gingerbob

Graham, it is a B- you can see the underwing blister, among other cues. Actually both of the ones pictured are Bs. Is the seemingly matching paint on the wheel chocks any sort of a clue? Split the thread? You mean this isn't supposed to be about Spitfires?! bob

OK, I received my Spiteful yesterday, and have had the beginnings of a first look. I'll make some general observations, and comments on Graham and Andrew's squawks. Please note that I am looking from a rivet-counter's careful examination point of view. I am not trying to damn the kit, just trying to see discrepancies, and throwing out these comments to help people figure out where to look and to further the discussion of where the problems lie. What you or I choose to do about them is another matter, as demonstrated on the two build threads already running on "WIP". The spinner strikes me as a bit pointy- haven't checked the length yet but I bet it is a hair elongated. Someone else has mentioned that the little air intake on the starboard top of the cowl is missing. Just to throw in something positive, the general fuselage profile strikes me as pretty good- no obvious "Eww!" points jumped out at me. However... The wing fillets aren't shaped quite right (the line where it meets the fuselage proper). They seem to reach their highest point a bit too soon, and the "flare" in front of the leading edge is much too short. Back end seems better. Graham 1: I'm not too fussed about the aft end of the bulges- it seems like they can be blended in very easily indeed. I notice, however, that from the side they have a bit of an elongated tear-drop (airfoil?) shape, so that they start heading downhill (literally, not quality-wise) as they approach the nose. They should be much more of a straight line/ flat shelf along the top. G2: haven't looked at her legs yet! (or the gun panels) G4/A1-3: The leading edge gives me the impression of being in about the right spot, but the trailing edge seems to stop too soon- about in line with the aft corner of the windscreen, instead of back in mid entry-door area. Whether this is due to the wing's chord being short, the whole wing being mis-located, or the fuselage visual cues being mis-located I can't yet say. G5: The gear bay is a bit askew- the oleo covers seem about the right shape, but the cutout isn't at the right angle- it should sweep back a little heading from outboard toward the wheel doors. The wheel doors (the fuselage mounted ones) and/or cutout also gets slightly messed up as a result. I wonder if the gear stance (angle viewed from the side) is also off- haven't gotten that far yet. There's a good underside view in "British Secret Projects" (Buttler) and a very poor one in Spit the Hist (the Seafang section) (they're actually the same image). G6: Wheels are easily replaced, but is the diameter (wheel/tyre) the same as the Spit's with same sort of wheel hub? G7: I've already commented on the "cutout" under the canopy. Boo, hiss, and fixing it will probably necessitate either careful surgery of the canopy, or replacement (which it probably should get anyway, being awfully thick). A4: I'll have to look more carefully at the fin/rudder (and while I'm at it, the tailplanes). No comment yet! A5: Don't know about measurements, but judging against the outer edge of the gear well, the cannons do seem just a hair off. Curiously, the ejection ports and the little bumps seem to line up with that gear well edge about right (see underside view referred to above). More scrutiny required, though I wonder how much more evidence I'll be able to come up with in order to judge?! Summary (first pass)- it looks like a Spiteful to me, mostly. The gear wells are a little troubling, but mostly because of the possible implications for the gear legs/door alignment with gear extended, and that I can't check yet. I'll have to dig out a CA Attacker (actually, no digging required) just to compare wings/ gear. Now the question is, what degree of butchery am I inspired to commit?: wing and fillet area to join Spit XIV fuselage to make NN660? Chop the tail and fit a Griffon style to make NN664? Just build it with whatever tweaks seem necessary? All of the above? I think the last is most likely! Bring on the Seafang... bob

Mmmmmmmeteor! That's purdy, Danni. What was she doing if she wasn't on her own wheels? bob p.s. Any chance of a Walkaround?

No offense to Johnnie, but there WERE other Spit IXs! bob

R6690 would not have fishtail exhausts- they did not come in until sometime in 1941. It is not listed as being fitted with a Rotol by Supermarine, and there's some distance by serial to the ones that were, but a few with Rotols did go to 609 Sqn, according to the individual records. I suppose a Rotol might have been fitted in service, but I find it unlikely. Of course, I'm quite willing to be proved wrong! bob

Not yet, that I know of, but there are hints in the kit that they'll eventually release an early version, with windows in the nose and (hopefully) British turret. bob

Lightnings and Pinballs and Cobras, oh my! Nick, a SEAC Lightning Mk.II (or III?) IS an intriguing idea... As previously noted, the Brits soon awakened to or re-asserted the need for turbos. I don't know the ins and outs of the Lightning story, but it certainly wasn't as simple as "They chose not to have the turbos and then they thought it was useless." Come to think of it, I agree that the same is true for the P-39. Death to all aviation sound-bite facts! Bodie usually seems to have a bee in his bonnet about something- perhaps it is just his enthusiasm, but like some people's style on the forums, the histrionics work against him when he is trying to convince me. Like you say, Nick, "sensationalist". Nevertheless, his P-38 book, and his P-47 book, are far better than any other respective sources I've seen. I might not be far behind you with "Cobra", Graham- that's been on my "to-do" list for some time. bob p.s. I still think the L-39 is the coolest of the 'cobras!

