1/48 NN660 first Spiteful prototype and RB516 production Spiteful

[gingerbob]

OK, sticking my neck out with my intended build:

NN660, the short-lived first prototype for the Spiteful

Source: http://ipmsuk.proboards.com/thread/5630/supermarine-spiteful-1st-prototypes-colour

I'm not actually sure how I'm going to attack it yet- I've got Falcon vac Spiteful and XIV fuselage, and I'm tempted to try to do a vac kitbash, but may go with an injection fuselage instead.

bob

[Edit: 28 Apr I'm going to try to do a production Spiteful as well.]

Edited April 28, 2016 by gingerbob

[Giorgio N]

Very interesting subject, looking forward to seeing the way you decide to build the fuselage

[Col.]

As Giorgio says this is indeed a very interesting subject. I'm guessing the Trumpeter kit is not a worthwhile starting point?

[gingerbob]

The Trumpeter kit isn't a good starting point for a Spiteful (some comments here), but it is possible that I'll be able to use the basic wing with tweaks. I'll have to look at the various parts (options) and come up with a plan.

bob

[Col.]

The Trumpeter kit isn't a good starting point for a Spiteful (some comments here), but it is possible that I'll be able to use the basic wing with tweaks. I'll have to look at the various parts (options) and come up with a plan.

bob

Oh dear

[gingerbob]

Well, I haven't yet found that Falcon vac XIV fuselage- last I knew I was leaving it out so I could find it later...

But I did find an Aeroclub Spit 21 fuselage, so that's a possibility, as is an Airfix XIX. Come to think of it, I WAS thinking a PR.XI would be nice... damn it, Bob, get a hold o' yourself!

[Col.]

You sound to have the same option overload as I do

[Caerbannog]

Great choice!

The first time I realized that this Spitfire existed was when I read this article on a German forum:

http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/9-flugzeuge-ww2/9001-supermarine-spiteful-eigenbau.html

He started from a Mk XIV (so it must be the Academy kit) and scratchbuild the wings.

I am sure it will be easier to use an Airfix XIX for the fuselage and for the wings I would go with either Spiteful or Attacker kits. Falcon, Classic Airframes and Hobby Boss offer some. IIRC the Hobby Boss Attacker was not too bad and will be probably one of the easiest and cheapest to get - apart from the Heritage Spiteful which is currently on final sale for 15 GBP for the complete resin kit including decals (http://www.kitsforcash.com/spiteful-now-less-than-12-price-to-clear-268-p.asp). Errr... OK now that I read the posts over again I realize that you have the Falcon Spiteful already... Never mind - I leave here what I wrote. Maybe it is of some use for others

[gingerbob]

Classic Airframes and Trumpeter do the Attacker (also some cottage industry options, including Falcon vac)

Falcon (vac), Silver Cloud, and Trumpeter do the Spiteful (I don't have the Heritage kit). Trumpeter's Seafang has some different tooling, but the basic shapes agree (except "Mustang style" intake versus Spitfire type).

I've about decided to use the basic Trumpeter Spiteful wing, in part as an experiment in making some adjustments as hinted at in the linked thread. Those would apply to any Spiteful/Seafang, not just NN660. The wing-fuselage fillet, however, is terrible on the Trumpeter kit. At first inspection, Silver Cloud's seems pretty close. Whatever fuselage I use, the fillet and wing position differ enough from the Spitfire's that some surgery will be required. That's probably the hardest part to pin down- not that the surgery itself is necessarily so bad, but being sure I have a good plan before commencing the operation!

There is also the question of finish (being optimistic that this will actually have the chance to happen...) - there is general agreement that the top, at least, is some light grey, though exactly what is less settled. I'm thinking Medium Sea Grey, as would apply for a High-altitude fighter, with runner-up "a light grey primer that looks rather like Medium Sea Grey". Spinner I believe to be Sky- it is hard to see any obvious contrast in the few photos, but the crash site has been explored and there's evidence for this, and it also happens to be logical- take an off the shelf spinner, which would likely be Sky.

That, however, raises a wrinkle: the wing-fuselage fillet is clearly (?) bare metal. It is entirely possible that, as photographed, the prototype is in an incomplete paint scheme. It has even been suggested to me that the wing might not be painted, but so far I'm leaning toward painted- smoothing of the 'high-speed airfoil' would have been a priority, I believe, so it seems likely to me that it would have been puttied and painted before mating to the fuselage.

The bottom should, as a prototype, be yellow, should it not? But the "Circle P" doesn't seem to match the tone of the undersides, and there's no definitely obvious demarcation that I can spot.

So, what say you? I am open to suggestions and logical (or factual) argument.

bob

[Col.]

Could it be a Medium Sea Grey over PRU Blue scheme?

[Giorgio N]

I looked at the picture and read all the threads, very interesting.

