Difference between Spitfire Mk.16 (highback) and Mk.8 ?

[Basuroy]

Hello folks , as the title says , what are the visible differences between a Mk. 8( the one with pointed rudder ) and Mk. 16 ? I have the eduard 72nd scale mk. 16 kit and was wondering if it can be depicted as a mk. 8 .   I am ok with an access panel being different here or there but any major shape variation will be a bit much . BTW , a mark 9 also looks same as those two ?

Another query is did the the Mk. 16 (and mk. 9 ) see any action in the SEAC theatre ?

Thank you for your time and assistance

[Graham Boak]

The Mk.VIII had a retractable tailwheel, a fuselage with recessed rivets, a shorter aileron (doesn't extend so far outboard), and leading edge tanks in the wing near the root (ignore this on a small model).  Many early ones had the extended wingtips, and also the broader cannon fairing meant to allow for two cannon in each wing.  I'm not sure, but suspect the increased-area elevator horn balance also appeared partway through the Mk.VIII production.

 

The pointed broad-chord rudder appeared on the Mk.XII and was seen on the Mk.VIII, IX and XVI.   Of these, only the Mk.VIII saw service in SEAC.  The Mk.XVI is basically a Mk.IX with Packard Merlin rather than a RR one.  Yes, all three variants to appear externally similar in general appearance but you do need to look closely for individual variations, especially during the longer production run of the Mk.IX.  No Mk.VIII had the cut-down rear fuselage but I assume that's not a factor here.

 

There are other interior differences which can be ignored.

[Wez]

Off of the top of my head, the Mk8 has shorter span ailerons and a retractable tailwheel covered by doors, the Mk9/16 have standard span ailerons and a fixed tailwheel with no doors.

 

There are other differences but that's the gist of it.

 

EDIT: Graham beat me to it with a more comprehensive answer.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Wez

[Work In Progress]

The XVI is basically a IX with a Packard engine, so it's based on the old Vc airframe. The VIII was a new and mroe refined airframe that was the basis of the XIV and later. The VIII has. amongst other distinguising features, short ailerons and a retractable tailwheel and more fuel tanks.

[Graham Boak]

Somebody's got to be first, but at least we all agree.

 

I should add that if you are starting from an Eduard Mk.XVI kit then do not use the later cowling top with the slight bulge - use the flatter option.  AFAIK this was not seen on Mk.VIIIs.  The bulged version is correct for a Mk.XVI and some Mk.IXs.  There is some controversy over just what it was for and when it appeared, but unless there's direct evidence to the contrary I think it is safe to assume it is a late production change (or alternative) that was too late for the Mk.VIIIs.

[Basuroy]

Thank you everyone for your response - it appears one of the visible difference is a shorter ailerons . I am curious how short ? If it was an inch or three in the real thing , I can ignore than difference in a 72nd scale model but a difference of a foot will be a tad much .  As for the rear tail wheel , I think I can find some spare bits that resembles a door .  

Consider this image , the aircraft in question is an Indian Air force machine , we operated them for few years post independence. Folks with serious experience with IAF tell me we never operated the regular mk 9 or mk 16 . We had the mk. 8 , I suspect this specimen is a mark 8 but it appears the tail wheel is fixed. So is it possible there were some mk .8's with fixed wheel or maybe this was a later modification , the pic is likely 2 or 3 decades old and this machine at that point I suspect was an airshow airplane . Maybe they did some modification to it . 

http://www.military-airshows.co.uk/photographs/spits/nh631

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Eduard's Mk VIII is out next month....

 

thanks

Mike

[Basuroy]

2 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Somebody's got to be first, but at least we all agree.

 

I should add that if you are starting from an Eduard Mk.XVI kit then do not use the later cowling top with the slight bulge - use the flatter option.  AFAIK this was not seen on Mk.VIIIs.  The bulged version is correct for a Mk.XVI and some Mk.IXs.  There is some controversy over just what it was for and when it appeared, but unless there's direct evidence to the contrary I think it is safe to assume it is a late production change (or alternative) that was too late for the Mk.VIIIs.

GREAT tip on the cowling bulge- exactly the kind of mistake I generally commit otherwise .  

[Basuroy]

2 minutes ago, Mikemx said:

Eduard's Mk VIII is out next month....

 

thanks

Mike

Yes I saw that but the less said about my fiscal deficit , the better .  I may get one of their weekend edition box when they come out with that .   

