New Spitfire Mk.VIII in 1/72

[John Thompson]

@fishplanebeer @Giorgio N @Graham Boak I got the AZ Spitfire Mk.VIII from Modelimex in the Czech Republic. It's on sale, BTW, at 30% off. Ironically, I missed out on the Eduard Spitfires the first time around, so I have no idea of a comparison - ease of availability is all relative, I suppose. I do see, however, that Modelimex has the Eduard Mk.IX listed as a future release, so maybe I'll get a second chance.

 

John

[fishplanebeer]

Fortunately I have the Eduard 'Week-end' VIII plus all the extra Eduard resin 'bells and whistles' and PE so I'll give the AZ one a miss even though you can probably pick one up for around £10 on E-Bay or similar. I suspect when Eduard get around to re-issuing their Spitfires again their 'week-end' or base kits will be around the £10-£11 level on back-order given that their soon to be re-issued F.IX is just under a tenner with Hannants.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Seahawk]

On 4/6/2022 at 6:06 PM, Graham Boak said:

I also have the Eduard one rather than this one, and would agree that it is better, but more fiddly.  It does provide lots of spare bulkheads and things for adding to older kits lacking such things to the same quality.  However their Mk.VIII didn't provide the wide cannon bulges - at least not in mine but I'm told they are in at least one boxing.  

 

The wide cannon bulges are on Eduard 1/72 Spitfire frame G.  That frame is included in kit 70122 Spitfire IXc early version and was once available as an overtree as well.  It may conceivably be in other boxings: I don't have them all.  Info Eduard 81 for March 2017 included (pp 36-40) an article on how to build an Australian 4-cannon Spitfire VIII with wide bulges: IIRC it made rather a meal of saying splice the gun blisters from the top wing on Frame G into the equivalent part of a Mark VIII and open up another pair of ejection slots.

[Graham Boak]

I think it was the Weekend Mk.VIII I bought - one Grey Nurse and one desert.  

[fishplanebeer]

The week-end one I have is the HF.VIII and it also has the narrow upper wing canon blisters, plus I got AZ to send me the decals for their MTO kit free of charge so I have a few options to consider when I finally get around to making it. That said I'll probably do the new KP PR.X first so it may be a while before it emerges.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

[Graham Boak]

Strictly no HF Mk.VIIIs because of the Mk.VII.  The pointy wingtips were intended as standard for the Mk.VIII and indeed were, until combat experience showed that manoeuvring at low level over-stressed the wing root and fuselage..  A very early F.MkVIII would have pointy wingtips, and broad cannon . bulges.  Most production aircraft were the LF.Mk.VIII and it seems all except perhaps early ones had the narrow bulges and normal tips- or were converted to the latter,  I can't be definite that all the F.VIIIs had wide bulges but I'd bet on it.  JFxxx codes, IIRC - not with references to hand.  It would be possible to replace the cannon access panels but would anyone really bother?

 

The Mk.VIII is my favourite Spitfire but I've not yet made one with the extended tips.  Hence buying the over-engineered Eduard one.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

F.VII production September 1942 to May 1944, 139 built.

F.VIII production November 1942 to September 1943, then a final 20 in November, 272 built.

LF.VIII production May 1943 to January 1945, 1,226 built.

HF.VIII production May to November 1944 and a final 1 in March 1945, 160 built.

PR.X production 11 in April and 5 in May 1944, originally recorded as F.VII.

PR.XI production November 1942 to February 1945, 471 built.

First production batch of mark VIII serials between JF274 and JG695 less blackout blocks.

[Graham Boak]

Yes, near the end of Mk.VIII production there were a number of HF.VIIIs built with the Merlin 70, much as there were HF.Mk.IXs produced at much the same time.    The first I can find is MT675, delivered to 6 MU 15.6.44.  It was followed by a few more individuals, and then a significant batch) scattered through then later MT range.  They were much more common in, and dominated, the (almost) final, MV, range.  They all seem to have gone to Australia, so perhaps Peter Malone can say more about their service.  My understanding is that they served alongside the LF.VIIIs with standard wingtips.  Similarly, I believe, as the HF IXs in the UK.

