Full Version: Hurricane and Spitfire spinners
I've started the Airfix 1/24 Hurricane and yes, the spinner looks too big. Were the spinners the same as the spinners used on the Spitfires (I have a spare)?
I'm no expert but I think the spinners on the Spitfire are a larger diameter than the Hurricane.
The Spit Spinner works well as a DH spinner on the Airfix Hurri, but you might need to fill the spinner's blade apertures or rework the prop. I used it with Trumpeter Spitfire prop and there was a gap. Sizewise, its convincing.
More detail please. Are you talking about Hurricane DH spinner compared to Spitfire DH spinner, or Rotol compared to DH? The DH spinner(s) is basically conical, fairly pointed, whereas the Rotol spinner is basically hemispherical, and on the Hurricane overlaps the nose slightly - that's why later Hurricanes added an oil spill ring behind the spinner. Possibly that's why you think it oversize?
Strictly speaking, I gather each type had individual spinners, probably because the Spitfire has a slightly larger nose than the Hurricane. However, for modelling purposes you can normally think just of DH or Rotol.
The propellors are differently shaped. Just switching spinner may not be enough.
Strictly speaking, I gather each type had individual spinners, probably because the Spitfire has a slightly larger nose than the Hurricane. However, for modelling purposes you can normally think just of DH or Rotol.
The propellors are differently shaped. Just switching spinner may not be enough.
QUOTE (Graham Boak @ Jul 30 2010, 03:36 PM) 
More detail please. Are you talking about Hurricane DH spinner compared to Spitfire DH spinner, or Rotol compared to DH? The DH spinner(s) is basically conical, fairly pointed, whereas the Rotol spinner is basically hemispherical, and on the Hurricane overlaps the nose slightly - that's why later Hurricanes added an oil spill ring behind the spinner. Possibly that's why you think it oversize?
Strictly speaking, I gather each type had individual spinners, probably because the Spitfire has a slightly larger nose than the Hurricane. However, for modelling purposes you can normally think just of DH or Rotol.
The propellors are differently shaped. Just switching spinner may not be enough.
Strictly speaking, I gather each type had individual spinners, probably because the Spitfire has a slightly larger nose than the Hurricane. However, for modelling purposes you can normally think just of DH or Rotol.
The propellors are differently shaped. Just switching spinner may not be enough.
I believe there are two issues in play here. Treat all this with caution because it is based on what I've read elsewhere raether than my own primary research...
1. As Graham says, the Hurricane's 'natural' spinner diameter is smaller than the Spitfire. I believe, but have no documentary proof handy, that the Rotol prop seen on some Mark I Hurris including those represented in the Airfix kit, was in fact a Spitfire II prop, rather than one tailor made for the Hurri, and this is why (as Graham points out) it is visibly too big for the Hurri nose, requiring the oil spill ring to be added.
2. The Airfix Hurricane is said by some to have a fatter than scale nose in any case. I can't vouch for this as I have yet to compare it with measurements of the full size.
If both these are true, it follows that the Airfix Rotol spinner supplied with the Hurri is bigger than it ought to be. It is also likely that a Spit DH spinner will look right on an Airfix 1/24 Hurri. The Spit DH spinner will be wider than a Hurri DH spinner ought to be, but will most likely match up with the oversized Airfix Hurri nose.
I will have a play with my stash of 1/24 kits later this evening...
I agree. There is the odd fact that the Rotol was being fitted to Hurricanes months before the Spitfire Mk.II appeared..... I have been told that the two Rotol propellors actually differed, but that does not necessarily imply that the spinner shape did.
The DH does appear to be a better fit, so presumably there is a clear difference between the two variants. I have not seen this explained or described. I have often thought that the DH spinner on the Sea Hurricane Mk.I appears longer and more pointed than that seen on Spitfires, but again know of no suitable reference.
Another possibly confusing factor is the June 1940 change from a variable pitch DH to a constant speed DH. This does not seem to have required a different spinner.
The DH does appear to be a better fit, so presumably there is a clear difference between the two variants. I have not seen this explained or described. I have often thought that the DH spinner on the Sea Hurricane Mk.I appears longer and more pointed than that seen on Spitfires, but again know of no suitable reference.
Another possibly confusing factor is the June 1940 change from a variable pitch DH to a constant speed DH. This does not seem to have required a different spinner.
Peter Cooke found that the Spitfire Rotol prop/spinner was fitted to Hurricanes, and was slightly too large in diameter; the De Havilland combination does not appear to have had the same problem, and he found that the Hurricane d.H spinner was longer than that on the Spitfire .
Apparently Shuttleworth have confirmed a long-standing suspicion (not mine, I'm not that good,) that their Spitfire and Hurricane props were swapped at some stage; this would explain why they've had problems with the CofG, in the Hurricane, since it was mandatory that Sea Hurricanes should have metal props, to counterbalance the hook. They've had to replace the original hook with one made of fibreglass, when they originally planned to deploy it while flying displays.
Edgar
Apparently Shuttleworth have confirmed a long-standing suspicion (not mine, I'm not that good,) that their Spitfire and Hurricane props were swapped at some stage; this would explain why they've had problems with the CofG, in the Hurricane, since it was mandatory that Sea Hurricanes should have metal props, to counterbalance the hook. They've had to replace the original hook with one made of fibreglass, when they originally planned to deploy it while flying displays.
Edgar
QUOTE (Edgar @ Jul 30 2010, 09:24 PM)
.
Apparently Shuttleworth have confirmed a long-standing suspicion (not mine, I'm not that good,) that their Spitfire and Hurricane props were swapped at some stage; this would explain why they've had problems with the CofG, in the Hurricane, since it was mandatory that Sea Hurricanes should have metal props, to counterbalance the hook. They've had to replace the original hook with one made of fibreglass, when they originally planned to deploy it while flying displays.
Edgar
Apparently Shuttleworth have confirmed a long-standing suspicion (not mine, I'm not that good,) that their Spitfire and Hurricane props were swapped at some stage; this would explain why they've had problems with the CofG, in the Hurricane, since it was mandatory that Sea Hurricanes should have metal props, to counterbalance the hook. They've had to replace the original hook with one made of fibreglass, when they originally planned to deploy it while flying displays.
Edgar
That's very interesting, because it is also perhaps another reason why AR501 has been described by many of its pilots as one of the most stable and sweet-handling Spitfires thay have flown. The clipped wings that it has had for most of its Shuttleworth life help, of course, but so would a slightly more forward CG from a metal prop, with the ground handling protected by the slightly greater forward rake of the C wing undercarriage. I can quite imagine that it would be nicer in pitch than the average Vb.
Oh well, I ended up making a hybrid from Spitfire parts:
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=54079
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=54079
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.