire 46/47 kit with a completely buildable Mk 47. To this end I plan to use the radiator tubs from the Mk XIX. But these are a different shape to those of the Mk 21, and they join to the under-wing surfaces with a slightly different joint line.

Here's a pic of the Mk XIX and Seafire wings, viewing the underside centre section:

The Mk XIX kit is the better thought out. The joins for the rad tubs fall on the panel line, while those of the Seafire do not - part of the rad tub edge is moulded onto the wing underside.

This means that adjusting the Mk XIX rad tubs to fit required 3 stages.

1. The first stage is to trim the edges of the rad tub until they fit into the curved slots of the Seafire wing.
2. Second stage is to build up the edges of the rad tubs as those of the F.21 look wider/fatter than those provided with the Mk XIX kit.
3. The last stage is to trim back the rear profile - cutting an angle in from the bottom of the tub up to the wing under surface.

Here's a few pics of what's going on:

This is Spitfire F Mk 21 underside showing the shape of radiator tubs:

 

This next diagram below shows the contours of both Mk XIX and F.21.The Red lines are those of the Mk XIX kit - the outer set are the join lines into the wing slots, the inner lines are the contours of the tub wall. The Green lines show the new contour needed to fit the Seafire undersides - which is fatter and rounder than those of the XIX.

 

This shows what material was removed:

 

This shows what material (filler) was added then sanded back in order to create the right shape:

 

Here's a pic of the 'before' and 'after':

 

The above image also shows the area on each side that I chopped off in order to get the correct looking profile, and to fit the Seafire wing slots (shown by the little red triangle).

Here's a good close-up shot of LA188. You can see the shape of the radiator tub rear in this:

While I was at it, I also closed the radiator shutters, just for something different. The finished item on the right has a coat of primer (to spot issues with the filler) and panel lines re-scribed.

Both are sides are done and ready to attach. When the time comes, I will be using the XIX kit parts for the internals - the radiators.

Edited April 19, 2017 by CplPunishment

[SARowl]

Wow! You've got your hands full on this project, but you seem well on top of the problems. Watching with interest.

John

[Caerbannog]

Great topic - will watch with interest!

Rene

[gingerbob]

Hi Paul, I hope you don't mind my adding some further historical... rumination, since it has come up in the process.

On the gear doors, you mentioned LA139 having Seafire style. Did you perchance mean TM379? If so, that's because it is a Seafire 45 prototype.

I had a look through Spit the Hist, and notice that the VN__ serialled Spit 24s had the Seafire style, but all the Spitfires prior to that didn't. [Edit: not quite that simple, as I've spotted a VN_ Mk.24 that still has the other style.] I suspect that Supermarine standardized on the Seafire style when they built this last batch of Spitfires. I've got a vague idea I've seen a Mod number covering this, even, which Edgar can probably confirm. It very likely would be a "bolt on" replacement, or nearly so, as you say.

This reminds me that another change for you to keep in mind when you get to the Seafire 47 is a modification to the radiator fairings- at least I think so. Airfix does seem to have cut some corners, or simply overlooked some of the distinctions between Spits and Seafires (and the Seafire 47 in particular) when they planned these kits, but I'm inclined to forgive them, since information isn't exactly overabundant!

You also wondered about the "hooks" for the slipper tank. The CG/loading diagram for the Mk.21 does list these, and I saw one photo of 91 Sqn where a slipper tank is lying on the ground around their 21s. I wonder if they're usually hidden by the radiators, or if perhaps they just didn't bolt them on (postwar) unless an op calling for use of these tanks was coming up? Sorry, but that's the best I can do for the moment.