One colour that can be excluded is Llight Aircraft Grey, not because I don't trust those who have seen the actual pieces of the aircraft (far from it) but simply because it's a colour that was not introduced until the '60s. The original may have been a similar or very similar colour but not that one. I know that Supermarine seems to have used a number of greys before the war, wonder if any of these could have made its way onto the Spiteful prototype ? If not, than medium sea grey is a good candidate

Lower surfaces, really I'm not sure if there's any demarcation there. Yes, prototypes were supposed to have yellow undersurfaces, but I can't see much difference between top and bottom there.

Unless as you say, the picture was taken before the paint job was completed...

[Troy Smith]

hi bob

another possible fuselage donor would be the Hobbycraft XIV, which is very well shaped, though the panel lines are either trenchy or none existent on the rear fuselage.

They are pretty trenchy on the wings, but this would over come that problem, and you probably have one of these stashed away as well

The plastic is pretty substantial, so could be good for fillet reshaping?

IIRC the Falcon XIV fuselage is very old, I think it was intended to convert the Monogram IX, though I'd have thought Falcon would have gone for the Otaki/Arii VIII kit instead, but a quick search turns up this

http://oldmodelkits.com/index.php?detail=8499&page=260&erl=Falcon-1-48-Supermarine-Spitfire-Mk-XIV-Conversion

High quality vac conversion for the Monogram or other kits. Includes full fuselage, rudder, prop blades, spinner, exhaust, radiators and many other parts. Features fine surface detail and full instructions.

The Heritage Spiteful resin kit is based upon the Falcon vac, I was told this by the chap who made the master.

He pointed out that the angle of attack on the Falcon Spiteful wing was too high, but he'd not changed it.

I did start the Falcon vac and try to fix this, there is a very good double page shot of the Spitfeful flying in Spitfire at War 2 IIRC, which shows the wing root really well.

HTH

T

[gingerbob]

Hi Troy,

Yes, I mentioned the XIV conversion as a possible option, and I did finally find my example. But because of the need to introduce a new wing-fuselage fillet, which includes filling some of the "behind the wing" that is still fillet on the Spitfire, I think I'll go with injection, which should be a lot easier to work with.

Now to find the drawing I made of the wing- I hate to have to do it over.

Thanks for the ideas on paint- still very open for discussion. I wonder if the "Light Aircraft Grey" is really just grey primer? I didn't mention it, but I did see a color photo of one of the recovered bits, and it looked near enough Medium Sea Grey to satisfy me at the time- I can't believe I either didn't save the image, or can't now find it in the "archives"!

Also, I've got a larger version of the photo in the first post as my computer's backdrop (subliminal reminder) and I've only now noticed what I take to be a narrow dark "anti-glare" strip- most obvious at the base of the windscreen, but it seems to run forward along the fuselage too.

bob

Edited April 23, 2020 by gingerbob

[gingerbob]

Here's a pretty good comparison of the new Spiteful wing (and gear) to the standard Spitfire. More particularly, where the leading edge, and therefore the fillet, sits. (Yes, that's a Mk.XIV with a contra-prop.) Note that the intake is in the same position on the nose, which makes it easier to see the wing difference.

Still looking for that wing drawing of mine, but it gave me the excuse to perform triage on a heap of loose papers that I'd "swept" out of my bedroom! (even found some useful Spiteful-related things in there.)

[Bedders]

Interesting photos which highlight for me how much further forward the Spiteful wing was compared to the Spitfire.

Justin

[gingerbob]

EUREKA!! I finally found that darn drawing of the wing! Wouldn't YOU tuck it into an old issue of FlyPast? (It was marking the page where a short article on the Spiteful was to be found, with some good photos.) About halfway down a stack of books on top of a bookshelf in my bedroom. Maybe now I can actually do something constructive. Or at least destructive.

[Giorgio N]

Glad to hear you now have the required referecences, looking forward to some plastic being cut !

Have to say that gathering all the references is, at least to me, sometimes almost as pleasing as actually building the model, at least when I can find what I'm looking for...

Edited March 24, 2016 by Giorgio N

[gingerbob]

So here I am, twisting my brain into pretzels trying to:

A ) form a plan to improve the Trumpeter Spiteful/Seafang wing as much as I elegantly can

B ) figure out how to integrate the wing with a Spitfire fuselage.

This photo is typical of my mad laboratory when I get into one of these things:

(I'll be back- too much audio jamming since my daughter got home from school...)

As I was saying. I'll spell this all out in an organized manner once I actually do something, but I'll be away this weekend, and probably won't quite manage today.

First step will be to clip a bit from the wingtips. Interestingly, I discovered (or rediscovered?) that when they did the Attacker wing they apparently caught this, because to my surprise the wingtip ends where it should, but they also changed the shape of the tip to make it less accurate, or so I believe.

The next problem is that, having clipped a wee bit of span at the tips, I'll now have to get it back at the root. In a nutshell, the wings are too close together (which includes the inner line of the gear wells). A further complication is that the leading edge is too "straight" (not tapered enough) on the inner half- from root out to the cannons. Also, the wheel well cutout on the underside is quite bad.

(A couple of comments about the above photo, which shows the result of clipping the tip:

• The "+" at the top of the dashed line is the location of the aft spar pin, which is a fitting on the fuselage side. This shows, to some degree, the amount of fillet needed there.
• The left edge of the photo is approximately the aircraft's centerline.
• While the outer leading edge is slightly underdeveloped, the inner leading edge is worse, which, in combination with a too-narrow wing leads to too short a chord at the fuselage.

I've got some clever [sic] ideas to deal with all of these elements, but the tricky part is figuring out how to do it as simply as possible using kit components. I do anticipate using the wheel wells from a SAC set intended for the Trumpeter Attacker. This is a direct copy of the (Attacker) kit parts, except for a slight shift of where the legs plug in. The wells and cutout on that kit are markedly different from those of the Spiteful/Seafang. Somewhat more accurate, perhaps, but also wrong in different ways!

The problem with introducing this wing to the Spitfire fuselage is that the Trumpeter root fairings are terrible, having hardly any flare. Otherwise I could just graft in the appropriate section of fuselage. I'm afraid I'll end up having to sculpt the fillets, which isn't a task I relish. In my wildest dreams I would make a mold of the "corrected" root/fillets so that I could make a correction set for the kit. Or maybe I can find some beautifully simple solution that has thus far escaped me...

For the leading edge, I'm considering cutting the whole span of the wing and adding a wedge, but I'd much rather just let the outer part be and adjust the inner portion. The next installment will hopefully address this and also the gear wells, which I'm hoping will be (at least in part) all part of the same fix. Incidentally, the oleo leg covers in the kit seem to be about right (oddly enough!) but the wheel-cover doors will need some modification. Haven't really looked at the oleos themselves yet. If I remember right the wheels/tyres are too small.

bob

Edited April 1, 2016 by gingerbob

[gingerbob]

Hi all, well, a good airplane model weekend it was (and a 1/72 Do 24 is now trying to distract me, but I will remain steadfast!) and I've been looking and reviewing and fiddling and so on again. Nothing to show yet, but hopefully later today.

For my own convenience, and for those that get into this sort of thing, here's Andrew Jones' benchmark thread on improving the Trumpeter Spiteful. I had taken some measurements and formed some impressions, and wanted to check my numbers against his. They're pretty darn close.

"I'll be back."

bob

Edited April 7, 2016 by gingerbob

[gingerbob]

OK then, finally another hint of progress- which do you think looks better, Radiator #1, as modified by me, or Radiator #2, as Trumpeter provides?

[Andrew Jones]

OK then, finally another hint of progress- which do you think looks better, Radiator #1, as modified by me, or Radiator #2, as Trumpeter provides?

Definitely radiator #1 ,the rads as moulded by Trumpeter are way too deep, nice progress so far Bob.

Andrew

[Giorgio N]

The original part is clearly too deep and the angles of the side walls don't look right either

[gingerbob]

I think this photo exaggerates the "angle" of the sides, but I have looked at that a few times (just ogling the part) and wondered. With them cut down, just a little pressure inboard should do it. I also think that they might be just a bit too "rounded" (airfoil versus straight) in plan, but I'm not sure I'll worry about that. (Note that this is just a quick and dirty photo after cutting one down, so not "fettled" yet.)

Good news for Seafang builders- I'd worried about the position of the wingfold, but it is in the "right" place, which means that doing my tip-clip actually results in the folded tip having the right proportions, whereas not doing it results in a "longer and pointier" folded panel.

[gingerbob]

Another non-event update! I spent a good part of yesterday wrestling with this again, a fair amount comparing Griffon noses. Ain't none of 'em perfect, gosh darn it! A wee bit of analysis left to perform.

This morning I ordered some bits from Barracuda (Roy Sutherland), not all for this project, but some will no-doubt be incorporated, especially a "late Griffon" prop. This comes with a spinner, which I'm keen to see because I determined that the Silver Cloud spinner was possibly the best of the bunch! (The Airfix Spit 22 spinner is a trifle blunt or "rounded" at the point, and the XIX is a little under diameter.) This may be one of two worthwhile parts in that Silver Cloud kit!

Supposed to work today, and if I get stuck with a full shift there'll be no useful Spiteful work. Grr.

bob

p.s. I also, in a fit of pique (or desperation?) cut the major parts from the Falcon Spiteful vac sheet, and thereby provided an historical demonstration for my daughter!

Edited April 13, 2016 by gingerbob

[Caerbannog]

I press both thumbs there will be no full shift for you ;-)

René