Thanks for checking the numbers, Andrew! The results seem close-enough-ish to me (and they think I'm a rivet counter...) Frame 5 is indeed the firewall on the Spiteful, but unlike the Spitfire the main spar doesn't attach there- it is somewhat aft. Also, Frame 5, in addition to the angled upper part similar to the Spit XIV etc, has a subtle crank lower down, too. All of this might make locating it with any certainty a bit challenging! [EDIT: "Frame 5" for the purposes of measurements, is given as the centerline of the usual Frame 5 position. The Spiteful's main spar centerline is 5 inches aft of this.] bob p.s. I think we can safely assume that the Seafang will have exactly the same issues as the Spiteful. p.p.s. I'm not too worried- even if I conclude that the fuselage is a monstrosity, I've got a Spit XIV fuselage just waiting for a new wing!

Well, for better or worse, I've got one on the way. meanwhile, I dug out some drawings. I don't know how much they'll help, but here are some dimensions: Wing Chord at the fuselage centerline: 100" (so follow the angle of the leading and trailing edges until you get there.) Wing leading edge (theoretical, at centerline) is 34" forward of fuselage station 5. Centerline to end of wing panel (end of aileron, but neglecting the wingtip): 204" Chord at that point 40" Wing chord at trailing edge (and leading edge?) angle change: 85", and that point is 72" from centerline (possibly less .5") Original dihedral (I think) was 3 degrees, measured at the wing datum, which is "down the middle" rather than the top or bottom surface. Later changed or intended to change to 5 degrees. Hope someone can make enough sense of this to check the kit, both wing span and chord and location on fuselage. bob

The latter link settles it- late style hood it is. bob

Yes, there were two different glass arrangements on the Mk.VII- it was still being perfected and production didn't wait. So early ones had the non-sliding arrangement of the Mk.VI and what you have shown here is the late standard. I'm not sure when it came in, but I would think the serial mentioned would be likely to have the late style. Incidentally, I believe MD114 is pictured (though it may not be a useful photo) in a book about "Fighters over Scapa" or something along those lines. Here is a shot showing NASM's Mk.VII (EN474) windscreen etc: Clicky The early hood has no external rail, which allowed sliding and also jettison (as clearly evidenced in Edgar's photo above!), but note that it already has the deeper aft glass with no extra longitudinal support as seen on the Mk.VI. Spit the Hist has some good photos in the Mk.VI section but be wary- they may show experimental ones and some may be VIIs, not VIs. Good point about the deletion of the clear-vision panel- I'm not sure if I'd noticed that before. I would think you could get away with using a standard fighter windscreen for the late style. bob

The accompanying folder says, "The cooling system is of composite type and consists of leading edge steam condensers extending the full span of the wing and a retractable honeycomb radiator situated in the bottom of the fuselage..." (mains and tailwheel are retractable) [Edit: Oops, sorry Edgar, I see you've covered that already.] I've got a copy of that drawing too, but not the data block, unless it is somewhere else! It does give the span as 40' and tip chord of 4' 6.75", and points out the condensers and retractable radiator (which is in approximately the same position as the Hurri). I don't have "Camm and the Hurricane", but I've studied it in the past. Thanks for the help so far! bob p.s. Buttler (Secret Projects) has a small reproduction of the original "Monoplane Fury", and I think it was in "Interceptor", too.

Hello all, I know that the Air Ministry ordered a second pair of wings to feature the 8-gun armament. I've got a memory that the original wing had somewhat different geometry (a straighter leading edge?) but I haven't been able to substantiate that memory. Photos that I've been examining, which I take to be of the initial configuration, don't seem to reveal any difference in the angles of leading/trailing edges. What say you? bob

Geez, you scared me- I thought I was getting a 48th sheet, but then you went and mentioned 72nd... oh thank goodness, it did say 48! And funny you mention the B-36- I finally got one at a show recently. I think one reason I'd never gotten around to it is that it was in the "wrong" scale. But having popped the hatch on it, I'm not sure I'd want a 48th one. At the rate RoG are going, maybe they'll do it! I dunno- some people will pay quite a bit for high-class punishment (or so I've heard whispered)

Really can't say it any better than that! bob

Are you referring to "A History of the Blues" taught by Prof. E. Clapton?

