-
Posts
5,499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Everything posted by Edgar
-
"rich mid-brown to burnt orange" = same plastic as Spitfire seats, perhaps? "pale yellow" = clear doped/varnished plywood, perhaps?
-
Why in 2014 is there no decent Spitfire XIV kits?
Edgar replied to mungo1974's topic in Aircraft WWII
During initial trials, the 21 used an 11' prop. -
This is a metal seat, still in use (at least it was about 6 years ago. Note that the depression didn't exist, at first, in fact the first one, in the plastic seat, was square, but was changed to a lozenge-shape, because of cracking at the corners.
-
Hugh Falkus Spitfire (was serial numbers to codes)
Edgar replied to Mitch K's topic in Aircraft WWII
If you can tell me the Squadron and name, I plan to go to Kew, tomorrow, and can look in the ORB; don't hold your hopes too high, though, because full information, like that, didn't happen very often. -
Highly Polished/Waxed finish on RAAF aircraft.
Edgar replied to dfqweofekwpeweiop4's topic in Aircraft WWII
I.C.I. went to great lengths to teach Aircraft Finishers how to do their work, and it was drummed into them not to use wax polish (didn't stop pilots demanding that it was done, though, and one has to wonder whether the R.A.A.F. took any notice, as well.) When an I.C.I. representative went to India, in late 1944, he found that aircraft (and paint) were not being looked after as recommended; a lot of this was due to the excess temperature, of course. Their main argument against wax polish was that it soaks into the paint, making it impossible to add to/retouch it, without first having to strip off the original. The erk was supposed to blend in any retouching, usually by the application of wet-and-dry paper, used wet, with any residue washed off, afterwards, with clean water. This is probably what has given rise to the number of (allegedly) glossy airframes, seen during the war. All factory paint was matt, but, from 1942, it was also smooth, which is not satin, semi-gloss, or whatever you want to call it, but remained matt. -
Nobody, at Hornby, knew what 90 was supposed to be, until I told them (too late) about my findings on a Spitfire. They'd assumed that it was supposed to be Sky (for which they'd had a four-colour mix since 2000,) so modified the formula to suit. Although they still call it beige-green, it is supposed to be Sky.
-
Sorry, Fernando, but you seem to want me to say that a member of the Supermarine drawing office staff might have made a mistake, and issued an incorrect drawing, which Joe Smith never noticed? I try to leave that sort of speculation to others. This is a section of the Cox drawings (you'll find that the Cooke drawings match them for line-up, and show a clearer line for the rear of the door) and the t/e of the wing aligns with the rear of the seat bulkhead. There's another (French-Canadian who shall remain nameless) modeller, who relies solely on photos, and it proves impossible to point out to him that, unless you have your camera at exactly 90 degrees to the item you're photographing, misalignment can play havoc with your results. Give me drawings I can trust any time.
-
PM me an E-mail address, and I'll get it done.
-
Note, too, the rubber-soled shoes, which was normal for groundcrew, to cut down on wear and tear.
-
There was a superb cartoon, in Air Enthusiast, showing "Mary Rose," complete with tapping foot and rolling pin, and the pilot being told that "The wife wants a word."
-
This is "Mary Rose" immediately after her return from the Gulf:- If you would like more close-ups (I could only get at the port side,) let me know.
-
At last; if you look at Cox & Cooke drawings, you'll see the t/e lines up at the rear of the bulkhead (there are stub formers, attached to the bulkhead, which is the point at which wingroot fairing starts to taper away to the fuselage. This is a Supermarine drawing, and it's possible to see the curved line of the wing finishing at the rear of the bulkhead.
-
This is Hawker's solution, and I can find no indication that it was changed, in fact a Polish Squadron, in a report, complained that the only way to clean the guns was to remove them through the front, which took an hour and a quarter per wing, which they deemed unacceptable (didn't cut any ice with the authorities, though.)