[fewr9fkr9595]

Here is the diff between them. Eduard spits but 48th.

9/16 on left. 8 on right. 

 

 

 

On the 9/16 it goes all the way to the wingtip section. On the 8 it stops short. 

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

That would be far easier than trying to make one from a Mk XVI. I know the money issues - I'm still trying to catch up and get the Mk XVI set.

 

thanks

Mike

[Graham Boak]

I think that is a Mk.VIII with a bodged tailwheel, possibly a Mk.VIII with the doors closed or replaced.  Postwar/museum/warbird aircraft can be confusing.

 

I think that we missed another point - most Mk.XVIs had the E wing armament with a 0.5mg inboard and the cannon outboard, with the bulged panel over the outboard position.  The Mk.VIIIs, bar one or two with four cannon, had the C wing with the cannon inboard of a closed stub, and two additional machine guns further out in the wing.  The armament panel either had the broad bulge covering both positions or the narrow one only covering the inner position.

[Basuroy]

 

3 minutes ago, Tony Oliver said:

Here is the diff between them. Eduard spits but 48th.

9/16 on left. 8 on right. 

 

 

 

On the 9/16 it goes all the way to the wingtip section. On the 8 it stops short. 

Thanks a lot for the picture , that is a very noticeable difference indeed . Guess I will wait for the weekend edition box from eduard .


I have one secondary query at this stage - did the mk 9 or mk 16 ever see service in South east Asian countries ?

[Wez]

Some Mk9's were used by the French in Indo-China, quite how they got there (e.g. taken over from surplus stock in situ or transferred there from elsewhere), I don't know.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

5 minutes ago, Basuroy said:

 

Thanks a lot for the picture , that is a very noticeable difference indeed . Guess I will wait for the weekend edition box from eduard .


I have one secondary query at this stage - did the mk 9 or mk 16 ever see service in South east Asian countries ?

 

That's probably the most sensible option and you can build the XVI as an XVI in the meantime, there's always something to build while your waiting I find.

 

thanks

Mike

[Graham Boak]

A small number of Mk.VIIIs were used by the French in Indo-China, and these came from stocks in India, including at least some pre-used examples.  It would be good to find a photo or two of these.  The Mk.IXs came out in ships with the French units flying them.  Transfers are available for these.

 

NH631 was a Mk.VIII serial.

 

The aileron difference is easy to do, a sawcut and a bit of filler.  The tailwheel is more fiddly because of the small size and shapes of the doors, and the different tailwheel leg.  Lots of people have done conversions from Mk.IXs to Mk.VIIIs, in the days before this was unnecessary.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Graham Boak

[Basuroy]

Just now, Mikemx said:

 

That's probably the most sensible option and you can build the XVI as an XVI in the meantime, there's always something to build while your waiting I find.

 

thanks

Mike

The problem is I don't have the decals anymore .  Let me share what happened -

I wouldn't be in this position in the first place if I were not such a spitfire illiterate  . I misread the AZ model mk. XIV as mk XVI  , finished the AZ kit with one set of decals from the  eduard box and then stumbled upon my titanic goof up when I found the decal instruction sheet showed a 4 bladed propeller and I had a 5 bladed one . 5 minutes later - I find out the cowling is different , the tail is different etc etc  . I now have a Mk. 14 finished in the scheme of a mk. 16 ( it is fine looking specimen btw ) ,  a mk. 16 with no decals and decals for a mk 14(and by extension a mk. 8) but no mk 14.    Head banging stuff right there .   I cannot bring myself to build another one of the AZ kit , I will wait for the eduard - good thing is they manufacture sufficient numbers so they remain available for a long time .

[Graham Boak]

The Mk.XIV is a Mk.VIII with a Griffon and a new tail, so you can see the changes that need to be made from that kit.

[Basuroy]

3 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

A small number of Mk.VIIIs were used by the French in Indo-China, and these came from stocks in India, including at least some pre-used examples.  It would be good to find a photo or two of these.  The Mk.IXs came out with the French units flying them.  Transfers are available for these.

 

NH631 was a Mk.VIII serial.

 

The aileron difference is easy to do, a sawcut and a bit of filler.  The tailwheel is more fiddly because of the small size and shapes of the doors, and the different tailwheel leg.

