Spitfire rear canopy and Airfix rendition thereof?

[Chuck1945]

I have started the new tool Airfix Spitfire Ia (1/72) and have noticed that, in common with their Spitfire IX kit, Airfix have added an extension to the rear of the bulkhead upon which the seat mounts. At first I figured it was just something strange that Airfix added for unknown reasons and which should be removed, but then I started thinking about it (perhaps that was my mistake:) ). All kit Spitfire canopies I can ever recall seeing show a lengthwise frame on the rear, fixed, portion of the canopy. Was this perhaps actually an internal frame that Airfix is attempting to represent? If not, any suggestions whether this piece should be cut off or allowed to remain?

[Col.]

While I can't comment on the Airfix Ia & IX kits there is no such frame o their XIX kit. The XIX does have a brace that fits between the rear cockpit bulkhead and the seat mount frame but as I've yet to pay the various other marks of Spitfire and Seafire in the stash any attention I can't confirm if this exists on others.

[Chuck1945]

While I can't comment on the Airfix Ia & IX kits there is no such frame o their XIX kit. The XIX does have a brace that fits between the rear cockpit bulkhead and the seat mount frame but as I've yet to pay the various other marks of Spitfire and Seafire in the stash any attention I can't confirm if this exists on others.

I looked in my Spitfire XIX kit but didn't see any corresponding part, didn't see anything in the directions either. I did notice that the rear portion of the canopy in both the Spitfire XIX and Spitfire Ia is unframed - didnt look in the IX kit. I guess what I am seeing then is an actual support or siffener between the seat support bulkhead and the rear cockpit bulkhead, that every other 1/72 Spitfire kit I can think of has omitted or represented as a lengthwise frame in the rear canopy ???

[davidelvy]

The brace was there, but Airfix have overdone it. However, most other manufacturers seem to have ignored it alltogether.

[John]

John

[Chuck1945]

...John

Something about a picture being 1000 words

Thanks John and David

[JackG]

Old thread, but keeping things together and not scattered, can one conclude that any fixed rear section canopy from the kit producers  should not have engraved a 'center brace' into the clear plastic.  This should be buffed out, and painting this brace on the underside of the clear piece is also wrong?

 

regards,

Jack

[Alex Gordon]

4 hours ago, JackG said:

.Old thread, but keeping things together and not scattered, can one conclude that any fixed rear section canopy from the kit producers  should not have engraved a 'center brace' into the clear plastic.  This should be buffed out, and painting this brace on the underside of the clear piece is also wrong?

Given that the above photo shows a prominent  heavily riveted square or rectangular section piece of structural metalwork which doesn't seem to be in contact with the enclosing glassware  I would say that's about spot on.

[72modeler]

Does this help?

Mike

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Spitfire+canopy&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=5XE-Ozh9mal7nM%3A%2CFhWsmlu4b1SPYM%2C_&usg=__95s7tfY7YiPgTs0ARjYpbe5VFbw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLmb_N9ZHXAhUJ1CYKHUKhCvEQ9QEIZTAA#imgrc=YR2NnHF6JVy5pM:&spf=1509145665654

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Spitfire+canopy&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=5XE-Ozh9mal7nM%3A%2CFhWsmlu4b1SPYM%2C_&usg=__95s7tfY7YiPgTs0ARjYpbe5VFbw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLmb_N9ZHXAhUJ1CYKHUKhCvEQ9QEIZTAA#imgdii=XgoW_dRQpnU70M:&imgrc=YR2NnHF6JVy5pM:&spf=1509145665654

 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/353743745717093001/

 

 

[VMA131Marine]

This beam, for want of a better word, is part of the rollover structure that is supposed to prevent the pilot from being crushed in the event the aircraft winds up upside down after a ground-loop or botched take-off or landing. It seemed to have done a reasonable job of that in this recent spitfire mishap:

 

 

[BS_w]

It seem that from mk I to IX & Seafire XV the top longeron between frames 11 & 12 was a "omega" inverted(same ref).

On mk XIV and up, the top longeron was replaced by a tie rod which threaded end was 17/32" dia.

Edited October 29, 2017 by BS_w