Tamiya 1/32nd MKXVIe extras.

[Rick Brown]

Chaps, and the Ladies of course.

Having now got over the fact that I've now got this kit I was wondering if there's anything that needs improving on? 

I know the kit is extremely good but I do know that the wheels get a bit of stick for being rubber, so I was thinking of changing them maybe to these:

 

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/MST32053

 

Are these correct?

 

I really want to build this as OOB as possible and I'm not into super detailing but any other suggestions would be appreciated.

Many thanks,

Rick. 

[jenko]

Rick,

 

The one thing you do need to get is a set of these rocker covers.

 

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32004

[therollercoaster]

I'd go for these wheels:

 

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32006

 

And if you plan to open the cockpit access door then one of these as well, great improvement over the rather crude kit part...

 

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32002

 

Its simpler to replace the seat,

 

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32001

 

but you can always fashion the back padding with Milliput or scribed plastic card.

Edited January 8, 2013 by therollercoaster

[Edgar]

The one thing you do need to get is a set of these rocker covers.

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32004

I think you should check on that, first; the XVI's Merlin was built by Packard, and I've never seen one with the R-R logo on it.

One other thing is to remember that the XVI did not use the Sutton harness, but a four-point harness with a quick-release fitting rather like that on a parachute; it was still tan-coloured, though.

Edgar

Edited January 8, 2013 by Edgar

[Rick Brown]

Thanks chaps!

I'd forgotten the cockpit door/crow bar thing but I'm pretty sure the rocker covers had no cast logo on them being Packard built. I went for the last posted wheels as they are weighted.

There is a harness in the kit but I haven't checked it for correctness yet. Good idea about the seat, I hadn't noticed that. Mind you, I haven't had time to study the contents of the box yet, still in shock from actually owning the darn thing yet!

Thanks again for the ideas, keep um' coming!

Rick, not feeling under any pressure to get this amazing kit right, at all!

Edited January 9, 2013 by Rick Brown

[jenko]

I think you should check on that, first; the XVI's Merlin was built by Packard, and I've never seen one with the R-R logo on it.

 

Edgar

My apologies Edgar, I stand corrected.  Should have known better, especially with the amount of spits I make.

[Miggers]

I think you should check on that, first; the XVI's Merlin was built by Packard, and I've never seen one with the R-R logo on it.

One other thing is to remember that the XVI did not use the Sutton harness, but a four-point harness with a quick-release fitting rather like that on a parachute; it was still tan-coloured, though.

Edgar

I too was going to mention that the XVI had the Packard 266 in it,unless of course you want to do a modern

machine that has had it's 266 replaced by a 66(or other Merlin) or it's rascally owner/pilot/operator has simply "done a swap"and fitted pukka Merlin "Rolls-Royce" rocker covers.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Miggers

[Rick Brown]

Not RR covers on mine!

Would the door be the same as the MKIX or slightly different because of the way the canopy slides and locks?

 

Rick.

[Edgar]

Mk.IX & XVI were built side-by-side on the shop floor, and parts were common (which is why you see the bulged top cowling, a necessity on the IX, also fitted to the XVI.) If you are looking to do something a little bit different, the elevators, on the XVI, were metal-covered, not fabric; Tamiya should not be blamed for "missing" this, since the information is tucked away in files in Kew, so they would never have seen it.

Edgar

[Rick Brown]

Thanks Edgar

I didn't know about the elevators.

So, the cowling. I thought the engine on the MKXVI was slightly taller than the MKIX, was it the other way round then?

Cheers,

Rick.

[ben_m]

According to post #10 in this thread: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=91457 (from someone who knows a bit about Merlins it seems), even Rolls-Royce Merlins made from mid-1940-1945 wouldn't have had the Rolls-Royce name on the rocker covers.

Edited January 10, 2013 by ben_m

[Edgar]

 

So, the cowling. I thought the engine on the MKXVI was slightly taller than the MKIX, was it the other way round then?

It was nothing to do with the dimensions of the engine; since the 266 had its header tank on the intercooler, rather than on the firewall, the cowling was altered, to include a filler cap for the tank. This allowed replenishment without removing the cowling, but it was found that the mechanism protruded slightly, and fouled the pipework, still extant on the IX; the simple expedient was to bulge the IX's cowling, slightly, to clear the pipe, and, being a "one size fits all" system, in CBAF, the XVI got the same modified item. It was July/August 1944 before it happened, which is why it's never seen on early IXs (or VIIs & VIIIs, since Supermarine's cowlings weren't modified for the filling point.)

Edgar

[Rick Brown]

Thanks chaps, all good stuff!

Its nice to clarify these little things that hang around your brain.

Now, I must clear the bench to make a start. Sigh, still to many builds in the way, I just want to get cracking on this! Mind you, it's rather beautiful sat in it's splendid box, almost a work of art. Is this the reason we have a stash, it all looks too nice to make and spoil?

Rick, paint shopping list in hand, look out Mr Model, here I come. Again....

 

According to post #10 in this thread: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=91457 (from someone who knows a bit about Merlins it seems), even Rolls-Royce Merlins made from mid-1940-1945 wouldn't have had the Rolls-Royce name on the rocker covers.

