Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Meatbox8]

16 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

 

 

What do you mean by that? Don't see any issue on that front

 

Which reminds me, is there any way to make the old tool revell VB into a decent representation? theres one sitting in my LHS that no ones buying, is it just a case of replacing the lower wings and spinner? If so whats the diffence between a B wing underside and a C wing? 

 

 

Eye of the beholder I guess.  It just doesn't look quite right (to me at least).  It's quite subtle but I don't think it correctly captures the classic wing shape. 

 

With regards the Revell VB my main issue with it is the lack of 'gull' wing at the rear of the centre section.  It's completely flat and nothing like the real thing.  Shame really as there is some nice surface detail.  Also the kit has separate cannon bulges which might help in converting it to a VC.  I used it as a base for a Seafire III conversion.   Prop and spinner are completely out but nothing the spares box can't fix.  Though not an expert I think the fuselage might be a little too short as well.  I definitely prefer the Airfix VB, again with raised panel lines and all.  I think it really captures the 'look' correctly.  Having said that I've just completed the AZ MkVB and I think it is an excellent representation (plus there are tons of goodies for the spares box) so I'll probably be looking at their new KP range as well.   The only issues with it were some difficulty in getting the cockpit interior to fit, an issue I've had with all their Spitfire/Seafire range so far, and the decals where the roundel red is much too bright.  I built it as an LFVB to replace the Revell kit, as it happens, as I was fed up with its inaccuracies and scrapped it. 

[Meatbox8]

17 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

 

The B wing has a large bulge, for cannon drum,plus different panel lines.  The C wing inner 0.303 also moved outside a bay.

Converting a B to C wing is not that difficult for an experienced modeller.

 

 

more here

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/2

 

it should be noted the C wing UC is raked forward compared to the A/B wing

 

 

HTH

T

 

 

That's interesting.  I knew about the forward rake of the U/C but I didn't realise the inner .303 had been moved.   It really is about time a major manufacturer produced a VC.  I built the Airfix VB/VC release from a few years back when they added additional parts for the C wing.  Fine if you don't mind having a model with both raised and recessed panels plus a wing nearly as thick as a Hurricane's!

Edited May 13, 2017 by Meatbox8
typo

[PhantomBigStu]

Thanks for the answer Troy, i have a spare c wing underside so should be fine kit uppers just need to get the spiiner from the airfix mkii kit which I never need much excuse to buy  

[Greenshirt]

I've married the Revell Vb fuselage to spare wings of the correct shape to make a Vc and a Seafire IIc. Had to add new prop/spinner and canopy, plus Seafire bits but I liked the outcome. I'd rather build a Sword Vc or Seafire as they are much easier than correcting or converting the Revell Vb. 

 

As a kit, it's great. Easy to build and looks nicely detailed. Just doesn't look right enough for my tastes OOB. 

 

 

[Seahawk]

10 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

 I built the Airfix VB/VC release from a few years back when they added additional parts for the C wing.  Fine if you don't mind having a model with both raised and recessed panels plus a wing nearly as thick as a Hurricane's!

 

I'm reliably informed that the person who tooled the 1/72 Spitfire Vc wings had previously worked on Stonehenge.

[Seahawk]

10 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

 

 

Eye of the beholder I guess.  It just doesn't look quite right (to me at least).  It's quite subtle but I don't think it correctly captures the classic wing shape. 

 

With regards the Revell VB my main issue with it is the lack of 'gull' wing at the rear of the centre section.  It's completely flat and nothing like the real thing.  Shame really as there is some nice surface detail.  Also the kit has separate cannon bulges which might help in converting it to a VC.  I used it as a base for a Seafire III conversion.   Prop and spinner are completely out but nothing the spares box can't fix.  Though not an expert I think the fuselage might be a little too short as well.  I definitely prefer the Airfix VB, again with raised panel lines and all.  I think it really captures the 'look' correctly.  Having said that I've just completed the AZ MkVB and I think it is an excellent representation (plus there are tons of goodies for the spares box) so I'll probably be looking at their new KP range as well.   The only issues with it were some difficulty in getting the cockpit interior to fit, an issue I've had with all their Spitfire/Seafire range so far, and the decals where the roundel red is much too bright.  I built it as an LFVB to replace the Revell kit, as it happens, as I was fed up with its inaccuracies and scrapped it. 

