the definitive spitfire wing in 1/48

[elger]

Dear all,

The shape of the Spitfire fuselages of various marks is being discussed extensively, but there is less discussion about the Spitfire's wings. Which manufacturer's wings are considered most accurate? In terms of outline of course, but also the well known "gull wing" section.

Thoughts on the matter would be very much appreciated.

[Jennings Heilig]

Tamiya 1/32, but none of the Tamiya 1/48 kits.

[Edgar]

As far as I can tell, none, if you're being finicky enough, since none have the washout built in, which makes the models stance all wrong, but the reason isn't obvious to a casual viewer.

Edgar

[The wooksta V2.0]

Why is this - and the fuselage thread, come to that - limited to simply 48tyh scale? What about those who model in 72nd or 32?

[Edgar]

The initiator sets the agenda, and we respond; if he has no objection to broadening the scope, then go for it.

Edgar

[The wooksta V2.0]

My point is that if this is such an important issue, then it shouldn't be limited to one specific scale.

[Troy Smith]

As far as I can tell, none, if you're being finicky enough, since none have the washout built in, which makes the models stance all wrong, but the reason isn't obvious to a casual viewer.

Edgar

right, at the risk of sounding silly... I remember reading about this yonks ago in an article by Peter Cooke, now, is the washout the way the dihedral varies between root and tip, in effect making the wing a very gentle curve viewed from the front in particular, which is what I have taken this to be from Peter's drawings of the XIV/XIX/XVIII/XII published in Scale Models in Oct /Nov 1979 IIRC [for anyone who kept their old model mags]

If is is I accidentally created this back then on the old 1/48 Airfix Vb by clamping the wing about 2/3 the way out in the centre, which replicated this. I was just try to get the wing to glue evenly...hence by accident. At the time I think I was put out that the wing was now curved...

Or is this something else? If so, an explanation would be of interest.

thanks

T

[Giorgio N]

The washout is defined as the variation in angle of attack of the various wing sections along the span. The tips always have a lower AoA so that when the wing root stalls the tips (and therefore the ailerons) are not stalled yet, so retaining control after the first onset of stall.

[gingerbob]

Why is this - and the fuselage thread, come to that - limited to simply 48tyh scale? What about those who model in 72nd or 32?

Well, not being the person who posed the question, I can think of two reasons:

1) It gets complicated, and would get far more so if you try to discuss all scales.

2) If you're wanting to build a really good 1/48th (or other) scale Spitfire, it doesn't help much to be told that the Hobbygawairfix of Germany 1/67.5 scale Spit gets it absolutely dead perfect.

3) Uh oh, starting to remind me of the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects...) While the Spitfire knowledge is transferable, the kit knowledge won't necessarily be. I've got lots to work with in 48th, and a few in 32nd, but virtually nothing in 72. (For the latter one canned answer will be "CMK, baby"- whether it is actually correct or not.)

bob

[elger]

The initiator sets the agenda, and we respond; if he has no objection to broadening the scope, then go for it.

Edgar

I have no objection :-)

[rs2man]

The washout is defined as the variation in angle of attack of the various wing sections along the span. The tips always have a lower AoA so that when the wing root stalls the tips (and therefore the ailerons) are not stalled yet, so retaining control after the first onset of stall.

It should be angle of incidence rather than angle of attack . Angle of incidence is built into the airframe , whilst angle of attack varies according to how much the pilot pulls the nose up relative to the direction of travel .

[Fernando]

IMHO, Hase's wing is quite good proportioned and has fine surface detail. Would be my number one (in relative terms). SHobby's would be the runner up; it has some well thought engineering but some bugs also (i.e., detached ailerons). Both Academy's and Tamiya's have shape issues but can be fixed (Academy's also detail issues). ICM's has some weird thickness inconsistencies (wing-to-tip, wing-to-aileron) and poor fit of the bulges' panels, but can be built. Airfix's F.22/24/FR 47 and XII/XVII look good, but the detached flaps can be problematic. Old Airfix's Vb/c's I would discard due to heavy details, oversized parts and thickness, in addition. Ocidental/Italeri I would drop for both rather hughe proportion (too wide chord) and detail (no radiator's ramp) problems.

Fernando