Jump to content

Speed Spitfire N.17


Recommended Posts

My second build for this GB is another failed record breaker in the shape of "Speed Spitfire" N.17

 

N17-1.jpg

      N17-4.jpg

 

After Herrman Wurster captured the world landplane record for Germany flying a modified Messerschmitt Bf 109 on 11 November 1937 with a speed of 379mph (610 kmh), the British plans for a record attempt using a modified Spitfire received some new interest.

 

The 48th production Spitfire Mk.I K9834, then in a very early stage of construction at Woolston, was selected for modification to the "Speed Spitfire" for an attempt on the world landplane record in 1938.

 

The aircraft was finished under contract 817241/38, it had a reduced wing span of 33 ft 8 in (10.26 m), a streamlined cockpit, flush riveting, and a high-gloss finish to improve performance. Further modifications were a larger radiator and oil cooler and the standard tail wheel was replaced by a skid. The powerplant was a 2160 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 3M driving a four-blade fixed-pitch propeller.

 

Registered in the Class B as N-17, it was first flown by J. 'Mutt' Summers on 11 November 1938. It was hoped that N-17 would achieve 420 mph (676 kmh), but before an attempt could be made the world lanplane record was broken on 30 March 1939, by a Messerschmitt Bf 109 R flown by Hans Dieterle at a speed of 469.22 mph (755.12 kmh). Further work on N-17 as a potential record-breaker was abandoned. However much was learnt about high speed flight from these efforts with regard to the problems of engine-cooling at high speeds, and N-17 also tested various propellers.

 

N-17 was returned to its original identity of K9834 and standard construction and for a time was used for communications duties. Later the aircraft went to Benson where it became one of the first Photo Reconnaissance aircraft  being fitted with a F.24 camera and a Merlin XI engine.

 

Performance was not satisfactory and K9834 was completely rebuilt by Heston Aircraft Ltd. who brought it up to Mk.II standard with a new cockpit, engine-driven hydraulics and fire-proof bulkhead. However, the limited fuel short wings and no guns made it unsuitable for operational service and it was used throughout the war as a high speed hack. It was eventually scrapped in June 1946.

 

Above information is from Alfred Price's "The Spitfire Story" and from the Sam Weller collection website.

 

I am not 100% sure how I go about making the model of N.17 - either with the CMR kit.

N17-2.jpg

 

or the RS models resin kit

N17-3.jpg

 

Both kits are a bit long in the tooth. The RS kit has no gull wing representation and the CMR kit - even though it has some nice PE parts - shows its age as well.

 

I may end up utilizing some Airfix Mk.I parts I have left after experimenting with removing the trenches (panel lines) on this kit.

 

Cheers, Peter

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/03/2017 at 4:04 AM, CliffB said:

Looks like being a real head-turner :popcorn:

 

Cliff

Would be nice if it turns out that way Cliff.

 

On 09/03/2017 at 2:08 AM, Caerbannog said:

Nice. I started a 1:48 Speedfire conversion based on Airfix old MkI kit many years ago and shelfed it. I have to find out a way to make the wood prop before I pull it out again.

:popcorn:

René

Surprised that there is no conversion set for this aircraft available in 1/48.

 

I removed parts from the casting blocks and checked the fit. It isn't too bad, but will be lots of work.

N17-5.jpg

N17-6.jpg

 

Plan B is using the Airfix kit for the basic airframe. But as this Spitfire has all the surfaces treated with filler to get a smooth surface, the Airfix trenches have to go.

N17-7.jpg

This turned out to be more work than I thought. Will see how it turns out. If it doesn't work out, I can always go pack using the CMR airframe - isn't it great having choices :whistle:

 

Cheers, Peter

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a great subject Peter. An aircraft that for its entire career was a test bed and one off. It looks very attractive, a Shane that RS didn't include the gull in the wing.

 

Admirable that you're examining all the options. I get the feeling you'll solve this conundrum, maybe using parts from all three kits? 

 

Good luck ;) and enjoy!

Best regards

TonyT

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Tony. I did some comparison with the various kits.

 

And I noticed this when comparing the Airfix kit with the CMR kit :o

N17-8.jpg

The CMR kit is 2.5 mm shorter than the Airfix kit!

 

As I had some other kits at hand, I compared them too. Here Airfix and AZ kit

N17-9.jpg

They compare well.

 

But surprisingly, the new KP kit has a shorter fuselage.

N17-10.jpg

The new Revell kit is the same length as Airfix.

N17-11.jpg

But the cockpit opening is further back.

 

But what doesn't look right on the Revell kit is the engine cover.

N17-12.jpg

It is too rounded at the top behind the two bulges. And the engine cover fasteners are the other extreme compared to the holes the Airfix kit has for them!

 

But this doesn't answer the question which kit is correct. The scale drawings from A.R. Clint are considered accurate and here is how these kits compare with them.

 

Airfix

N17-13.jpg

Not bad at all. Cockpit opening is maybe a bit too large.

 

CMR

N17-14.jpg

Cockpit opening spot on, but rear fuselage definitely too short.

 

Revell

N17-15.jpg

Length ok but cockpit opening too large.

 

KP

N17-16.jpg

Rear fuselage a bit too short. Actually it looks to me that the whole kit is too small - more like 1/76

 

And RS Models

N17-17.jpg

Length ok but fuselage too high - just doesn't look right.

 

So with the CMR fuselage substantially short, I decided to go with the Airfix fuselage. Also the parts making up the cockpit are more refined in the Airfix kit compared to what CMR provides.

N17-18.jpg

 

But I will use the CMR seat and the PE IP which came with the CMR kit.

N17-19.jpg

I did reduce the plastic thickness where the IP goes so that it will have the same thickness wit the PE IP in place.

 

Should have the cockpit done with my next post.

Cheers, Peter

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...