 

 

 It was nothing to do with the dimensions of the engine; since the 266 had its header tank on the intercooler, rather than on the firewall, the cowling was altered, to include a filler cap for the tank. This allowed replenishment without removing the cowling, but it was found that the mechanism protruded slightly, and fouled the pipework, still extant on the IX; the simple expedient was to bulge the IX's cowling, slightly, to clear the pipe, and, being a "one size fits all" system, in CBAF, the XVI got the same modified item. It was July/August 1944 before it happened, which is why it's never seen on early IXs (or VIIs & VIIIs, since Supermarine's cowlings weren't modified for the filling point.)
Edgar

[gingerbob]

...the elevators, on the XVI, were metal-covered, not fabric; Tamiya should not be blamed for "missing" this, since the information is tucked away in files in Kew, so they would never have seen it.

Wait a tic- aft fuel in the XVI was delayed, among other reasons, by the fact that metal-covered elevators were required as part of the package... and the metal elevators were "stolen" in order to get the Mk.21 cleared for ops in approximately March '45 (don't have the document pulled up, but they went operational in early April, so it must have been close). So, if you're doing a wartime XVI there's a good chance it had fabric covered elevators, and no evidence of an aft tank.

bob

[Edgar]

The 21 didn't need metal elevators for clearance, since the test aircraft already had them, even on its initial programme in February(the one where it was said that no further attempt should be made to continue with the Spitfire line.) Supermarine fixed the problem by simply rounding off the elevator horns, and the 21 was cleared on March 10th.

I've never seen any mention of a shortage of tanks, in fact the plan was for all IX & XVI to be converted, but 11 Group's C.O. made it plain that he didn't want them, because the attendant mandatory clipped wings lowered the operational height, increased climb time, and extended take-off and landing runs, and he needed them to be able to operate at 30,000', not just 20,000-30,000, where they were flying as escort to bomber Command. It was January 20th., 1945, when he was told that conversion of his H.F.IXs was being held in abeyance, until trials had been undertaken with a converted airframe.

The only shortage, mentioned by Wing Commander (ops,) in November 1944, concerns the gyro gunsight, which had to be fitted before the tank, and he pointed out that priority for the sight was being given to Mustangs, with Spitfires second, and that this needed to be reversed if work was to continue.

Edgar

[gingerbob]

Here's what I could find immediately: [which is not to imply that I've got lots more on this- it's on my list of specific areas to dig into- and I'm sorry, Edgar, I don't think I ever sent these clues to you.]

AVIA 15/1772
162G DTD to DDTD, DDRDA 5/2/45
Notes on visit to Sup with CRD on 31/1/45
Talked with Quill, RTO, Overseer
1. Spitfire 21
Quill has reached the conclusion that the rapid change of trim with the forward speed at high speeds is more fundamental than the directional trouble. He would like to see metal elevators tried...

AVIA 15/2722
47B RDL1a to RDL1, ADRDL1 9/2/45
attached programme for clearance of outstanding Marks and variants for which clearance will be required in next 3 months.
IX rear fuel: RA.7525 "Spit IX/XIV/XVI Increased fuel major mod release"
~~~~~~~
IX/XVI rear view: PA759 [s/b TA759?] sent to High Post. Sup will clear its handling. Boscombe will advise whether prepared to clear on basis of XIV rear view tests.

IX with rear fuel: ML186 at Boscombe. report received, being discussed with DOR. Flight tests suspended till decision re inertia weight intro.

IX rear view/rear fuel: SM410 being prepared for flight CB. Has 60 gal rear fuel, metal elevator, tail parachute. Will go to Sup then Boscombe Down.


AVIA 15/1762

26/2/45
Spitfire 21
a/c having increased rudder horn balance, metal elevators, 2 lb inertia weight now at Boscombe Down.

5/3/45
Spitfire 21
with interim tail mods handling much improved, a/c satisfactory. Modified a/c now to CFE to assess.

19/3/45
Spitfire
i) CRD and ACAS(TR) agreed priority for metal elevator to 21 over IX with increased fuel. This would probably involve using two months' worth of elevators previously earmarked for IX. Working party already incorporating part of interim mods in sqn a/c.

ii) IX increased tankage
DDTD referred to the CFE report. now cleared for service use.
[Presumably this refers to the aft fuel, but how many were actually available? I think deliveries began in January, may have been halted again pending completion of trials. There's also question high vs. low backs.]

7/5/45
DED said flying had commenced on Spitfire 21 with CR to carry out 200 hour programme. CR a/c for development testing held up for metal elevators.

14/5/45
Chief Overseer outlined present position of... metal covered elevators. six sets would be available by end this week for standard Spitfire 21 in service. CRD directed utmost pressure on getting all 21s in service fitted with metal elevators and modified rudders ASAP.

[in June they start talking about needing aft fuel Seafires (XV and subs.)]

AVIA 15/2722
84B RDL1a to DD?RDA 5/9/45

2. Mk.XVI with rear tanks: CRD clearance of non rear view 9/16 has been given. CRD clearance of rear view 9/16 issued subject to barrier on use of rear fuselage tank. We do not yet understand fully why there is a variation between various metal elevators.

Edited January 14, 2013 by gingerbob

[Jennings Heilig]

I thought we had decided when the Tamiya IXc first came out that the majority of wartime Merlins didn't have the Rolls-Royce name on the rocker covers anyway.  Or am I imagining that?