Spitfire VIII Questions

[Greenshirt]

For the VI, I don't believe the current common sprues could be used, but there are obviously many common pieces from the fuselage, but the wing would need some new ones, like the oil cooler, Mk V radiator. The two different wheel well configurations may cover the VI but I'm not sure. And the blower for the pressurized cockpit. 

 

The X and XI would need the PR windscreen; the X needs the pressurized rear section of the cockpit and the blower. The common sprues should work. 

 

The VII would need the pressurized rear section behind the cockpit and the blower. The common sprues should work. 

 

The VI, VII, X and XI would all need a new clear sprue. Could be common to all three kits. 

 

Im going to stop as I'm starting to convince myself this is a puzzle I can quickly get lost in. Lots combinations depending on what sort of optimization is preferred. 

 

The X or XI as a conversion (resin?) for the existing kitset would be easy. X for the VIII and XI for the IX. 

 

[DominikS]

Ok. I got other issue. I have a 1/48 Aussie Eight boxing and one thing looks curious - the colour of No 81 squadron code letters. Were they blue, seac blue or maybe other colour which in the black and white photos may look like blue? I'm far away from the book but I can't remember seeing the photo of the whole plane from that unit in the book.

[Graham Boak]

I think it's more a case of light blue that looks white in photographs, a feature of the kind of film used.  Producing transfers using a fairly strong blue is a very modern fashion, older ones were (almost?) uniformly white.

 

I must admit finding them a little dark (I haven't seen what the Eduard ones look like in reality as opposed to a photo on the screen, but I have Xtradecal examples) and a lighter colour would seem more "right", but confess that this is purely subjective and open to correction.

[Magpie22]

21 hours ago, DominikS said:

Ok. I got other issue. I have a 1/48 Aussie Eight boxing and one thing looks curious - the colour of No 81 squadron code letters. Were they blue, seac blue or maybe other colour which in the black and white photos may look like blue? I'm far away from the book but I can't remember seeing the photo of the whole plane from that unit in the book.

 

21 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I think it's more a case of light blue that looks white in photographs, a feature of the kind of film used.  Producing transfers using a fairly strong blue is a very modern fashion, older ones were (almost?) uniformly white.

 

I must admit finding them a little dark (I haven't seen what the Eduard ones look like in reality as opposed to a photo on the screen, but I have Xtradecal examples) and a lighter colour would seem more "right", but confess that this is purely subjective and open to correction.

 

First up, I must say that the configuration and colours of the 81 Sqn aircraft, (Larry Cronin's JF630), aircraft are largely a matter of deduction and speculation. A number of authors and artists have described, and illustrated it as being finished in Dark Earth and Dark Green over Medium Sea Grey or Azure Blue. It has also been illustrated with and without the extended wingtips.

 

Photographic evidence is very limited, just a couple of shots of Larry near the nose of the aircraft. To me, the tones of the camouflage on the nose of the aircraft behind him, are consistent with a desert camouflage aircraft. That is the scheme applied to the aircraft by the factory. A few photos of other 81 Sqn aircraft taken at the same time show the same camouflage pattern and tones, indicating that probably all the squadron's aircraft were finished the same way. As the aircraft were flown from the Middle east, to me, this is not surprising.

 

In April 1944, CinC India issued orders that all fighter aircraft were to be camouflaged in Dark Green and Dark Earth over Medium Sea Grey. Photos of Spitfire VIIIs taken after this date seem to support that the re-camouflage was in fact done as ordered. One needs to take into account the time lines. No. 81 Sqn arrived in India in early December 1943, and in early February 1944 moved up to Ramu. Larry shot down his fourth aircraft, (a high altitude interception of a 'Dinah"), on 6 March. The only photos I have of JF630, were taken at Ramu, and show Larry at the nose of his aircraft which carries four victories, thus dating the shot. Shortly after the squadron set up a rotating detachment of six aircraft at 'Broadway' strip, behind the Japanese lines, in support of the operation to disrupt Japanese supply lines. Larry got his fifth, on 13 March, flying from Broadway.