 

JF, JG, and LV (but for LV729) had the Merlin 61 as Fs, whereas MB serials onwards were Merlin 66 and hence LFs.

 

As a comparison, the last Mk.VII was produced at the end of May 1944, so the HF.Mk.VIII would have followed on, but unpressurised.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

HF.IX production was from March 1944 to June 1945 but none in April 1945, total produced 400.  LF.IX production continued until August 1945 (1 for the month).
 

According to the RAAF Chiefs of Staff report for week ending 28 July 1944, all future Spitfire shipments will be HF.VIII, week ending 15 September the RAAF had requested its allocation be cut from 22 to 18 (per month?)

 

Using the ADF serials website all 160 HF.VIII went to Australia, though the site has NH614 as an LF.VIII,  RAAF Spitfire Serials,
A58-1 to 158, 200 to 259 mark V
A58-300 to 550 mostly LF.VIII (300 and 301 F, 528 HF)
A58-600 to 748 HF.VIII

This is after changing what is on the web site for A58-424 to 427, 453 to 455, 471 and 538 from F to LF.VIII and NH614 from LF to HF.VIII

 

The photographs I could quickly find were all standard wings.

 

Meantime the Spitfire web site says the F.VIII (actually just VIII) were JF274 to 300, 316 to 364, 393 to 427, 443 to 461, 463 to 471, 473, 476, 479, 482 to 485, 501, 502, 505 to 513, 517 to 528, 557 to 563, 566, 567, 570 to 592, 613 to 619, 622 to 630, 658 to 662, 664, 666, 668 to 670, 673, 676, 693, 695, 698 to 706, 708 to 711, 715, 716, 743, 835, 894 to 899

JG160, 162, 166, 316, 317, 318, 492, 493, 494, 495, 541, 615, 616, 617, 619, 623

[Graham Boak]

The pointed tips were fitted to all Mk.VIIIs in at least the initial deliveries to North Africa, and were still being provided in service late in 1944 when two ME units re-equipped with new aircraft for transfer to India went into action at low level against highly manoeuvrable Oscars (despite advice from experienced pilots in theatre) and came back with badly wrinkled airframes, having to have the wings replaced.  Similarly the Mk.VIIs of the UK-based 616 Sq were refitted with the standard tips after initial combats. 

 

Spitfire The History has photos of three early Mk.VIIIs with the extended tips: so early they still have the rounded rudder.  There are several photos available of the pointed wings on desert-camouflaged Mk.VIIIs, but standard tips are more commonly seen (though not universal) during the Italy campaign.  The original intention was to use the Merlin 61 fighters for top cover, where the extended wings were perhaps valuable, but in denser air at high g they transferred too much load into the Spitfire's always fragile wing roots.  Similar problems arose with the standard tips when used for dive-bombing missions.  An anecdotal account (Clostermann's the Big Show) tells of the state of a Spitfire that had reached high speed in a dive to shoot down a German jet, stating that the fighter was only fit for scrap.

 

Incidentally, although often described as a new planform, the Mk.20 series wing was just that of the pointed tip, with the far tip clipped.  The aerodynamics was the same, but structure was very much stronger and stiffer.  

 

Production with the Merlin 70 may have started in May 1944 but deliveries were not until June.  Similarly there were many LF Mk.VIIIs produced after July 1944, very approximately half the total of those produced.  (I haven't added them up.)  They went to India.  Presumably the RAAF were still thinking of defending Darwin rather than ground support missions in New Guinea.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

I should have made it clear I was talking about the RAAF HF.VIII, agreed some early VIII were given extended wings.  Clostermann is not a very reliable witness, the speed of an Me262 was within the Spitfire's safe diving limit.  Given the RAAF had plenty of P-40 the Spitfires were the interceptors and escorts until early 1945 when they also became fighter bombers.