You've now caused me to go spinning off, studying Spiteful wings, because I've always wanted to do NN660, the first prototype with a "Spit XIV" fuselage. But in the process, I am also considering the subsequent Spitefuls/Seafangs I want to do, too...

bob

Edited May 21, 2014 by gingerbob

[Edgar]

I've just put this on the other thread (might help to clarify a little):-

Mod 1762 "To introduce Seafire type oleo leg fairing and undercarriage door" was instituted in July 1946, and was a Category 4, which was classified as "on repair and replacement." The idea was simply to standardise the covers on Seafires and Spitfires, nothing more, so, if an airframe didn't need a new set, it wouldn't have got one.

The radiator fairings were modified, on the Seafire 47, by cutting them short, so that the wider (front to back) flaps had room to operate; the fairings were also cut back at an angle, and the flaps didn't drop to the same vertical angle as Spitfire flaps (presumably due to the oleo travel on the heavier airframe, and to ensure that they, like the covers, didn't foul the deck and arrester wires.)

The forward fuselage door was moved aft to make room for a (actually unused) fuel tank behind the pilot.

The lack of slipper tank hooks could be due to the plan to use a torpedo-style tank, post-war, which would have made them redundant.

Edgar

Edited May 21, 2014 by Edgar

[tempestfan]

A most interesting thread - the 47 was the last kit I managed to finish, way back when it was new...The kits (22/34 and 46/47) were likely heavily based on the Argus/MAP drawings of the 22/24 - I used them too, and IIRC almost everything matched up perfectly, so any error in the drawings would have been faithfully replicated in the kit.

I would have said that the kit included Seafire-specific u/c doors, as now that this thread has come to my attention I seem to recall reading about them in a piece by Eric Brown on the 47 in Air International. I also think that I read somewhere that these were retrofitted to Spits as they were much better on soft ground. But obviously my memory is wrong regarding the inclusion of the Seafire doors in the 46/47 kit. Seems I have to look up my kit and the review I wrote if I can find either.

[CplPunishment]

Following on with the F.21 undercart doors observations.

Thanks to everyone for the input. Here's a bit more detail...

Here's the main references I'm using:

A - The Spitfire Story, by Alfred Price

B - Spitfire, A Complete Fighting History, by Alfred Price

C - Camouflage & Markings No1 RAF Fighters 1945-1950 UK Based (Scale Aircraft Monographs) by Paul Lucas.

D - Camouflage & Markings No5 RAF Fighters 1945-1950 Overseas Based (Scale Aircraft Monographs) by Paul Lucas.

The internet.

Here's a list of some of the photo evidence I've seen on this subject (obviously this is a limited list since it's only photos where the doors can be seen):

Mk 21s, 22s and 24s with 'Spitfire' doors:

• LA187 (B, page 243). I can't confirm the serial from the photo however. If it is LA187 the she was repaired and upgraded, see below.
• LA188 (B, page 247) (A, page228)
• DP851 and PP139 prototypes (B, page 242)
• 21s under construction at South Marston (B, page 244/5)
• LA217 with contra-prop (Internet)
• LA255(?) (couple of photos; colour photo: Internet)
• In service 91 squadron machines, DL-F and DL-Y (A, page 230)
• LA218 (A, page 231)
• LA232 (couple of photos in different paint schemes: Internet)
• LA256 painted in silver with post war bright red/white/blue markings. (Internet)
• LA331 also painted in silver with post war bright red/white/blue markings. (Internet)
• LA228 painted siliver, polished cowel, RAuxAF (C, page 51)
• LA308 RAuxAF (C, page 26)
• LA275 RAuxAF (C, page 26)
• LA223 RAuxAF (C, page 22)
• LA315 41 Sqdn (C, page 10)
• LA276 1 Sqdn (C, page 3)
• Mk 22 PK683 (Internet)
• Mk 22 PK605 (C, page 79)
• Mk 22 PK437 (C, page 79)
• Mk 22 PK562 (C, page 53)
• Mk 22 PK430 (C, page 31)
• Mk 22 PK569 (C, page 69)
• Mk 22 PK481 (Internet)
• Mk 22 PK431 (Internet)
• uMk 22 PK542 painted in silver with post war bright red/white/blue markings. (Internet)
• Mk 22 PK599 (Airliners.net: Internet)
• Mk 24 VN485 (Internet)
• Mk 24 PK724 as she is in Hendon. Difficult to count museum airframes as they may have been cobbled together from parts that fit. (My own photo collection)
• Mk 24 PK713 (Internet)
• Mk 22 prototype PK312 (Internet and A, page 232)
• Mk 22 PK547 (Internet)
• Mk 24 or 22(?) PK684, or it might be 664 or 634, contra-prop (Internet)
• Mk 24 VN318 80 Sqdn (D, page 83)
• MK 22 PK690 74 Sqdn (D, page 35)

Spitfires with 'Seafire' doors:

• F.21 LA187 as photographed by Air Service Training, a repair organisation. The photo is entitled 'Last of the many' and implies the subject is the last repaired airframe dated Dec 1946. She clearly has 'Seafire' doors at this point. (Internet)
• F.21 LA198 shown in post war bright red/white/blue markings (b/w photo). A little difficult to see, but looks like Seafire doors. (Internet: Air Britain Photographic Images Collection). And F.21 LA198 as she is hanging in the museum in Glasgow (assuming it's the same airframe).
• VN324. Billed as "a late production Mark 24" (A, page 237)
• VN318 'E' RHKAuxAF, ex- 80 Squadron airframe I think. (A, page 238), And on the opposite page is VN485 with 'Spitfire' doors - and these two pictures are implied taken at the same time for the same event in 1955 and thus imply mixed use on squadron.
• F.21 LA269 LO-(?) with guns removed. Photo looks late, post ops. (Internet)
• F.21 LA139 painted silver with post war bright red/white/blue markings and guns removed. (Internet) [...Bad info, I miss read the serial on a poor black and white photo of LA198. There is no LA139! Sorry.]
• Mk 24 VN496 TN- (Internet)
• Mk 22 PK481 modern photo of a museum airframe so it's difficult to count this one. (RAAFA Museum: Internet)
• Mk 22 in Egyptian service in several photos (Internet)
• Mk 24 VN318 with Seafire-like bullet/torpedo shaped centre line drop tank and wing mounted bombs. (Internet)
• Mk 24 VN317 with 80 Sqdn (D, page 16)

All the pictures I have seen of Seafires, including some of Mks XV and XVII, all show 'Seafire' style doors. The Airfix 1/48 Seafire XVII has correctly shaped doors.

Bob, I have pictures of TM379, the Seafire 45 prototype, and she's clearly booted with 'Seafire' type doors for sure - and looks very different from the clear photo of LA139 looking very obviously a 21 without a hook.

Tempestfan: yep, your Airfix Seafire doors are Spitfire items.

My conclusion from all this:

• F.21s with the 'Seafire' doors seem to be very late, or even post operational career, and are fewer in number judging only by the proportional split on the photos I've seen - and where the doors are visible. Most F.21s have the 'Spitfire' doors, with limited arrestor wire clearance. This seems true for Mks 22 and 24, although more care is needed since there's a greater chance Seafire-type doors might have been fitted.
• The doors, as moulded for the 46/47 by Airfix, with the low leading angle forward of the wheel axle, are not correct for the 46 or 47 airframes. They are, however, correct for a percentage of Mks 21, 22 and 24 airframes - but due to some retro fit or late production mod, one should try and check 22s and 24s with direct photo evidence.

I plan to use my cloned Airfix doors, unaltered, for my F.21. My Seafire 47, when I get to it, will need a change of doors, somehow.

This all means that when building a Spitfire F.21 from the two Airfix kits (the whole point here), depending on how accurate you want your remaining Seafire to be, you could go ahead and just use the doors on the F.21 - without all the trouble of cloning (like wot I did) - and accept that you will need to source better ones for the 47 from elsewhere.

Edited March 22, 2016 by CplPunishment