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that there was little time for the squadron to have gotten all its aircraft re-painted, (and wingtips changed, as claimed in other references), before it moved to Ramu. If they were finished in Dark Green and Dark Earth, as is often claimed, we must assume that they anticipated the official order by a couple of months and, in the process, the painters manage to reverse the green and brown areas on the squadron's aircraft. Not impossible but, IMHO, not likely. In an interview I had with Larry, more years ago than I like to remember, he described his aircraft his aircraft as having the extended wingtips, and painted what he described as “beige, brown and bright blue”. I didn't ask him at the time, but he made no mention of the squadron's aircraft being repainted or having the wingtips changed. He did remember the roundels being changed to "two blues"after they arrived. This complied with an earlier order of September 1943. The lighter of the two blues was specified as one part Blue, (i.e roundel blue), to four parts White. Larry's account conflicts with that quoted from Alan Peart in 'Spitfire, The ANZACs". There, Peart is quoted as saying that the Spitfires were re-painted after arriving in Karachi in December 1943. Further, he is quoted as saying that the brown used was a 'chocolate brown', different from the colour used in Europe. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

 

Another early 81 Sqn aircraft. Colour of codes?

 

As to the colour of the codes, I believe that they were probably Sky, as promulgated in orders at the time. However in some photos they appear to be the same tone as the Light Blue of the roundel. Once again, the choice is yours. Trying to interpret differing shades of blue from b/w photos is impossible. The Eduard artist and I did not always see eye-to-eye on the colours for the illustrations, and it was Eduard’s kit so......

 

Peter M

 

[Magpie22]

On 02/02/2017 at 5:28 PM, Graham Boak said:

Thanks for this: the key part from the modelling point of view would be the date of replacement of the upper fairing as the production standard.  I'd suggest this implies that the early ones in desert colours all had the wider bulge, with uncertain implications on the early SEAC ones delivered from ME stocks.  Early Mk.VIIIs also had the extended wingtips as standard: there could be thought to be an obvious but undescribed link to the fitting of the "high-rated" Merlin 63 to the earlier aircraft.  This engine was fairly soon replaced by the lower-rated Merlin 66 but any link to standard tips is nowhere described or even suggested in anything I've seen - strictly all of these should be LF Mk.VIIIs but this doesn't seem to have been widely observed.  Presumably at least some of the RAAF examples were delivered with this bulge or it would be unlikely to be in stock.  (Though it may have seen present in a standardised spares package even if not present on aircraft as delivered.)

 

Moving just into the history side, strictly the wing on the Mk.IX wasn't a universal wing because it only had the ability to carry the 2+4 armament and not the other options of the Mk.Vc wing.

 

 

Hi graham,

The nomenclature of the ‘universal wing’ does become a bit obscure. As I understand it, the ‘universal wing’ was developed in the first instance, so that should a shortage of one type of weapon occur, an alternative type could be fitted. This allowed for three possible fits:

1. Two 20mm cannon and four 0.303” mgs, or

2. Four 20mm cannon, or

3. Eight 0.303” mgs.

The second configuration was rarely fitted and the latter, to the best of my knowledge, never fitted.

 

In July 1942, A.C.A.S. (T) advised DTS that, in order to simplify production, the armament fitted to all Spitfires was to be standardised at two 20 mm cannon and four 0.303” machine guns. The Spitfire VIII was listed as an exception and provision was required for the fitment of four 20 mm cannon on that aircraft. This would certainly explain why the Mk. IX, initially, only appeared with a standard armament of 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303” mg. Did this mean the wing itself ceased to be a ‘universal wing’ or a ‘C’ wing? I presume you base your conclusion on the fact that it no longer incorporated the fittings for outboard cannon. The waters become very murky and there even seems to be confusion in official documentation as to which nomenclature to use.

 

Jo Smith in his address to the Royal Aeronautical Society, in December 1946, stated the “type ‘c’, or universal wing was fitted to the Marks Vc, VII, VIII, IX, XII and XIV”. Later, in a table on wings, he lists only the VC as having ‘universal armament’, all other marks are listed as having fixed armament of one type or another, with the exception of the Mk.VIII which is listed as having either four cannon, or two cannon and four mgs. I mention this, not as evidence of the correct nomenclature, but to show that even Jo Smith, (or the people at Supermarine who helped prepare the lecture), had some confusion on the subject.