 

Quite agree with you.  Just doesn't look right.  Something of a bloated look quite apart from the gull wing omission.  I started one, borrowing parts from the Airfix Spitfire V b to remedy its errors and inaccurate parts.  Gave up: realised that I was actually better off just building the Airfix Vb.

[johnd]

I remember enjoying building the Revell Vb but, along with everyone else, being disappointed with the lack of 'gull wing' and the strange airscrew. Other than that, the oil cooler was more like that of a Mk.I.

 

The fuselage looked fine to me at the time, but subsequently, I saw a build where the modeller built up the spine just behind the cockpit and sanded it down just before the fin to make an 's' shape rather than a straight line. This improved it to my eye.

 

As far as the Revell Mk.II goes, I haven't built it but the parts on the runners look the right shape and the panel lines are nicely done. The oil cooler remains a problem, the cockpit transparency is bizarre, the Coffman starter bulge is an odd shape, there are funny blisters over the wheel wells and the five slot wheels are poor. Other things to note are the metal ailerons and de Havilland propeller, though these may be correct for the airframe represented, if not typical for a front-line Mk.II. On the plus side, you get a seat with the flare cartridge rack on it, useful for Seafires.

 

John.

[Meatbox8]

7 minutes ago, johnd said:

I remember enjoying building the Revell Vb but, along with everyone else, being disappointed with the lack of 'gull wing' and the strange airscrew. Other than that, the oil cooler was more like that of a Mk.I.

 

The fuselage looked fine to me at the time, but subsequently, I saw a build where the modeller built up the spine just behind the cockpit and sanded it down just before the fin to make an 's' shape rather than a straight line. This improved it to my eye.

 

As far as the Revell Mk.II goes, I haven't built it but the parts on the runners look the right shape and the panel lines are nicely done. The oil cooler remains a problem, the cockpit transparency is bizarre, the Coffman starter bulge is an odd shape, there are funny blisters over the wheel wells and the five slot wheels are poor. Other things to note are the metal ailerons and de Havilland propeller, though these may be correct for the airframe represented, if not typical for a front-line Mk.II. On the plus side, you get a seat with the flare cartridge rack on it, useful for Seafires.

 

John.

Thanks for the info regarding the Revell Spit II.  I wonder if they modelled it on a restored example.  The blisters over the wheel wells sound like a modern adaptation.  Is the oil cooler from another mark, like a Mark V?  It's odd that it should have so many errors.  There's hardly a lack of references.  I understand their 1/32nd scale Spitfire II kit has some oddities as well.  Revell are a strange outfit.  They can produce beautiful models at excellent prices but also make some real howlers.   I think I'll try and take a look at the sprues before i part with my hard earned spondooleys. 

[johnd]

The oil cooler has the semi-circular aperture as you'd expect but the whole thing looks too thin.

 

My scribblings above sound quite harsh on re-reading. Assuming it fits together ok, you'd end up with a model dimensionally accurate and probably quite pleasing on the eye, with the exception of the comedy canopy. Those who'll be disappointed are those who are sticklers for accuracy and haven't built up a good spares box to replace the dodgy parts.

 

If I was you, I'd pick up an Airfix Mk.I/IIa boxing, build the Airfix as a Mk.Va (all bits are included except stickers) and nick the early Rotol propeller, later canopy and early oil cooler for the Revell kit. 

 

John.

 

 

[Meatbox8]

16 minutes ago, johnd said:

The oil cooler has the semi-circular aperture as you'd expect but the whole thing looks too thin.

 

My scribblings above sound quite harsh on re-reading. Assuming it fits together ok, you'd end up with a model dimensionally accurate and probably quite pleasing on the eye, with the exception of the comedy canopy. Those who'll be disappointed are those who are sticklers for accuracy and haven't built up a good spares box to replace the dodgy parts.

 

If I was you, I'd pick up an Airfix Mk.I/IIa boxing, build the Airfix as a Mk.Va (all bits are included except stickers) and nick the early Rotol propeller, later canopy and early oil cooler for the Revell kit. 

 

John.

 

 

 

 

Just checked out some sprue shots.  Seems a bit of a curate's egg.  Shape look good, as does surface detail but the areas you pointed out do stand out a bit.  The propeller looks emaciated and those blisters over the wheel wells!?  Not insurmountable though.  Even for a modeller of my limited talents.   There is a sort of plate on the upper wing surface between the inner and second gun access hatches which is a new one on me.  Also, it's odd that Revell opted to have separate wing tips.  As far as I'm aware no A wings were clipped (the exception being the one-off mark III?). 

