Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sean_M

Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

Recommended Posts

Sean_M    263

I believe the thread hit its maximum size so was automatically locked. I have had a few PM's. If you don't like the thread don't subscribe. For those who enjoyed the melting pot...knock yourself out

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE 1ST THREAD WITH LOTS OF QUESTIONS, ANSWERS and PHOTOS - START here

TIP: search from Google, enter the search parameters followed by site:www.britmodeller.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sky Pilot    44

G'lad Sean

You beat me to it. I had just contacted the moderators to ask if it was acceptable to start a new topic - something like Son of All The Spitfire Questions. :thumbsup2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seawinder    231

I just hope people will have the good sense not to use this thread, but rather to search first and post clearly titled, specific queries second.

To reiterate what Mike posted to the "All the ****** questions" thread, to search from Google, enter the search parameters followed by

site:www.britmodeller.com

I tried it to see if it would find something in the first "melting pot" Spitfire questions thread, and it worked.

Edited by Seawinder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean_M    263

I just hope people will have the good sense not to use this thread, but rather to search first and post clearly titled, specific queries second.

To reiterate what Mike posted to the "All the ****** questions" thread, to search from Google, enter the search parameters followed by

site:www.britmodeller.com

I tried it to see if it would find something in the first "melting pot" Spitfire questions thread, and it worked.

I generally do that with any model topic and I am rewarded 90% of the time with info that is somewhere on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gingerbob    1,446

deleted- no longer necessary

Edited by gingerbob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark12    169

Somebody was after a four cannon Mk VIII.

Here is a shot of a 54 Squadron conversion in Australia.

It would be reasonable to assume that this has been 'knife and forked' by the local MU/RSU using some parts donated from a Mk Vc.

Four cannons were never an option on the Mk VIII or indeed the Mk IX to the best of my knowledge.

All effort I am sure went in to developing the 'e' armament, the .5 Browning along side the 20mm cannon and getting it to work satisfactorally within the full operational envelope.

Indeed, despite model boxes by the score, there was no such thing as a Mk IXb or a Mk IXc...just Mk IX and when the Mk IXe was introduced it was just 'Early Mk IX' and 'Mk IXe'....and that's what it says in the APs, service and parts list manuals etc.

PeterA

9e1434c8-7d24-4d9c-be18-16b2ce106cf2_zps

Edited by Mark12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edgar    1,807

Sorry, Peter, but the VIII was planned to have 4 cannon as an option, in fact this pertained until the end of 1943, when the cannon door, on the V & IX, on mod 782, had their broad bulge replaced by a single narrow type; in the case of the VIII, the broad bulge was replaced by two narrow (modification 769,) which would only be needed for a pair of cannon each side.

armament%2016-8-42_zpsrhuolpyr.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graham Boak    2,378

Surely there were the F Mk.IX, the LF Mk.IX and the LF Mk.IXe? Plus some HF Mk.IXs, not sure about the armament variations there. There were some differences between the F Mk.IX and the LF Mk.IX apart from the engine, even ignoring such variations as rudder, cannon doors, wheels etc. There was enough for Wojtek Matusiak to produce a sizable article for Air Enthusiast, though describing the modifications to the very early conversions took up a lot of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark12    169

Edgar,

Thanks for that.

Perhaps I should re-phrase that to..'never an option as a universal wing' as with the Mk Vc.

I am sure it was considered, and planned...as was a six cannon installation for this wing.

Physically fitting the second cannon within the wing would not be the problem...getting it to work throughout the full operational envelope within a set time frame would be the issue.

You will correct me but I do not recall a test aircraft Mk VIII fitted with four cannons. Any takers?

PeterA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edgar    1,807

It's very doubtful; after checking (always a good idea,) the four-cannon drawings are all in the 359-- series, which was the low-back VIII prototype, so it rather looks as if the layout was for the planned low-back VIII, which never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Garethster    157

I would like to model a Spitfire FR. Mk XVIIIe (1/72 or 1/48). Is there a current kit available or is it possible to take an existing model of a different mark and modify it to achieve the same result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Giorgio N    3,912

I would like to model a Spitfire FR. Mk XVIIIe (1/72 or 1/48). Is there a current kit available or is it possible to take an existing model of a different mark and modify it to achieve the same result?

There have been some 1/72 XVIII on the market, of which the only one still in production is the AZ kit. This is also the best overall, as the old MPM offering wasn't great and the Ventura kit, while likely accurate, was not an easy build. The same plastic in included in the Spitfire XIVe box, including the larger tail (that is moulded with the fuselage while the smaller tail is a separate part). There may be a few panel lines to change and ports to open but nothing major.

Alternatively, and for both scales, it's possible to modify a low back Spit XIV. The larger tail would be the most difficult modification but this is or has been available in resin (Freightdog for example).