I cannot answer your question as to when the wider bulge over the cannon feed was replaced by the narrow type on production Mk. VIIIs. It was well before most deliveries to the ME and SEAC. Photos show JF351 and subsequent aircraft with the narrow bulge so it would appear that there would have been a maximum of less than 60 with the wide bulge. On the other hand, the extended wing tips lasted much longer, being noted on aircraft up to about JF825, even though most of these later aircraft were LF.Mk.VIII aircraft with the Merlin 66.

 

No RAAF aircraft were delivered with the wide bulge. They came as part of the spares supplied. I presume this may have been because the four cannon fit was a specified option for the Mk.VIII. Spares supplies seem to have been somewhat haphazard. Initially the RAAF received a number of extended wingtips as spares, although their aircraft were fitted with standard tips. The radio situation also proved to be somewhat farcical as most of the sets received were U/S.

Cheers,

Peter M

[gingerbob]

I think "Universal Wing" was more an expression of the design concept than an official nomenclature, so the answer could be "both" or "all of the above"!

[Magpie22]

On 02/02/2017 at 5:28 PM, Graham Boak said:

The reason I was doubtful about the "attacking Dinahs" version is that adding the extra weight is not compatible with improving the high altitude performance, whatever the benefit to the firepower.  Not that the Mk.VIII needed particular improvement at altitude, although it might be interesting to learn if the Merlin 63 was fitted in preference to the Merlin 66.  Caldwell's comment on the degradation in handling is particularly interesting when linked to similar comment, if at higher altitudes, from the pilots on Malta (eg Lucas) when they received the first Mk.Vc aircraft with the four cannon and promptly removed two.  Similarly, the FAA was not allowed their four cannon on the Seafire, desired to cope better with the Blohm&Voss shadowers.  Similar comments are passed about Bf109s fitted with underwing cannon, and Yakovlev was outspoken on his refusal to put guns in the wings of his designs.  As an ex-aerodynamicist, I feel these are early and unrecognised examples of inertia coupling: something not understood until postwar analysis of the failures of the He162 and F-100.  (Basically, don't place large weights away from the maneouvre axes of your aircraft and expect it to remain stable and controllable in strong manoeuvring!) 

 

Hi again Graham,

 

I see where you are coming from with your comments on inertia coupling, certainly with aircraft like the 109 that added extra weight under the wings. Yakovlev's philosophy was good up to a point. Unfortunately you run out of room for guns and ammo. You need to put the latter near the CG so as not to induce major CG changes as it is consumed, but that is where you want to put the fuel, so now that has to go into the wings, where you have the U/C and possibly radiators, and so it goes on. Probably explains why the Yaks were lightly armed by contemporary standards, and Messerschmitt was forced to add cannon in the wings - no room up frtont.You can always shift the engine aft to help balance, as on the P-39, but then you open up a whole new can of worms. Ah, design - nothing is simple.

 

None of the RAAF Spitfire VIII aircraft had the Merlin 63. All bar one, (A58-528 which had a Merlin 70, and was quickly 'snaffled' by Caldwell for his own use),  had the Merlin 66, until The later HF.VIIIs, fitted with the Merlin 70 arrived.

 

I've just done some 'back of the envelope' calculations and I think that increased weight was not a major problem for the four-cannon Spit VIII. It was about 230 lb heavier - the extended wingtips would provide much of the extra lift to negate that - so probably not a bad 'Dinah killer' from that aspect. Nor do I think that inertia coupling was a problem. As you can see, although the rolling moments induced by the added weight are higher and would have some effect on static stability, when the L squared term is introduced for Moment of Inertia, the two configurations are quite similar, so dynamic stability should have been OK. Admittedly, my calculations are simplified, only considering the masses as simple pendulums and not distributing their mass, but 'good enough for Government work'.

 

 

The main problem was the old one of reduced static margin. The extra cannon and, particularly, the ammunition moved the CG aft. Normal CG range on the Spitfire VIII was from 4.7% MAC to 7.4% MAC, i.e 3.5 inches to 5.5 inches aft of the datum. Loaded as an interceptor with two cannon, four m.g.s, their ammunition, full internal fuel, but no drop tanks, the take-off CG was at 5.39 inches aft of the datum. As fuel was consumed it would move forward of course.

 

If you take out the four mg and their ammo and replace them with two extra cannon and their ammo, the take-off CG moves aft to 5.77 inches aft of the datum, i.e. beyond the normal recommended limit. It would move forward a bit as half the fuel was consumed but would still be very marginal. For comparison, the take off CG position when carrying the RAAF 30 gall jettisonable tank, (lighter than the UK tank), was 5.75 inches, and with the 90 gallon tank, 5.68 inches. In both cases the aircraft was not cleared for maneuvers until the fuel was consumed from the external tank. In this case, even if we assume that half the internal fuel was consumed on the way to the target, the CG would still be beyond the aft limit. No wonder Caldwell said it was dangerous, and why those Malta pilots quickly whipped out the extra two cannon. It was probably worse for the Mk.V, and did they still retain the mgs?

 

 

The Spitfire VIII carried fourteen pounds of ballast between frames 17 and 18. These could have been added as a result of weight and balance checks by Supermarine to correct errors in weight estimation. It is also interesting to conjecture that maybe these weights were added after it was decided to produce the aircraft with only two cannon fitted. If they are removed, the balance of the four cannon aircraft is restored to a more manageable level. I have seen no indication that the RAAF removed them when they fitted the four cannon.

 

BTW Graham, I was in the same 'trade' as you. I well remember inertia coupling and some free-flight spinning trials we carried out with a local design for a jet trainer project. As usual the RAAF over specified. They wanted a large fuel tank so they didn't have to refuel as often, a fan jet for economy and a lot of other 'goodies'. So the designers ended up with a large fuel tank over the CG, tandem cockpit right up the front and a GE aft-fan engine right down the back, with bugger all in the wings other then the U/C. So as you can see, large M of I for pitch and yaw and bugger all in roll. A bit like the Lightning which had horrendous spinning problems. We got some wonderful tapes of Roly Beamont talking his way through spins. The pitch and yaw oscillations were so bad, he had difficulty telling if he was in an upright or inverted spin. But, I digress.

 

Cheers,

Peter M

 

[Graham Boak]

Interesting comments, thanks.  Re your comments re cg position and ballast: the calculation of cg position was a basic step that could be done at a fairly low level (although generally wouldn't have been) because it can be calculated from the information given in the manuals.  So retention/removal of the ballast/equipment as appropriate would be a normal duty of the engineering officer.  If he was putting extra cannon in then he'd have calculated the new cg position and noticed that it would be too far aft, so would have looked for ways of bringing it back again.  Whether the pilot was made aware of this might be another matter, bar a warning that handling might be a little dodgy.  I'm sure that they will have removed the ballast rather than fly with a dangerous cg position.

 

I took part in an interesting discussion on Twelve O'Clock High, concerning the story that some Fw190 pilots (Priller, for example) removed the outer pair of cannon.  One contributor was quite adamant that because this wasn't one of the approved options, then it wasn't ever done.  That recalculation of the cg was a simple back-of-the-envelope sum every engineering officer would be taught didn't budge his position.  I still think that the evidence shows that it did happen, and that this kind of adjusting with equipment fit was certainly common enough in British circles.  It was certainly common on Malta - I don't know whether the four machine guns were retained on the early Mk.Vc but I suspect not.  However, there'd be plenty of spare Brownings on Malta.

 

I still think that adding weight would not be a good idea when up at the limits of altitude, tips or not.  Two cannon would be quite enough to shoot down a Dinah.

 

Having weight outboard in the wings would have a negative effect on roll rate, at least initially.  This is considered a bad thing, and I suspect was behind Yakovlev's approach to design.  (There was also the "sniper" approach to combat where one good cannon was considered enough for a decent shot: poor shots would miss however much firepower they were provided with.  Something for the purist, but seen often in the VVS.)   However aircraft don't fly nice and symmetrically, especially in combat.  If you have even a small amount of yaw when you try to roll, then result would be that the weight would pull one wing forward and the other back, giving undemanded and unwanted increased yaw.  If your cg was already aft, then the reduced stability wouldn't help.  All in all it seems more like a bad idea, for handling if not for firepower.

 

Re Smith and the RAe lecture: I think that here he made an initial reference in more general terms, saying that the wing is different from the earlier one but much the same until the XX-series.  Then the more precise terminology comes in the table.  This lecture is a noble attempt to squeeze a quart, or perhaps a gallon, into a pint pot, and some minor details do get omitted, or unavoidably over-generalized.  

 

 

[gingerbob]

Quill talks at length about a time when Mk.Vs (in Fighter Command) were suffering from aft CG, due (as he found) to the willy-nilly addition of "stuff", most of which fit in the fuselage behind the cockpit.  So while the general principle should have been well known, there are certainly cases where it was overlooked, either through ignorance or an assumption that someone else (such as the ones issuing instructions to install new equipment?) had already considered that aspect.  I find it a bit puzzling, but then I was trained about CG both as a (hopeful) designer and as a maintenance person.

Edited February 7, 2017 by gingerbob
Typo!

[Work In Progress]

3 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

 I well remember inertia coupling and some free-flight spinning trials we carried out with a local design for a jet trainer project. As usual the RAAF over specified. They wanted a large fuel tank so they didn't have to refuel as often, a fan jet for economy and a lot of other 'goodies'. So the designers ended up with a large fuel tank over the CG, tandem cockpit right up the front and a GE aft-fan engine right down the back, with bugger all in the wings other then the U/C. So as you can see, large M of I for pitch and yaw and bugger all in roll.

 

Was that the CA-31?

[Magpie22]

1 hour ago, Work In Progress said:

 

Was that the CA-31?

No, much earlier - the GAF project 'F'. The RAAF ended up buying the Macchi 326.

Peter M

[Work In Progress]

Thanks, that's a new one on me. Do you know of any pics?

[Magpie22]

22 hours ago, gingerbob said:

I think "Universal Wing" was more an expression of the design concept than an official nomenclature, so the answer could be "both" or "all of the above"!

 

Bob, you have expressed clearly and succinctly what I was trying to say. Best not to get too AR when it comes to nomenclature, particularly when it relates to the Spitfire.

Cheers,
Peter

[Magpie22]

17 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Thanks, that's a new one on me. Do you know of any pics?

 

I've got some drawings and model pics somewhere, but can't lay my hands on them at the moment. Here's a few clippings of dubious quality.

 

Project was to be powered by GE CF700 aft-fan engine. Role was to advanced trainer. Was supposed to reach 40,000 ft in 12 min, for a max speed of M0.85.

Initially the engine was mounted right down the back, with fuel over the wing, and cockpit right forward, making for an unusually long fuselage. The main compressor was fed by a dorsal intake and the fan by an annular intake around the rear fuselage. The aerodynamicists threw up their hands in horror when we saw the drawings. We tested models in the Low Speed and Transonic Wind Tunnels. Picture below shows half model of early configuration in the transonic wind tunnel. These tests highlighted major problems with airflow to the engine, (surprise!!), and some stability problems.

 

 

We also did a series of tests with a 1/6 scale free flight model, dropped from a helicopter, to determine the spinning characteristics and possible recovery control options. As well as being geometrically scaled, the model was also scaled for dynamics, i.e. moments of inertia. From left to right: nose probe with attitude vanes, 8mm camera, recorder and accelerometers, parachute pack, timer mechanism and control actuators, rate gyros, radio receiver. The weights on the wingtips are when we were playing around with inertia ratios.

 

 

As a result of the wind tunnel tests, There was a major re-design, resulting in the F.2. The engine was brought forward, the cockpit back and the main compressor intakes mounted in a sensible position forward of the wing LE. The positioning of the fan intake was improved but still far from ideal, particularly for high AoA. The RAAF lost interest and ordered the Macchi instead.

 

 

My apologies to the moderators for hijacking this thread,  but I was asked the question.

Peter M

[Work In Progress]

Thank you, that's fascinating. Completely see what you mean about the intake locations: it would be a nightmare of surging near or at the stall.

[Nick Millman]

FWIW I've just posted a couple of stills from an 8mm colour film of 81 Sqn Spits landing at Broadway circa 14/15 March 1944 on my blog as well as some b/w stills. They don't provide a definitive answer regarding colours but do show the longer wingtips. 

 

Nick

[Magpie22]

5 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

FWIW I've just posted a couple of stills from an 8mm colour film of 81 Sqn Spits landing at Broadway circa 14/15 March 1944 on my blog as well as some b/w stills. They don't provide a definitive answer regarding colours but do show the longer wingtips. 

 

Nick

 

Hi Nick,

I have seen that film and have a few stills of my own. I agree regarding colours. As far as I am concerned it shows little, other than the spinner appears to be red and the codes are a lighter colour than the Light Blue in the centre of the roundel. That film is often cited to me by those who subscribe to the "it was painted Dark Earth and Dark Green, but with the colours reversed" school. I have my hypothesis based on the evidence I have gathered, and they have theirs. Perhaps never the twain shall meet.

I have tried to access your blogs on a few occasions, but Google insists that, since I live in Thailand, I must do it in Thai!

Peter M

[Nick Millman]

8 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

 

Hi Nick,

I have seen that film and have a few stills of my own. I agree regarding colours. As far as I am concerned it shows little, other than the spinner appears to be red and the codes are a lighter colour than the Light Blue in the centre of the roundel. That film is often cited to me by those who subscribe to the "it was painted Dark Earth and Dark Green, but with the colours reversed" school. I have my hypothesis based on the evidence I have gathered, and they have theirs. Perhaps never the twain shall meet.

I have tried to access your blogs on a few occasions, but Google insists that, since I live in Thailand, I must do it in Thai!

Peter M

 

Hi Peter

 

Agreed. At least one of the stills suggests Desert rather than Temperate but could just about be argued as Middle Stone = Dark Earth and Dark Earth = Dark Green.  What I find puzzling is that although the camo demarcation follows a dark/light Desert scheme pattern on the clear b/w images there is no hint of over-painted European roundels or codes. A rather indistinct photo of Spits at Broadway also shows two of them with what looks like Day Fighter type rear fuselage bands. 

 

I'll send you another invite to the blog. I'm sure another chap who also lives in Thailand has access but I'll check with him.

 

Nick

[Dave Fleming]

On 2/1/2017 at 5:49 PM, Cookenbacher said:

Mike, the February issue of Info Eduard says this about Caldwell's four cannon VIII:

 

Because we do not, and will not, have the specific wing for this particular aircraft, we are offering the option of the required likely conversion to this type that covers first and foremost the upper wing surfaces. A step by step instruction can be found on our Facebook page and will later be available on the product page at www.eduard.cz.

 

I guess we'll just t have to keep an eye out. That being said, sanding off the old fairings and adding new ones shouldn't be too difficult - mainly have to figure out a way to protect the surface detail while doing so.

 

Does anyone know if they did this?

 

(I don't really need more Spitfires but...)

[Procopius]

3 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

Does anyone know if they did this?

 

(I don't really need more Spitfires but...)

They posted it on Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1576583582356583&id=116570475024575

 

Terrible place for it, IMO, not a great site for archiving content.

[Paul J]

4 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

Does anyone know if they did this?

 

(I don't really need more Spitfires but...)

Hi Dave, Just mask out the area you don't want to damage from sanding.

 

[Dave Fleming]

4 minutes ago, Procopius said:

They posted it on Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1576583582356583&id=116570475024575

 

Terrible place for it, IMO, not a great site for archiving content.

 

And not the most startling solution either. But it tells you what you need to do

[Greenshirt]

I don’t do FB, would someone please post here the details?

 

 

[Procopius]

13 minutes ago, Greenshirt said:

I don’t do FB, would someone please post here the details?

 

 

You do not need a Facebook account to view a public page.

[gingerbob]

2 hours ago, Greenshirt said:

I don’t do FB, would someone please post here the details?

Quote

Cut the main gun bay cover (the one with one large bulge) off the Spitfire F Mk.IX upper wing. This part can be found on the 70120 G sprue.
Remove the main gun bay cover from the Spitfire Mk.VIII upper wing. Take the cover with the large bulge, insert into the hole and glue together.

Repeat on the other wing and let the glue harden.
In the meantime, the lower halves of the wings should be prepared for action. Create a hole for spent cartridges on the lower halves of the Spitfire Mk.VIII wings.
The hole should be placed here (see the Pic 5). Carefully cut the spent cartridge hole rim, reduce the plastic thickness in this area, and place over the newly opened hole in the Spitfire Mk.VIII wing. Repeat on the second wing.
Now glue all the wing parts together. The gun barrels can now be installed.
Use parts No. 10 – two from Aussie Eight and two from Overtrees. Outer gun barrels have to be shortened.
The wings are now complete, so serve with decals for Clive Caldwell´s personal mount, camo scheme No.1.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by gingerbob