Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Newbie(kinda)]

On 11/02/2018 at 12:10 AM, Meatbox8 said:

I think the PR.1G might be a relatively straight forward proposition.  It had the standard 'A' wing of 4 x .303 MGs per wing.  There were two camera apertures in the bottom of the rear fuselage just behind the rear centre section plus two windows, one on each side, for the obliquely mounted camera one in the middle of the radio bay door and the other on the corresponding opposite side.  It also had the standard armoured windscreen.  Other than the camera ports the only visible differences from a standard Mk1 were teardrop panels on each side of the sliding hood and no radio mast.

I'm doing exactly the same as Max. My questions are (and apologies if these have been asked before), for an early (pink) PR1G:

 

• de Havilland prop with pointy spinner or Rotol prop with blunt spinner (I suspect the latter);
• armour plate behind the pilot's seat (I think, yes);
• Coffman starter bulge (not at all sure but probably); and
• circular (MkII style) rather than semi-circular (MkI style) oil cooler (I'm guessing the former).

 

 

 

[gingerbob]

My "answers" (you'll see why I put that in quotes):

DH or Rotol? Yes.  Could be either.

 

Armour?  Really don't know, but for a 'dicer' I would think it would be rather desired.

 

Coffman bulge? Possibly, but I would think that most PR.G would be either Merlin III or 45, neither of which would require it.  It might depend on your particular subject.

 

Oil cooler: depends on engine fitted and (possibly) date.  Merlin 45 "required" the circular ("Mk.III type", not Mk.II, by the way), but the PRU was an early customer, at least in limited quantities, for the Merlin 45, so might have had some not yet equipped with the later cooler.  That would have been retrofitted by summer '41, though, I expect.

Edited March 14, 2018 by gingerbob

[Threadbear]

The answer is probably amongst this vast resource of information but using the Academy Spitfire XIVE kit with its inaccuracies, what is the easiset route to an FR18 please? 

[Beard]

2 hours ago, Threadbear said:

The answer is probably amongst this vast resource of information but using the Academy Spitfire XIVE kit with its inaccuracies, what is the easiset route to an FR18 please? 

The 18 had a larger rudder, camera ports on both sides of the fuselage (I can't remember if it had vertical camera too) and different access panels in the wing (the 18 didn't have the panels for the  .303s but, I seem to remember, had one for desert survival equipment).

 

I think Freightdog used to do a replacement resin tailplane for the Academy Fujimi kit (they currently do one for the Sword XIV) get that or scratch a new rudder and do some filling and re-scribing and, drilling.

 

However, I'd suggest buying the AZ 18 (I believe the tail is correct but I'm not sure about the access hatches in the wing) or, a Sword XIV low-back and the Freightdog resin tailplane (the one they do now is intended for the Sword kit).

 

Heres a thread discussing XIV/ 18 rudders:

 

and here's one about 18 wings:

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Beard
1) To add links. 2) to correct post following johnd's post.

[johnd]

The previous Freightdog Mk.18 tailplane was the Fujimi kit. I don't believe they did one for the Academy effort.

 

John.

[Beard]

50 minutes ago, johnd said:

The previous Freightdog Mk.18 tailplane was the Fujimi kit. I don't believe they did one for the Academy effort.

 

John.

I couldn't remember for which Spitfire XIV they did the previous tail and you are correct. Thanks for setting me straight, I'll amend my post.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Beard

[Meatbox8]

3 hours ago, Threadbear said:

The answer is probably amongst this vast resource of information but using the Academy Spitfire XIVE kit with its inaccuracies, what is the easiset route to an FR18 please? 

I'd definitely go for the Sword kit.  It's really nice and who knows, maybe the Freightdog tail will fit?  Plus, you get tons of spares, almost enough to build another kit. 

[Beard]

4 minutes ago, Meatbox8 said:

I'd definitely go for the Sword kit.  It's really nice and who knows, maybe the Freightdog tail will fit? 

The Freightdog tail needs a little fettling but will fit the Sword XIV (because it was made for it).

[Meatbox8]

3 minutes ago, Beard said:

The Freightdog tail needs a little fettling but will fit the Sword XIV (because it was made for it).

my mistake.  I thought it was made for the Academy kit. 