-
Sadly, we're getting into unnecessary semantics; on the broader-chord rudder, rather than say deeper horn, I prefer to say that the apex was higher than on the standard XIV rudder. Supermarine give a height, for the standard rudder, as 68.94". John measured a broad-chord rudder as 70" overall, and I measured one as 70.5", not enough to fall out over. When Supermarine said that the horn was to be 2" deeper, on contraprop airframes, they meant 2" deeper than the extra 1"-2" that were already there; in other words, they lowered the height of the fin by 2", and that was the reason for having the 2" block of wood at the top of the fin, to make it easily removable, in the event of needing the different rudder. If you have "Spitfire the History," look at the pair of photos of Mk.21 LA215, with and without contraprops, and it's possible to see the difference in distance between the top of the fin flash and the fin itself.
-
Don't assume that there was a Spitfire XI production line; a fair number of P.R. Spitfires were built (assembled, in fact) at "Henley Aerodrome" (that's Henley-on-Thames,)which was a large garage with a grass runway at the back. The aircraft would be test-flown, then flown the short hop to Benson.
-
Why in 2014 is there no decent Spitfire XIV kits?
Edgar replied to mungo1974's topic in Aircraft WWII
Academy were sent a dud set of drawings (same for their Hunters,) so shouldn't be expected to shoulder all the blame. Pacific Coast Models (though their website says they're now sold out.) -
I'll add this to a list of "things to do" during a future visit to Kew, so you never know.
-
According to "Fighter Squadrons of the RAF" R7582 was US-Z, R7599 US-L, R7588 US-X, R7613 US-E, R7591 US-T, and R7615 was US-J (all are shown as Ia.) That seems to indicate that it might be possible, from the ORB, to find out the very earliest ones.
-
Officially (!!!!!), only on those airframes with contraprops (the 21, basically.)
-
Not 100%, but it was silver, at first, going over to green later, around the time of the Mk.IX. The cockpit, up to, and including, the seat bulkhead, was green, silver aft of that.
-
Now, here's a funny thing; today I was looking in a pre-war file on camouflage, and, on one sheet it says that the plan is for all areas that do not need camouflage to be painted silver. With a wheel inside it, it seems unlikely that the well would need camouflage (and we already know that Hurricane and Typhoon wells were silver.) I haven't sorted out today's collection from Kew, so I can't show it, yet. At some late stage (can't read the date on the drawing) previously silver areas went over to interior grey-green (possibly due to a shortage of aluminium,) as can be seen in MH434 and another Mk.IX I photographed at St. Athan about 30 years ago, whose rear fuselage interiors are/were green, as are the wheel wells on the BBMF's XIXs, and the RAF Museum's Tempest V. Given the timescale, it would seem eminently possible that an XI had green wells (originally.)
-
On Griffon-powered Spitfires, the thrust line was angled down by about 2 degrees, compared to the straight line of the Merlin.
-
Really? Is it a case of seeing the error, or modellers "seeing" it, because they know it's there? Two of our club members built the kit, when it was issued, and have displayed at shows ever since; nobody has ever approached and said that they can see there's something wrong with the models, in fact the conversation normally goes, "That's a Mk.XII." "Oh, that's the one with the misshapen fuselage, isn't it?" I really have to marvel at those modellers who can see 1mm error, with the naked eye, because I can't, and nor could anybody else until the kit was laid on some drawings.
-
As you have the Vb version, you'll find the hydraulic u/c-retraction mechanism is included on the sprues; the Mk.I kit only has the push-me-pull-you two-handles type.
-
There was a (smallish, kidney-shaped) bulge on the early Marks, possibly caused when the stalky stance of the prototype was altered, with the tracking widening as a result. The I, II & Va/b could have the upper surface bulged, because the wheel well inner stiffening was shaped like a "K," leaving room for the bulge; on the universal wing, the stiffening was more substantial, leaving less room for the wheel, and no room for the bulge, so the leg was drooped, slightly, instead. The much bigger teardrop-shaped bulge was a 1945 addition when the u/c tracking was changed, but only on the Merlin-engined IX & XVI; the XIV had a much smaller "lump" added, which is very difficult to see.