I think I can attempt the aileron surgery .  I can ignore the tail wheel and say this is a warbird as the photo shared above .  But the gun bulges will be difficult to ignore and my non existent skill set in this dept. means something I shouldn't attempt on such a fine kit . 

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

28 minutes ago, Basuroy said:

The problem is I don't have the decals anymore .  Let me share what happened -

I wouldn't be in this position in the first place if I were not such a spitfire illiterate  . I misread the AZ model mk. XIV as mk XVI  , finished the AZ kit with one set of decals from the  eduard box and then stumbled upon my titanic goof up when I found the decal instruction sheet showed a 4 bladed propeller and I had a 5 bladed one . 5 minutes later - I find out the cowling is different , the tail is different etc etc  . I now have a Mk. 14 finished in the scheme of a mk. 16 ( it is fine looking specimen btw ) ,  a mk. 16 with no decals and decals for a mk 14(and by extension a mk. 8) but no mk 14.    Head banging stuff right there .   I cannot bring myself to build another one of the AZ kit , I will wait for the eduard - good thing is they manufacture sufficient numbers so they remain available for a long time .

 

Ah I see! Keep an eye out in the Rumourmonger section and Eduard's website for the Mk XVI Profipack and Weekend Editions, you might find a spare set of markings you fancy in either kit, which would help the problem.

 

thanks

Mike

[72modeler]

3 hours ago, Basuroy said:

I think I can attempt the aileron surgery .  I can ignore the tail wheel and say this is a warbird as the photo shared above .  But the gun bulges will be difficult to ignore and my non existent skill set in this dept. means something I shouldn't attempt on such a fine kit . 

Or you could wait to see if Eduard makes Mk VIII overtrees available or a weekend edition Mk VIII. Making a wheel bay and doors for your XVI wouldn't be that hard, Basuroy, and it would be a good first detailing/conversion project to add to your modeling skills. Maybe a modeling buddy has a VIII or later version kit that has the retractable tailwheel, like a Mk XIV, that you could copy? just a thought! IIRC, the IPMS Stockholm site has a super Spitfire PR XIX walkaround that shows the tail wheel, door, and wheelbay. Good luck!

 

Mike

 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by 72modeler
corrected spelling

[gingerbob]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

No Mk.VIII had the cut-down rear fuselage but I assume that's not a factor here.

 

Tut tut, Graham- you're forgetting the very first Rear View Spitfire!

 

bob

[Chuck1945]

If already mentioned, I apologize for skimming over it, but the Eduard 1/72 Spitfire IX kits (and presumably the XVIs although I haven't taken one out of the wrapping yet) include both the short and long span ailerons, tail wheel door covers, and retractable tail wheel, although the fuselage is molded to accommodate the fixed tail wheel

Edited January 4, 2017 by Chuck1945
typo correction

[The wooksta V2.0]

Chuck has beaten me to it.  The relevant spares are in the box - Eduard generally give one sprue for the specific airframe and everything other sprue contains all the bits, whether you need them or not.  A positive boon for the prolific Spitfire builder.  Just remember that the three spoke hub wheel option is incorrect as the wheel itself is too small. 

 

For a mk VIII, all you'll need to do is carve out the tailwheel bay using the doors themselves as templates.  The ailerons are a little trickier.  Assemble the wings with the mk IX/XVI ailerons in place.  Using the mk VIII ones as templates, carefully remove enough plastic to get them to fit.  Alternatively, use the mk VIII as templates, cut off the section you need and then fit and blend into the wing.  Tip: remove the locating pins on the wings to get them to fit properly.

 

The rest of the work is limited to opening out the outer gun bay ejection chutes and sorting out the upper cannon bulges.  Finally, scribe in the wing tanks.  

[72modeler]

34 minutes ago, Chuck1945 said:

If already mentioned, I apologize for skimming over it, but the Eduard 1/72 Spitfire IX kits (and presumably the XVIs although I haven't taken one out of the wrapping yet) include both the short and long span ailerons, tail wheel door covers, and retractable tail wheel, although if the fuselage is molded to accommodate the fixed tail wheel

You were right, Chuck! Seeing the way the fuselage was molded to accept the fixed tailwheel, I didn't even look around on the sprues to see the tailwheel doors and  strut for the retractable unit. I'm guessing the Mk VIII will have fuselage halves with a bay for the retractable tailwheel. Checking the Mk IX  sprues again, I found them. Thanks for pointing this out!

 

Mike