[Beard]

Just now, Meatbox8 said:

my mistake.  I thought it was made for the Academy kit. 

I thought the same until JohnD put me right. There was one for the Fujimi XIV, now there's one for the Sword.

[Meatbox8]

10 minutes ago, Beard said:

I thought the same until JohnD put me right. There was one for the Fujimi XIV, now there's one for the Sword.

Actually I didn't even think it was for the Academy it.  I thought it was the Fujimi one too.  Go figure!

[Troy Smith]

4 hours ago, Threadbear said:

The answer is probably amongst this vast resource of information but using the Academy Spitfire XIVE kit with its inaccuracies, what is the easiset route to an FR18 please? 

 scale?  48th or 72nd?

the 72nd chaps have pitched in,  for 48th the options are a bit different.

 

As to the best method,  depends on what your budget is and your skill set.    I have a part hacked 48th  Academy XIV,  most of the problems are solvable with intermediate modelling skills IMO,   but you need to do a lot of tweaking!

 

If you want the 48th info i'lldig out some links

cheeers

T

 

 

[Beard]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

 scale?  48th or 72nd?

the 72nd chaps have pitched

I'd forgotten there are other scales.

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Beard said:

I'd forgotten there are other scales.

There are other scales?

Mike

[Tony C]

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 scale?  48th or 72nd?

the 72nd chaps have pitched in,  for 48th the options are a bit different.

 

As to the best method,  depends on what your budget is and your skill set.    I have a part hacked 48th  Academy XIV,  most of the problems are solvable with intermediate modelling skills IMO,   but you need to do a lot of tweaking!

If you want the 48th info i'lldig out some links

cheeers

T

If going 1:48 and if you can find one I'd recommend the Aeroclub Spitfire FR.Mk.18 or FR.Mk.14e Conversion.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

There are other scales?

Mike

Nah, just 1:48...

[Threadbear]

Oops sorry, yes I was looking at the Academy 1/48 scale kit. Thanks for your replies. 

[gingerbob]

Ah, in that case, I'll go back to my original answer: get the Falcon vac Spitfire 18!  (And yes, FR.18s had vertical cameras (or ports)- F.18s did not.)

 

OK, perhaps not the "easiest", but it is one way to get a decently shaped low-back Griffon Spitfire.

[Troy Smith]

14 hours ago, Tony C said:

If going 1:48 and if you can find one I'd recommend the Aeroclub Spitfire FR.Mk.18 or FR.Mk.14e Conversion.

 

 

That's a pretty big IF these days...    they go for silly money.   And you still need wings

 

6 hours ago, Threadbear said:

Oops sorry, yes I was looking at the Academy 1/48 scale kit. Thanks for your replies. 

 

As I asked,  how are your modelling skills?    If you can cut scrape,rescribe and sand,  and get a new spinner and  broad rudder,  and maybe a canopy, you can make a Mk.18 out ofthe lowback Academy kit.

There is a much gnashing of teeth and wailing about the  kit (justifiably)  but as it's faults in the main are of  the nature of being  oversize,  it's really a question of removing the inaccurate excess.

I found  my initial research and chopping,  posted at the bottom.     I'll have to add some of this into the Spitfire 18 wing thread.

 

4 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Ah, in that case, I'll go back to my original answer: get the Falcon vac Spitfire 18!  (And yes, FR.18s had vertical cameras (or ports)- F.18s did not.)

 

OK, perhaps not the "easiest", but it is one way to get a decently shaped low-back Griffon Spitfire.

and....again, how are your modelling skills...

While the Falcon vac is apparently very shaped  (one missing from my collection of 1/48th Spitfire I'm afraid)   it is an old school vacform.

As such it has raised panel lines,  and no detail bits....

 

there is an extensive thread here

 

though some of  the above (in my opinion) is cobblers.

I'll quote myself as I it covers most options

Quote

I've seen the Academy kit built up, and on it's own it doesn't look to bad, but put next to an accurately shaped Spitfire it looks wrong.

ONe point, the plane in the photo is a warbird, but a low back XIV in SEAC markings would have the XIV type rudder, this looks to have the later XVIII broad rudder.