 

Darwin was defended by a wing of Spitfires to the end, the RAAF units went north, leaving three RAF squadrons to be the defensive force. 452 and 457 plus 54 (RAF) formed 1 Wing at Darwin arriving in January 1943 while RAAF 79 squadron went to New Guinea in June 1943, again to provide fighter cover.  In May 1944 the RAAF Spitfire squadrons at Darwin transferred from 1 to 80 wing, in July 548 and 549 squadrons RAF joined 54 squadron RAF as part of 1 wing.  452 squadron went north in December 1944, 79 squadron arrived in Darwin in January 1945 to join 80 wing and receive mark VIII , 457 squadron and 80 wing HQ went north in February, 79 squadron in March.

 

Morgan and Shacklady talk about the F.VII with the Merlin 61 and the HF.VII with the Merlin 71, but the production reports only talk about F.VII.  Meantime to end July 1944 1,082 LF.VIII had been built, out of 1,226, the halfway point for LF.VIII production was end January 1944, exactly 613 built.

 

For engines, Merlin 61 production June 1942 to January 1943 plus 1 in March and 2 in April 1943, total production 724. Merlin 70 production began in January 1944 ending in March 1945, 1,000 built but 999 in the production reports.  Also starting in January 1944 were the Merlin 76, 77 and 85.  Merlin 71 production totalled 16, in July and August 1944  Merlin 72 started production in February 1943, 1,000 built but 1,001 in the production reports, Merlin 73 began in December 1942, 3 that month, 1 the next, then production from April 1943, 700 built.

 

When it comes to the Spitfire 21 and later wing it was of the same family as the earlier wing and a similar shape etc. but things like chord changed, though trying to find a full description of the later wing is a problem.  So it was a little more than internal strengthening, plus the changes in flaps and ailerons.  The shape of the wing from rib 21 outwards.

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/2
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/3

[Graham Boak]

Agreed that Clostermann is not entirely reliable, but there's no reason to doubt him in this case.  (Which I thought involved a Arado, but it doesn't actually matter.)  There's certainly no doubt about the wing losses in 2 TAF, for which the answer was clipped wings.  The problem was not the Spitfire's dive speed, although this did lead to other problems such as aileron reversal..  The problems came in pulling high g when travelling at this speed, and how these loads were transmitted to the wing root and the fuselage.  The Spitfire wing was just not originally designed for these dynamic loads.

 

However, I wasn't aware of any increased chord on the 20-series wing.  Surely this would show on the wing areas too?  

 

The link to the Merlin 70 and the HF designation is also seen with the Mk.IX.  Given that the M70 had better altitude performance than the M61, there is a clear need for differentiating aircraft so fitted.  What isn't clear is why the M66 was considered inadequate for the air defence role.  Possibly there was some confusion with the LF designation, which perhaps is a bit misleading.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

With Clostermann verify using other sources.

 

The fighters were not stressed to handle regular experience of G forces seen in dive fighter bomber operations, which is different to the structural limits which were reached after the pilot had blacked out, making reaching such limits difficult.

 

Using the Battle of Britain Then and Now list, Luftwaffe aircraft recorded as hit by RAF fighters, for every 9 Bf109 shot down 1 was damaged, Bf110 3.83 shot down to 1 damaged, Ju88 3.06 to 1, He111 2.9 to 1, Do17 1.82 to 1, Ju87 1.66 to 1, dive bombers tended to have a stronger airframe, turning fighters into dive bombers was bound to bring strength issues into play from the repeated stress.  

 

From memory when it came to G forces pilots had different abilities, some had problems below 5G, while the best could handle around 6G, the first benchmark of G-suits was giving all pilots the ability to handle 6G, after that came 8 to 10G, the design limits for sustained G forces.  It also meant adding, over and above the suit equipment, G and stall warnings.  The experimental Australian G-suit could enable pilots to handle pushing 10G, raising the concept of over engineering the suit, though the test pilot remarked if the aircraft was to break up he would prefer to be conscious at the time.  A suit that could handle 7.5G would provide an edge and a safety margin.

 

As previously noted finding the full specifications of the mark 21 and later wing is a problem, Morgan and Shacklady note the chord changes.