 

Does the Airfix Spitfire have three different props?  I thought it only had the early Rotol and the two bladed job.  Likewise canopies.  I thought the kit only had two (one being the very early non-blown version with no armoured windscreen) .  I should know really, having the kit, but it's buried deep in the stash somewhere.    

[johnd]

Apologies,  you're quite right about the dodgy canopy advice - you'd need two Airfix Mk.IIa kits to do as I suggested, the other would be built as an early Mk.I which would free up the canopy!

 

There are three propellers in the Airfix box, the de Havilland one used in the other boxings is there too. Not sure how many back plates there are, though...

 

John.

 

 

 

 

[Meatbox8]

4 hours ago, johnd said:

Apologies,  you're quite right about the dodgy canopy advice - you'd need two Airfix Mk.IIa kits to do as I suggested, the other would be built as an early Mk.I which would free up the canopy!

 

There are three propellers in the Airfix box, the de Havilland one used in the other boxings is there too. Not sure how many back plates there are, though...

 

John.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good news about the props and saves me digging mine out!   I've probably got a suitable canopy in the spares box so I might give the kit a go after all.  

[Modelraynz]

Trying  to figure  out  the thai spitfire RM873/747 - from the earliest photos on vintage wings canada it seems to be a C? wing, though I can't tell if they are clipped or jsut colapsed 

 

the 50.cal ports are intriguing - i heard kiwi spits had c wing with 50s...is also possible  they just put em on for show

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Modelraynz

[Modelraynz]

Playing round a bit with filters to try and bring out detail, im fairy convinced this is just something  propping  up the airframe

 

[gingerbob]

I don't think there's any way to tell from the state shown in these photos.  The residual .303 ports could (and probably would) still be there on an 'e' wing.  (Didn't think about wingtips.)

Edited May 25, 2017 by gingerbob

[Navy Bird]

15 hours ago, gingerbob said:

I don't think there's any way to tell from the state shown in these photos.  The residual .303 ports could (and probably would) still be there on an 'e' wing.  (Didn't think about wingtips.)

 

I think that was discussed during my build of Ginger Lacey's XIV RN135. Many photos of 17 Squadron SEAC Spit XIVs with those ports covered with red tape, even though we think the guns themselves weren't present.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Max Headroom]

There's a discussion in the Hurricane thread about airframes being reserialled on conversion from Mk.I to II and that got me thinking why something similar didn't happen when Mk.I Spitfires were converted to Mk. V status?

 

Trevor

[Work In Progress]

Possibly because they weren't declared by anyone to be new airframes, but were considered (rightly) to be the same essential airframe as before, albeit one now fitted with a go-faster engine and oil cooler. (I say "possibly" and mean it: I am speculating rather than asserting as fact.)

 

TBH the question needs turning around. I can't see the logical justification for re-serialling the Hurricanes. The identity of an airframe does not rest in its engine, or in the case of a Spitfire I uprated to V spec, in its oil cooler either!

 

However, by definition, if the original manufacturer declares that Airframe X to be no longer extant, and that the world now contains a new Airframe Y, even if it actually incorporates most of the actual structure of Airframe X, then I suppose what the manufacturer says is likely to be taken as The Official Word.

 

A contingent question is whether Hawkers gave the remanufactured Hurricanes new factory construction numbers. Would not be surprised if they had. I am  assuming that the Spitfires were not given new factory construction numbers.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Work In Progress

[Graham Boak]

Were these alterations done in Hawker factories?  Or in MUs?  I thought the latter, but don't know for sure.   Whilst not really arguing against you, it is fair to confirm that whilst the identity does lie with the main fuselage structure, in the case of the Hurricane Mk.II this has been considerably modified by being lengthened and reshaped between the cockpit and the engine cowling.  This changes the fairing between the nose and the wing, there's a completely new radiator unit, and a new tailwheel.  The individual aircraft were also reworked which in many cases will have been minor but the older ones may have required replacement structure.  No doubt there will have been other minor changes too, including the radios.

 

There is also the political and public aspects - this was early in the relationship.  There's a difference between being seen to be dumping a load of used unwanted aircraft on the Russians (which we did go on to do a lot of, in order to make up the promised numbers) and a visible sign of current front-line types being transferred.  We were still using Mk.IIs in our own front line, including at least two rebuilt Mk.Is.

 

A better comparison with the Spitfires would perhaps be the more significant changes to the Mk.IX carried out on airframes built as Mk.Vs, which retained their original serials, but here again the main fuselage structure was unaltered.  

[gingerbob]

4 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

There's a discussion in the Hurricane thread about airframes being reserialled on conversion from Mk.I to II and that got me thinking why something similar didn't happen when Mk.I Spitfires were converted to Mk. V status?

 

Good question!  I haven't read the Hurri discussion yet, and have sometimes wondered about the practice on Hurricanes (are there other good cases with RAF aircraft- leaving out transfer to FAA, as with Seafire conversions?)  I even (heretic that I am) wonder if it might be a bigger "story" than "reality", but no doubt it is amply supported.

 

Anyway, assuming that it is all true, I can only guess (careful choice of words) that perhaps the more integral structure of a "modern" airplane like the Spitfire argued for retaining an identity, whereas the Hurricane was more "a collection of parts flying in close formation", so if those parts were recycled one could justify giving the result a new identity.  Or perhaps it was one of Beaverbrook's tricks?  Let me again say, though, that I have given this no careful study, so am very much shooting from the hip.

 

bob

 

p.s. Graham, just how "considerable" would the modification be to fit the Merlin XX to a Hurri?  If it is little more than unbolting some tubes (even if tossing everything forward and substituting a new front-end), then that's really not that big a deal from a manufacturing standpoint, compared to, say, drilling out hordes of rivets to get parts freed, then getting new parts to live in harmony with the old.  EDIT: you mentioned the V to IX thing, so I might as well say (again) that with very few exceptions, those were airframe "kits" completed as IXs, not Vs flown off to Hucknall (despite, I believe, some claims in Spit the History) only to be disassembled enough to make them anew as IXs.

Edited June 2, 2017 by gingerbob

[Work In Progress]

The Seafire Ib, based on existing ex RAF Vb airframes, is a good point of comparison. It appears they were re-serialled, e.g.

http://allspitfirepilots.org/aircraft/BL635

 

[gingerbob]

No, it isn't, because that's a case of change of ownership, not just alteration of airframe.  (Actually, that's only a half-truth, because there were Spitfires handed to the FAA- even "hooked Spitfires", I believe- that retained their serials.  Conversion to "full" Seafire, which included different radio specs, etc, seems to have determined new identities, but still I think that was for record-keeping more than "crossing a line"- as in "we've gotten x many of what we actually need to suit our purposes- those others are just for training".)

Edited June 2, 2017 by gingerbob

[lasermonkey]

On 13/05/2017 at 0:26 PM, PhantomBigStu said:

 

 

 

 

Which reminds me, is there any way to make the old tool revell VB into a decent representation? theres one sitting in my LHS that no ones buying, is it just a case of replacing the lower wings and spinner?

Pavla makes a Vc wing which is intended for the Revell Vb. Considering that the wing is probably the worst part of the Revell kit, it might be worth a punt.

[Graham Boak]

Re Bob: the differences between Hurricanes I and II were certainly more significant than the differences between a Spitfire Mk.I and Mk.V.  As such I will defend the use of the adjective "considerably, if only in context.  The basic structure of a Hurricane wasn't just bolted together, it was a rigid structure.  You are looking at "drilling out hordes of rivets to get parts freed, then getting new parts to live in harmony with the old."  A rather smaller horde, true, but the Spitfire didn't need any alteration or extension to that basic structure whereas the Hurricane did.

 

I can't think offhand of many (if any) examples of re-serialling other than those mentioned - and of those the Seafire did need additions to the basic structure so the logic is comparable.  Yet Sea Hurricanes didn't change their serial - perhaps expecting consistency in fraught times is too much.  Prewar major rework/rebuild would result in an R being added to the serial resulting in the only (so far) six-character RAF serials.  (OOPs, there were some P-40s where Curtiss misunderstood the system and continued after 999...)

[PhantomBigStu]

5 hours ago, lasermonkey said:

Pavla makes a Vc wing which is intended for the Revell Vb. Considering that the wing is probably the worst part of the Revell kit, it might be worth a punt.

 

Will check it out, though in true sods law style someone else finally took the spitfire.....

 

do have another question I have the two wartime options from the xtradecal PR19 sheet, are either of them amoughst the 25 type 389?s