This has been discussed here before, and in short, if you want an accurate model, cross kitting or conversions, or a vac form are the only options.

Also, I don't know what kits are cheaply available in NZ, which is where you are, though if you do have Spitfire spares, and fancy a challenge, Falcon Models still do a XVIII vacform

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

but it's pretty basic, and has fine raised panel lines.

The other easy way would be to get the Aeroclub low back XIV/XVIII conversion, but it OOP, and I'd presume hard to find in NZ.

If you want a shelf model, and can live without fine detail, and can do a bit of converting, a Hobbycraft XIV kit is generally well shaped, and could be converted to low back spine, aftermarket conversions have been made, but it's not hard to do and get a bubble hood.

Falcon do a set of Spitfire canopies.

If you like surgery, and could get the kits cheap, add the nose and rudder from a Hobbycraft XIV to a lowback ICM XVI is another way.

The Hobbycraft kit was reboxed by Kitech, and these were about really cheap at one point.

I'd suggest not using an Eduard Spitfire IX for wings, mostly because the kit is covered in fine rivets, and your donor fuselages won't be! So unless you want to fill the rivets or rivet the fuselage, I'd suggest these as possible wing donors are Hasegawa IX, which has an inaccurate fuselage, or the ICM VIII/IX kit.

The Airfix 22/24 has a low back fuselage, and a tail that can be cut down, and can be cross kitted with one of the above.

For more suggestions, have careful read here. the Airfix 22/24 + Hasegawa IX is done here.

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

If you wanted to do some other Spitfires, then you can have a lot projects from cross kitting, so you could get 3 kits and cross and get 3 non kitted Spitfire

see here for various combos tested

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234934815-airfixs-new-spitfire-xix-has-anyone-tried-cross-kitting-wings-yet-for-the-mk-xiv/

Eg

Airfix 22/24, Airfix XIX and ICM IX,

Airfix 24 wing plus XIX fuselage [with mods noted by Bruce] = Mk21

Airfix 24 Fuselage , with modified fin and Aeroclub or scratchbuilt rudder plus ICM E wing= FR XIV or XVIII

XIX wing plus ICM IX fuselage with mods plus Aeroclub deep cowl = PRXI

 

so, @Threadbear  here is the start of my fix for the Academy XIV from

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234999708-spitfire-experts-did-i-just-make-a-148-mkxiv/&page=2

Quote

the back plate on a Griffon spinner is 28 inches. which is 7/12th's of an inch in 1/48, or .5833, or 14.8 mm. 1mm =approx 2 inch in 1/48 (1 inch = 25.4 mm)

the kit backplate is a scale 30 inch, so it's about 1mm too big, so the above makes the nose ring too small.... so armed with Peter Cooke plans, and a Aeroclub XIV fuselage, I had a quick go at a fix.. and am trying to avoid using aftermarket replacements as well.

the upper line of the fuselage is OK, the problem is the nose is too deep because the wings are too thick!

the pic is on photobucket, showing up with an embed fix though.  I'll flickr it later.

 

some saw cuts to reduce the nose ring, and a triangular wedge to bring up the lower cowl line, note how the over thick wing makes the cowl line too low, and thinning the wing will bring the wing up to lower cowl line.

the difference in depth compared to the unmodified cowl is clear.

 

The cut maybe better to do higher up...more investigation needed.

 

the backplate of the Academy Spinner is too wide, but it's also too long, and sanding this back will take off the extra diameter I hope.

the Academy spinner is a dead loss BTW.

 

the prop blades are too short, abour 1mm, and wide, but this looks fixable with a little root extension and reshaping.

 

The rear fuselage is a little too deep, but back with plastic card and sanding will cure that.

 

the radiators are too deep and too narrow, but cutting the bottom off and the fixing this between the sides look like a possible fix.

the wings apart from being thick , have the oval wheel wells and too broad chord, and are a touch too far back on the fuselage, but all reasonably easy too correct.

 

There are other areas that need work on the Academy kit, but I thought trying to tackle the biggest problems first to see if feasible.

the panel lines seem mostly in the right places, and the fixes outlined if done carefully will not destroy much detail.