Wow, that IS a shocker- I'd have thought they'd come in much closer to the fuselage! At least there's no worry about filling the gap! More usefully, perhaps, I've got good wing data, so should be able to give a figure for the wing chord and maybe cannon position, to check the kit against. I am not aware of having good dimensional data to locate the wing in relation to the fuselage, or to evaluate the fuselage. For the tail, could someone compare it to the Airfix Spit 22/Seafire 47? I'd better hurry up and get one before I've been talked out of it... bob

Yes, in much the same way that a PT boat is a bit like an MTB. Similar layout, but no real relationship one to the other. Meaning to be sarcastically playful, not nasty, bob

Hi Nick, Thank you for clarifying the place of Sky Blue in the discussion- even after I looked back through the thread you made it more clear to me. I think we're using circular logic to consider Sky Blue, though, and no offense to Mr. Lloyd. As you say, the cipher is (apparently?) attempting to describe the colour on the aircraft, and the use of "pale sky blue" doesn't sound like they are saying it is Sky Blue to me, and certainly doesn't imply that they (someone) asked for it to be Sky Blue! As we have seen before, the description "duck egg blue" would naturally tend to lead people toward a bluer color than "Sky", and if the term Sky was even seen, it might tilt the perception even more toward "the sort of blue that one sees in the sky". No surprise, then, if in attempting to come up with a suitable color to fit the description, they choose one that looks rather like the British "Sky Blue", whether they knew it or not. By the way, I finally took that color perception test and scored 7, which is a result that I am satisfied with! bob

Jeffrey Quill was not in favor of the new "improved" seating position. It was meant to increase G tolerance, but by leaning back Quill thought it made it more tiring whilst looking out for the hun in the sun. bob

I haven't abandoned hope yet, but this sounds like echoes of the Academy Spit XIV! I thought XIII was supposed to be the unlucky number... Now off to the WIP! bob

It rather sounds like we're going over old ground again, but so be it. (I will make a disclaimer that I do not remember how "sky blue" enters into the discussion- Nick makes reference to it, but I'm not clear on whether there was evidence of the term being used at the time by or in reference to Grumman. Edit: I found somewhat more clarity, or so I believe...) My take on this (subject to immediate change upon presentation of more puzzle pieces!) is that in 1940 into 1941 there was a great deal of confusion in England concerning "that colour". While I have not been a colour researcher primarily, I have seen "duck egg blue" used frequently in correspondence to describe what is meant to be "Sky Type S", as Nick said. Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but there is definite evidence that the two terms referred to the same colour, while I do not remember any evidence that "duck egg blue" was (officially) intended to mean something different from "Sky". Why such widespread use of a colloquial label instead of the official name I cannot say, though I suppose some people thought "duck egg blue" was a more clear description (unambiguous reference) of an unfamiliar new colour than "sky", especially if there were already official colours "Sky Blue" and "Sky Grey". The use of the term "duck egg blue" continues long after the people must have been familiar with the official name "Sky". And lest anyone make the counter-argument, yes, MAP, RAF, and other officials DID use incorrect or colloquial terms in "official" correspondence, and sometimes confusion, mistakes in interpretation, and corrections did result. It seems likely that the term "duck egg blue" found its way to Grumman via a British official, rather than in spite of British oversight of production. If in communication the underside colour was referred to in that way, it is quite possible that the understanding that it was meant to refer to the colour "Sky" was lost along the way. One question would be, when were standards of "Sky" available to the British reps in North America, or at Grumman specifically. If they didn't have a paint chip to refer to, they'd be left to attempt to come up with a paint that looked like "duck egg blue", whatever that was imagined to be. With more understanding of the duck egg blue/ Sky situation the addition of the reference to the duPont color should have helped eliminate confusion, but instead it introduced (for us) another ambiguity. (When did duPont's color appear, and did their use of "Sky Type S Grey" confuse matters? I can imagine someone saying, "No, we're looking for "Sky", a duck-egg-bluish color, not "Sky Grey!") I wish we knew when that Note was added to the Goose drawing. I read that as "Duck Egg Blue is the same as 71-021" rather than "71-021 is an acceptable paint to use instead". Nevertheless it would be a tacit admission that the color they'd been using wasn't what the customer actually wanted. I wonder why the same note wasn't added to the Wildcat drawing? Had it perhaps been superseded by the acceptable substitute of USN light grey? I hope in this last question I'm not accidentally introducing yet another issue... bob p.s. On the matter of FM-2 cowls, in 1/48 the Vector set seems to be the best attempt yet. Whether there's any hope of an "accurate" kit of the FM-2 in 48th is another question!

What better place to display a CC Liberator than patrolling over the water? If you're interested, I could help you out of your Hudson dilemma- I've been hunting for one, buildable or not. PM me if you wish. bob

You better do it soon- I just bought one of the three (?) in inventory! A 30 Sqn P-47 (sorry, Thunderbolt Mk.II) is on my to-do list, and the panther on the Spit VIII (or XIV) is one of my favorites, so always happy to have another source for that! bob

The date you give seems a little too far back, but I distinctly remember overpainted Mossie bomber noses being discussed (and shown) on Hyperscale some time ago- like a couple of years at least. bob