 

With the Merlin 70 and HF designations, if you are referring to the mark VII, According to the Spitfires web site mark VII engines fitted were
21 with Merlin 61
118 with Merlin 64

with 182 (official total) or 183 (production reports) Merlin 64 made, 133 January to August 1943, 11 in November 1943, 39 February and March 1944.  Essentially the Merlin 64 was the engine for the Spitfire VII and the 16 PR.X.

 

I have not heard of anyone deciding the Merlin 66 was inadequate for air defence, the 66 accounts for over two thirds of Merlin 6x production.  The 66 came into production in February 1943, long after Britain required air defence against major daylight bomber raids, it still needed low level interceptors and night fighters.  As 1943 went on the allies found they were dictating the air war, including altitudes, on top of that an invasion was coming, and the rule when air forces fight each other altitude tends to go up, when armies and/or navies are involved altitude tends to go down came into play.  I have not seen any reasons for why HF versions of the VII and IX were produced, clearly top cover is possible, certainly catching daylight reconnaissance aircraft another, like the improved Ki-46 in the Pacific. Though the Spitfire XIV was available for higher altitude work.

[gingerbob]

18 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Yes, near the end of Mk.VIII production there were a number of HF.VIIIs built ...  They all seem to have gone to Australia...

 

My understanding is that they served alongside the LF.VIIIs with standard wingtips.  Similarly, I believe, as the HF IXs in the UK.

 

As a comparison, the last Mk.VII was produced at the end of May 1944, so the HF.Mk.VIII would have followed on, but unpressurised.

 

The HF.IX more or less replaced the Mk.VII (as a production necessity).  They were segregated, with the HF.IX squadrons remaining with Air Defense Great Britain.  Note that I am going from memory, so there may be exceptions, but this is the general trend.  (I am also ignoring service in the Med at the moment.)  I don't know how the RAAF treated HF vs LF distribution.

 

The HF.VIII was at the particular request of Australia, and as I recall [relatively] high altitude interception was the concern, but I'd have to dig up the communications in my files to see what more specifically was said.  You are correct that Eduard has this confused, calling their "pointy wing VIII" kits HF.VIII.

 

14 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

When it comes to the Spitfire 21 and later wing it was of the same family as the earlier wing and a similar shape etc. but things like chord changed, though trying to find a full description of the later wing is a problem.  So it was a little more than internal strengthening, plus the changes in flaps and ailerons. 

 

The chord out toward the tip was greater, compared to the "standard" Spitfire outline, but it does match the "pointy tip" Spitfire wing outline.  Morgan & Shacklady introduces confusion in cases like this because of either giving "facts" in the wrong places or misunderstanding what those facts actually represent.  That's assuming that they've transcribed the numbers accurately, which they don't always.

[alt-92]

1 hour ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

With Clostermann verify using other sources.

 

The fighters were not stressed to handle regular experience of G forces seen in dive fighter bomber operations, which is different to the structural limits which were reached after the pilot had blacked out, making reaching such limits difficult.

Other sources such as Donald Nijboer's No 126 Wing RCAF also mention that, and the history of MJ271/G-IRTY also notes the aircraft withdrawn due to deformations on the wings while serving with 401 Sqn(RCAF) after mid-December 1944. 

[Bedders]

I'd very much like to see evidence for the claimed changes in the chord of the 20-series wing. For many years I thought that the two wings were different in shape as these claims suggest, but latterly I've come round to the view that they were the same, the only difference in outline being at the tip, where the new wing was slightly squarer as the ailerons were further outboard and more integrated into the tip than on the earlier wing. 

 

Of course in terms of wing evolution we shouldn't neglect the strengthened wing of the XVIII, which retained the shape of the original wing but was redesigned internally to make it stiffer, and which entailed removing evidence of the old .303 gun bays outboard.

 

And while I'm on, I think that the purpose of the Spitfire VI and VII or indeed HF IX was not so much to engage in high altitude dogfights as to deal with high level reconnaissance intrusions.