I also pulled out the Daco 'correction' set, which is basically a new nose, which is slimmer, but does not correct the depth problem caused by the thick wing, so it's the undercowl is wrong.

he above may sound like a lot of work, but if you have a stashed Academy kit that won't get done because of it's problems,and you don't want buy correction kits, (though IMO the Daco set is of limited use) then perhaps applying "some modelling skill" maybe the way forward.

The kit shown is the FR XIV, ie lowback, I don't have the high back Academy XIV.

(I do now)

corrections and questions welcome.

cheers

T

 

I really must do some more pics of this,  if it sounds like a lot of work.... well,  doing a Mk.18 in 1/48th is  going   to  involve a lot of  work however you do it.

 

School run now...

T

 

 

 

 

 

[Threadbear]

Wow. I knew the Academy kits were inaccurate but what a nightmare and a serious candidate for kitbashing. I think for now, I will leave this but thank you for your comprehensive answers to my questions. 

[SleeperService]

Before I start collating all the information on here and in Volume 1 is there a 'kit bash' list of parts to build the various versions. I'm thinking fuselage from Mk I, left wing MkXII, right wing Mk XIX to make a GR30B as used by Bulgaria type thing. That way builders in any scale can add in best kits for that scale.

 

This isn't for personal gain of any kind other than giving me something to offer back to BMers who've been so helpful in the past. It is a very powerful symbol for many across the world and worthy of the attention I feel. It could incorporate key points such as when the strengthening ribs over the undercarriage wheel bays were added if desired.

 

[Beard]

11 hours ago, SleeperService said:

[...] is there a 'kit bash' list of parts to build the various versions.

I'm not aware of a list but several members have kit-bashed Spitfires so it might be worth doing a search. Also, what scale are you planning?

[SleeperService]

12 hours ago, Beard said:

I'm not aware of a list but several members have kit-bashed Spitfires so it might be worth doing a search. Also, what scale are you planning?

To start with it would be a list of what bits were needed for a given mark. Later recommendations could be made for best kit in whatever scale.

 

The concept is that a person wants to make a Mk whatever looks at the entry and finds they need fuselage of a Mk II, wings from a Mk.22, propeller from a Mk IX and so on. Onto this skeleton could be notes such as ribs on wings after 6/1944 retrofitted during major overhaul. So if the subject was with a squadron before that date it should have no ribs and when issued to another squadron in November it should have them fitted.

This information would be enduring. For specific scales the recommendations would change over time as stuff and kits became available.  

EDIT: To reduce the rather ambitious scope of this plan to something that maybe achievable? Thank You Beard and Graham for a dose of reality.

[Beard]

19 minutes ago, SleeperService said:

For specific scales the recommendations would change over time as stuff and kits became available.

 

Good luck but I fear that may be something of a sisyphean task.

[Graham Boak]

I think that you would be best advised not to spend too much time on this, but if you persist bear in mind these matters.

 

Details (such as propellers, canopies, exhausts, stiffening ribs, undercarriage or cannon bulges, anti-torque links) change during the production of the Mark, not just between marks.   Information on the major changes are available in the better books on the subject anyway, but tying the finer details to specific airframes (as produced?  Converted later but when?) just isn't known for more than isolated examples.  For one example that keeps cropping up, is there a source that will tell you which Mk.IXs didn't have the outer cannon stub?  To use your own example, the date that the wing strengthening ribs were adopted may be found in a copy of Supermarine's modification register, but that won't tell you when individual aircraft had this done.  Rear view mirrors could be individual to certain pilots - did they take then to a new aircraft or did they stay with it as it moved around between squadrons?

 

When switching to modelling, the wing off a (for example) Airfix Mk.V doesn't fit the fuselage of an Italeri one.  So a listing of these parts won't help you make a "ideal" kit.  Then there are the problems that sometimes no kit provides the right part.  For example, the Airfix 1/72 Spit 22 has the prop from a Mk.XIV which is too small for the Mk.22/24.  You can get a better one from aftermarket, but these come and go: recommending something that's now (or in a year or two) no longer available isn't a great help.

[spaddad]

..