Decals can be found in 1/48 from the defunct Aeromaster/Eagle Strike range or in both scales from Freightdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Headroom    5,723

Interesting debate about armament. I've always wondered though what was the advantage of the 20mm cannon/.50" combination verses two 20mm cannon in each wing? Both look rather a lethal combination, but just having the 20mm would have simplified logistics surely?

Was a purely .50" armed version ever contemplated?

Sorry if these sound silly questions but I know nothing about ballistics.

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graham Boak    2,378

A 0.5 armament was considered, but these were in sort supply in the middle war years as the US rearmed.

The Hispano was a heavy cannon: having four reduced the performance and agility of the aircraft. This was before the days of understanding inertia coupling so you won't find any direct reference to this, but having large weights away from axes of rotation is a bad idea.

Another factor is that the cannon only had a limited amount of firing time, because of the size and weight of the shells.

You can also argue that as in late-war practice the RAF's day fighters were largely only fighting against small aircraft, two cannon were enough and four would have been overkill. However, the Air Ministry's aim since the late 1930s had been to standardise on four cannon, with the further aim of increasing to six as in the earlier Meteor design. The Meteor design was balanced for six cannon, which is why the earlier Marks had to carry significant ballast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Giorgio N    3,912

A number of 0.5" guns had been tested before the war, the Air Ministry was unimpressed. To the best of my knowledge, a full 0.5" armament for the Spitfire was never considered and it would not have made sense based on the tests done on various guns.

Their decision to pursue 20mm cannon development was IMHO correct as the 0.5" didn't really have that many advantages over the 0.303" Browning in AA combat while the 20mm gun was in a different league.

If you want to know something more on aircraft gun performances, I can recommend the books and the articles written by Anthony Williams, some of which can be read on his website:

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/miltech.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark12    169

It's very doubtful; after checking (always a good idea,) the four-cannon drawings are all in the 359-- series, which was the low-back VIII prototype, so it rather looks as if the layout was for the planned low-back VIII, which never happened.

I suspect the reason why the four cannon Mk VIII was abandoned as a production variant might lie in the continuing delays in getting the new stronger wing through design and development and in to manufacture.

This basic stronger wing family was to equip both the Mk VIII and the Mk XIV.

My understanding is that the Mk IX was originally intended to be just an interim stop gap variant to basically convert the Mk V to take the two stage Merlin engine, however in the event the delays resulted in Mk IX production exceeding 5000 aircraft.

PeterA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magpie22    188

Somebody was after a four cannon Mk VIII.

Here is a shot of a 54 Squadron conversion in Australia.

It would be reasonable to assume that this has been 'knife and forked' by the local MU/RSU using some parts donated from a Mk Vc.

Four cannons were never an option on the Mk VIII or indeed the Mk IX to the best of my knowledge.

All effort I am sure went in to developing the 'e' armament, the .5 Browning along side the 20mm cannon and getting it to work satisfactorally within the full operational envelope.

Indeed, despite model boxes by the score, there was no such thing as a Mk IXb or a Mk IXc...just Mk IX and when the Mk IXe was introduced it was just 'Early Mk IX' and 'Mk IXe'....and that's what it says in the APs, service and parts list manuals etc.

PeterA

9e1434c8-7d24-4d9c-be18-16b2ce106cf2_zps

Edited by Magpie22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark12    169

Magpie,

I have a number of shots of of A58-482/JG655. All are coded TS-V. All have the single cannon. All shots are serialled JG655.

The RAAF movement card for 482 says allotted 548 Sqn on 1 August 1944...and then recieved by 7 RSU on 9 August 1944 and back to 548 Sqn 24 August 1944.

Next entry is issued to 6AD on 10 September 1945.

If my four cannon image is 482 I think we should be seeing part of the code TS.

PeterA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NPL    184

I would like to model a Spitfire FR. Mk XVIIIe (1/72 or 1/48). Is there a current kit available or is it possible to take an existing model of a different mark and modify it to achieve the same result?

Airwaves made a very nice rudder in 1/48: Airwaves SC48093 Mk.XVIII rudder

Falcon had a complete model i 1/48 -- vac form

and

Aeroclub made the fuselage: Aeroclub ABK48834 Spitfire F (FR) Mk14e or Spitfire FR MK18

Extradecals have some more recent decals:

Xtradecal X48127 Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XIVE/ Mk.XVIII

Xtradecals X48130 Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XIV/Mk.XVIII part. 2

The Falcon set is still available:

http://www.modelcraftsandhobbies.co.nz/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=4587&category_id=9af73185b6d041271e523be77a1756ac&

Edited by NPL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy Smith    2,365

Airwaves made a very nice rudder in 1/48: Airwaves SC48093 Mk.XVIII rudder

Falcon had a complete model i 1/48 -- vac form

and

Aeroclub made the fuselage: Aeroclub ABK48834 Spitfire F (FR) Mk14e or Spitfire FR MK18

Extradecals have some more recent decals:

Xtradecal X48127 Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XIVE/ Mk.XVIII

Xtradecals X48130 Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XIV/Mk.XVIII part. 2

The Falcon set is still available:

http://www.modelcraftsandhobbies.co.nz/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=4587&category_id=9af73185b6d041271e523be77a1756ac&

NPL is correct.

This info is all for 1/48th, I don't 'do' i 1/72, others could advise.

Unfortunately both the Aeroclub and Airwaves bits are OOP. when you get to 100 posts you could ask in the wanted section.

A conversion using a an Airfix Spitfire 22/24 fuselage, with an E wing, with a cutdown fin, is possible, but reuires some work on the rudder

see here for 'recipes'

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

The falcon vac is supposed to very well shaped, but is old school vac, raised panel lines and no details parts,

http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/cleaverspit18.htm

Not a problem if you have a well stocked selection of Spitfire spares, and you can deal with a vacform, and don't mind raised panel lines.

I'd be more inclined to got with the cross kit option, as you could get an Airfix Spit 22/24 and say, an ICM IX (these can be got really cheap these days, eg £7 and post on the sale pages here) for the cost of getting a Falcon vac from NZ and sourcing some spares.

Academy do a lowback XIV kit, but it's has serious shape errors, bulbous nose/spinner, thick wing.. Displayed on it's own it doesn't look too bad, put next to an accurate kit is looks bloated.

HTH

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magpie22    188

Peter,

Edited by Magpie22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gingerbob    1,446

You will correct me but I do not recall a test aircraft Mk VIII fitted with four cannons. Any takers?

Well, there's a slight technicality, but:

MD347 AAEE ATO/A.2 Pt.21 "2 Mk.II and 2 Mk.V guns in aircraft" (or something like that- I may have taken liberties with the exact title). Dated 8 June '44.

It may be that the trials of the 2nd Mk.III prototype and then a production Mk.Vc with 4 20mm cannon was considered to at least partly satisfy the need to prove the installation, though that's speculation. Or perhaps, even though the desire was there for the VIII to be able to carry 4 cannon, by the time the VIII was being delivered it was an unlikely enough prospect that they simply didn't bother. Actually, the AAEE did precious few test reports on the Mk.VIII at all- I think it was considered a variation on the VII, and perhaps in some cases the IX).

I don't see how they could possibly get 6 Hispanos into a Mk.VIII wing, but this WAS considered for the Griffon Spitfire (not the XIV- see below).

It's very doubtful; after checking (always a good idea,) the four-cannon drawings are all in the 359-- series, which was the low-back VIII prototype, so it rather looks as if the layout was for the planned low-back VIII, which never happened.

Actually, I believe that Type Number 359 covered the Mk.VIII in general. Type 360 covered the tropicalization package for the 2-stage Merlin.

Was a purely .50" armed version ever contemplated?

Yes. As early as December 1939 it was being considered as one of the alternatives for the "Mk.IV" or Griffon Spitfire. A test wing (suitable for Mk.I or III, I don't remember offhand) was well along when it was destroyed by the September 1940 bombings of Supermarine. I believe that some form of test installation was subsequently done, but this may have just been a test rig, not an airworthy Spitfire. The Griffon Spitfire also, for a time, was intended to have a (different) universal wing which could fit various combinations of 20mm and/or .5" guns.

Aside from availability, the real problem with the .5" gun from the British perspective was that it fell in between the .303 and the 20mm. Interest in it ebbed and flowed, but it was still a fairly heavy gun, and there was doubt whether the bullets would be that much more effective than the .303's. One argument against it was the higher RATE of fire of the .303, so if it was a matter of a lucky hit, you had more bullets flying with the smaller gun (especially if you could get as many as 12 into a fighter!) The advent of the Gyro gunsight reduced this disadvantage, since it promised a much greater likelihood of actually hitting a target from "off angles".

There was a discussion at Fighter Command where representatives of the different Groups gave their opinions of the ideal armament for their Spitfires. Their preference depended on what targets (fighter or unescorted bomber?) they were likely to encounter, among other things. If I remember right, it was Fighter Command's expressed desire for the .5" over the .303 that led to this becoming the "standard" for 2TAF- in other words, for the Mk.IX (and thus XVI) and XIV (and thus XVIII).

While some may have considered a mix of .5 and 20mm the best combination in its own right, it was also lighter than the 4 20mm installation, which had both performance (and/or handling) and structural implications.

bob

Edited by gingerbob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×