 

Justin 

[Michael louey]

Regarding the question of the wing tips for RAAF Mk VIII's, there was a conversation here a number of years ago where Peter Malone mentioned that all RAAF spitfires were delivered with standard wing tips and some spares were supplied of extended wing tips. A small number of airframes were upgraded at RSU's to trial the extended wing tips but they weren't commonly used.

 

See this thread:

Cheers

 

Michael

 

[John Thompson]

In the context of the AZ Mk.VIII kit, elsewhere on this forum (where I haven't been able to find it again) someone building this or another AZ Spitfire complained about the fact that the kit was designed with clipped-wing wingtips; to get standard-span or extended-span wings, you need to remove the clipped wing tips and replace them with either the standard or the extended ones, which are provided separately. The fit of the replacement wing tips requires careful filling and sanding to match their shape and depth to the wing itself. The response was that it's a Czech kit, and most (all?) Czech Spitfire VIII's had the clipped wings, so... To me, this doesn't make sense - why not design the kit with the maximum length tips, and allow the modelbuilder to adjust the length himself if a shorter-span version is required? The result would require less work to build than trying to match the thickness of the separate tips to the end of the wing.

 

However, since "it is what it is", my suggestion to anyone building this kit with the optional wing tips would be to thin out the outer end of the wings by sanding them on their inner surfaces before assembling them, while dry-fitting your chosen style of wing tip to match the wing thickness to that of the replacement tip. This will reduce the need for filling and sanding afterwards.

 

John

[Giorgio N]

31 minutes ago, John Thompson said:

In the context of the AZ Mk.VIII kit, elsewhere on this forum (where I haven't been able to find it again) someone building this or another AZ Spitfire complained about the fact that the kit was designed with clipped-wing wingtips; to get standard-span or extended-span wings, you need to remove the clipped wing tips and replace them with either the standard or the extended ones, which are provided separately. The fit of the replacement wing tips requires careful filling and sanding to match their shape and depth to the wing itself. The response was that it's a Czech kit, and most (all?) Czech Spitfire VIII's had the clipped wings, so... To me, this doesn't make sense - why not design the kit with the maximum length tips, and allow the modelbuilder to adjust the length himself if a shorter-span version is required? The result would require less work to build than trying to match the thickness of the separate tips to the end of the wing.

 

However, since "it is what it is", my suggestion to anyone building this kit with the optional wing tips would be to thin out the outer end of the wings by sanding them on their inner surfaces before assembling them, while dry-fitting your chosen style of wing tip to match the wing thickness to that of the replacement tip. This will reduce the need for filling and sanding afterwards.

 

John

 

The Czechs however never used any Spitfire VIII, they only used Spitfire IXs.

If I remember right, your kit should have the panel lines and filling point for the wing leading edge tanks, as used in the Spitfire VIII (and VII and XIV...). These were not present in the Mk.IX.

Of course it is possible that the kit designer went for a Mk.IX clipped wing design for some reason, so only adding the panel lines in a modified mould for the VIII and VII. Still IMHO it's not a great design choice

[John Thompson]

1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

 

The Czechs however never used any Spitfire VIII, they only used Spitfire IXs.

If I remember right, your kit should have the panel lines and filling point for the wing leading edge tanks, as used in the Spitfire VIII (and VII and XIV...). These were not present in the Mk.IX.

Of course it is possible that the kit designer went for a Mk.IX clipped wing design for some reason, so only adding the panel lines in a modified mould for the VIII and VII. Still IMHO it's not a great design choice

Hah - good point! I really did wonder about that (honest!), but I didn't bother to check. So that could be why I didn't find it - the thread I remembered was probably about the Mk.IX, not the Mk.VIII. Thank you!

 

John

[alt-92]

That wingtip attachment sounds pretty familiar having built a few AZ Mk.IXes

 

[Fukuryu]

4 hours ago, John Thompson said:

In the context of the AZ Mk.VIII kit, elsewhere on this forum (where I haven't been able to find it again) someone building this or another AZ Spitfire complained about the fact that the kit was designed with clipped-wing wingtips; to get standard-span or extended-span wings, you need to remove the clipped wing tips and replace them with either the standard or the extended ones, which are provided separately.

 

Indeed: