Ultimate Spitfire/Seafire Modeller Chart - (open-source - expert help needed)

[warhawk]

Greetings,

 

During my research for my future Spitfire builds, I decided to compile a chart of all basic, military, 'official' versions from a scale modeler's point of view (based on major external feature differences).

main categories are: Merlin ('short-nosed'), Merlin ('long-nosed'), Griffon ('short-nosed') and Griffon ('long-nosed') machines.

 

I would like to hear your opinions if I forgot something, or I have made an error somewhere (e.g. are the Griffon Seafires exactly coupled to their appropriate Spitfire counterparts?)

This is far from complete, as the vast Spitfire variants transcend my knowledge, as well as the variant range I intend to build (the reason for making this table in the first place).

 

It will be arranged as an editable open-source, and always available on Google Docs.

 

Edit Oct 2019:

 

I have revised the table, and made it simpler for input (just color the appropriate field green to mark it as a "historically possible".

 

Important notes:

• This is a simple variants guide, aimed at scale modelers interested at differentiating external features of the Spitfire, or thinking of building some other variant not enclosed in the box without major kit 'surgery'. It is not intended to be THE ultimate chart containing every feature of every Spitfire produced.
• Performance is also not the part of it, as e.g. You cannot  state the power of an engine without specifying the altitude it is recorded, which complicates things immensely...
• Please refrain from "Oh, this is pointless" type of comments. If You have anything constructive to add, You are more than welcome to do so. And please write Your name in the Contributors section.
• Please refrain from adding or deleting rows/columns in the table. If You have a suggestion to add a basic, military, 'official' variant, please contact me via PM or e-mail, and I will gladly do so.
• Please keep it metric to avoid confusion.

 

Any help is more than welcome.

Regards,

Aleksandar

Edited October 27, 2019 by warhawk
revised table

[Adam Maas]

There is no 'B' wing for the IX, it came with C and E wings only. The 'B' designation was unofficial and simply indicated the presence of the necessary hardware to carry bombs on a C-wing IX.

Note the Seafire XV had the same fuselage length as the Spitfire XII (both were essentially Vc derived, the XII directly and the XV from a Seafire III), so it would be shorter than the Spitfire XIV (single-stage griffon instead of the 2-stage griffon on the XIV and later). The Seafire XVII is the same length as the XV, just with a cut-down fuselage, bubble canopy and only the stinger-style hook (the XV's had both A-frame and stingers depending on what point in production). Thus the length on the XV and XVII should be 9.71m.

The longer rudder on the Spitfire XVIII was a post-production modification inherited from the contra-prop 21 testbed, early XVIII's had the same rudder as the XIV. Likewise the 21 had a few examples with contra-props and the extended rudder.

The Seafire 47 had a 2x3 blade contra-prop, not the 5 blade rotol. Likewise most Seafire 46's were fitted with the contra-prop.

You also aren't addressing the fuselage types. The IXe and XVIe both were produced in low-back and highback versions. Likewise the FR.XIV was mostly low-back production, all F.XIV's were high-back and there were a couple low-back VIII's, but those were test mules only. There were no low-back XV's, despite what has been written, the low-back XV's were in fact the first production batch of XVII's.

[gingerbob]

If you were to make a true chart of Spitfire evolution you would cause a rift in the space-time continuum. But, I'll study it later when I have time...

bob

[Learstang]

If you were to make a true chart of Spitfire evolution you would cause a rift in the space-time continuum. But, I'll study it later when I have time...

bob

Haven't you posted that before? Oh no, it's happened already! Legend has it that if anyone can do a complete and accurate chart of Spitfire evolution, then R.J. Mitchell will rise from his grave and extract Excalibur from the stone and become King.

Regards,

Jason

[John Aero]

All done from original research? in Squadron and SAMI. Well you've got a long way to go. Wheels, what about the diameters? Types of spinners, a V with a DH prop is not the same length as a V with a Rotol, then which Rotol.

Count me out.

John

[Tim T]

I am sure Edgar will be along shortly...

[Test Graham]

The Mk.IXB was not to denote the carrying of bombs, but was the pilots' term for the LF Mk.IX, with the lower-rated Merlin 66.

Can I suggest you obtain a copy of Spitfire The History, rather than the more limited (and at times debatable if not downright dodgy) references you are using?

May I also raise the matter of the PR variants?

[NPL]

All done from original research? in Squadron and SAMI. Well you've got a long way to go. Wheels, what about the diameters? Types of spinners, a V with a DH prop is not the same length as a V with a Rotol, then which Rotol.

Count me out.

John

Give the man a brake ... after all he didn't say "original research". Also a brave man who dares to stick his hand into this can of Worms which Means Spitfires on a British run list.

I suppose that he made a start, and instead of being shot down, he needs a lot of advice. First of all: His references. I believe that we generally agree that his two "sources" do not make it; they can only be a starter.

The only rule as I understand it when it comes to Spitfires is that there are no rules, just variations. When I cannot sleep I just begin to recount all different marks and subtypes. I normally do not get past the Mk.V before I have left for the world of dreams.

But it we think positively, what literature would you recommend?

I would go for (knowing that nothing is perfect) for

Morgan, Eric B. and Edward Shacklady, Spitfire: The History (Key Publishing Ltd, 1986).

Monforton, Paul H., Spitfire Mk.IX & XVI Engineered (Greely, Ontario: Monforton Press, 2007).

Maybe also this:

Korán, Frantisek, Vladimir Danda, Josef Martínek, Miroslav Khol, Spitfire Lf.Mk.IX in detail. Photo Manual for Modellers (Wings & Wheels Publications, 2002).

and a nice set of drawings (in itself another can of Worms) beginning with

Plan Pack 2985: Supermarine Spitfire (Model & Allied Publications Ltd, N.D.)

Everybody free to add!

NPL

[warhawk]

Types of spinners, a V with a DH prop is not the same length as a V with a Rotol, then which Rotol.

Count me out.

John

I counted that each prop needed the right spinner, an I can conclude, for example if IIa had a Rotol 3-blade prop, it would be hard to use a DH spinner on that one. But, you are right regarding the length issue. I will amend that relating to spinners.

May I also raise the matter of the PR variants?

Do you mean ones derived from Mk.I? For those, I should add "D" wing in MK.I category?

[Flankerman]

Wouldn't it be great if someone had the computer knowledge - plus an intimate insight into Spitfire variants - to make an interactive 'build a Spitfire' program or App.

Sort of start with a fuselage 'barrel' - to which you could then add your choice of nose and rudder - and switch them in and out.

Add your props and spinner of choice, 'float' in carb intake of whatever style you want.

The App would have to have built-in 'safeguards' to prevent you adding a lowback with a three branch exhaust for example.

It would need to have a klaxon sound (sort of Errr Err - like on Family Fortunes) when you got a combination wrong - or just wouldn't let you do it, like when trying to put a red queen onto a red king when playing Solitaire)

Same would go for the wings - select a style, add guns, radiators etc.

I know I'm being rather simplistic, but you get the idea............. and it would be fun.

Maybe someday...

Ken

Edited December 21, 2013 by Flankerman

[gingerbob]

Ken, I've had just that idea! I don't now have the computer zen to do it, nor is it high on my priority list, but it sure would be nifty. I actually have little "paper dolls" so I can do it in mockup form.

bob

[John Aero]

On 12/21/2013 at 6:23 PM, NPL said:

Give the man a brake ... Actually break

and a nice set of drawings (in itself another can of Worms) beginning with

Plan Pack 2985: Supermarine Spitfire (Model & Allied Publications Ltd, N.D.)

 

Follow some, of this mixed bag of those plans and you will commit many of the mistakes we have seen before. This could turn into design a Spitfire by committee and then someone claims the single credit. This is the downside of the internet.

 

John

[Mark]

This is a fantastic idea and one that I have tried to research myself many times, but never had the nerve to say 'Eureka!' this is the definitive chart!

Maybe the best brains amongst the members here could get together and whilst this is the 'design a Spitfire by committee' as suggested by John above, maybe with the most knowledgeable amongst the membership all putting their heads together, then maybe we might just get that elusive chart?

Once you have the basic structure correct, then maybe the finer points can be added? Finally the chart then needs to suggest the best kit and after market parts to construct the chosen mark of Spitfire / Seafire that the modeller wants to build?

[Test Graham]

I think it would be better if you changed the alignment of your table. There are many more variations to consider than there are Marks, so having the Marks across the top would help. For example, you don't (so far) include the shape of the rudder, or the elevators, or that different wingtips could be fitted to the same mark. Seafire Mk.IIs could have three or four blade props. Mk.Vs could have six exhausts a side, and some came with four cannon. The bulge over the cannons changed shape, even on the C wing. The initial cannon armed Mk.Is did not have the B wing, and some Mk.Is had the Rotol prop. Some Spitfires (and Seafires) were tropicalised with the Vokes filter, some with the Aboukir, and some with the Aerovee (which became standard). There were different (or no) bulges over the wheel well, there were or were not torque links on the undercarriage. There were three different canopies (flat top, raised top and blown), not counting teardrop, PR bulged or the pressurised ones.

Not all the PR variants were based on the Mk.I, or Mk.V. There were for example, F Mk.IXs, LF Mk.IXs, FR Mk.IXs and PR Mk.IXs. Those that were based on the early airframes had differences in the camera fit, were armed or not armed, had the bowser wing or not, had DH or Rotol props, etc and so require noting in a full list.

No two modellers would agree on an "ideal" list, and it would pass out of date fairly rapidly.

[dadgaddad]

I'm going to have a little lie down.

[stevehnz]

I say full marks to Warhawk for what he has undertaken. Although it is probably becoming obvious to him that he has bitten a big mouthfull & there may be no such thing as a truly definitive listing I do feel confident that he can come up with a listing that will cover the vast majority of variants & as such will be of use to all but the most finickety dedicated Spitfire tifosi.

Steve

[gingerbob]

Perhaps this will help- something I did for a friend who wanted to know "the basics", with some attempt to bring it up to date:

Yes, but what can I make from this kit? (48th-centric)

Disclaimer: I am focusing on the basics here- nose, core fuselage, tail, wing. There are many detail differences, some of which I will mention, but first we have to get the right combination of big pieces!

* First group:

The original single-speed Merlin types all have essentially the same fuselage (tip to tail). All had a fixed tailwheel. Various different props were fitted, and there were several different exhaust configurations.

The engine’s air intake changed slightly with the Merlin 45, and tropicalisation is an obvious change. The pressurised Mk.VI has some subtle but important differences, most obvious being the hood and the deletion of the entry door, plus the intake on the side of the cowl for the air pump. Seafires (and hooked Spitfires) have the A-frame hook in the belly. Some PR birds had a deeper chin, and almost all had a different windscreen.

To this common fuselage you must add the wing of your choice:

‘a’ wing: 8 .303s

‘b’ wing: 2 20mm (drum fed) and 4 .303 (the bulges for the drum changed shape a bit somewhere along the way)

PR wing

‘c’ wing: normally 2 20mm in inner bays, stub at outer bay, 4 .303 (the inner of which moved one rib-bay outward compared to a/b)

gear legs at different angle, gear door is “dished” instead of “flat” (that is, following the curve of the wing).

All have the asymmetrical cooling. With the Merlin 45 the oil cooler was deeper with a round intake, instead of the half-round of the Mk.I/II. The Trop adds a flared exit to this. Because of the differences, it makes sense to choose an appropriate wing, even if you have to transfer it to a different kit’s fuselage, rather than convert (except perhaps the PR wing- easiest to start from would be the ‘a’, but the Airfix PR.XIX gives a new possibility since I originally wrote this).

Scribe the wing-fold lines on a ‘c’ wing and you’ve got the Seafire III’s wing, but there are a number of detail changes required for any Seafire, and none of the kits claiming to be a Seafire do the work for you- they’re just hooked Mk.Vs! [Airfix Sea 17 provides another possibility, with some work required.]

Stick an early Griffon nose on a Vc (and change the rudder) and you’ve got the Spit Mk.XII. Later ones had the retract tailwheel.

* Second group

This time we start with the ‘c’ wing, but with symmetrical radiators. We actually have two structurally different ‘c’ wings- that of the IX/XVI was an evolution of the Vc, while that of the VII/VIII/XIV came directly from the Mk.III. These had shorter ailerons and leading-edge fuel tanks inboard of the cannon. There’s also the PR wing, which now has the gear angle of the ‘c’ wing, and the Seafire’s folding wing, with leading edge tanks added, but still the longer ailerons.

Now select the fuselage of your choice:

2-stage Merlin 1-stage Griffon 2-stage Griffon

High-back (PC) VII (PR.X) - (PR.XIX)

High-back IX/XVI, VIII; PR.XI Seafire XV XIV (early PR.XIX)

Low-back IX/XVI Seafire XVII FR.XIV/18

One important change that comes with the 2-stage Griffon is the larger fin (with retract tailwheel). The radiators are also deeper than those for the Merlin. The armament changed to ‘e’ configuration on the IX/XVI and XIV, but it was still the same wing. The 18 had a different arrangement of skinning, so some rescribing is required to be strictly accurate if making one of these.

* Third group

Now take a high-back 2-stage Griffon fuselage and stick the Mk.21 wing on it and you’ve got, oddly enough, a Mk.21, or with some further tweaks a Seafire 45. Note that the radiator housings on the 21 are somewhat different from the XIV/XIX ones. (Stick a Spiteful wing on the same fuselage and you can do NN660, the first prototype.)

Using a low-back yields a Mk.22/24, but by the time these were in service they had the Spiteful tail, as did the Seafire 46.

Finally, the Seafire 47 with folding wing and larger flaps. It may also have a bigger bulge on the upper wing surface to clear the wheel, but I’m not completely sure about this.

Then there’s the Spiteful/Seafang. After the first prototype it had the new fuselage but still the Griffon tail. Subsequently the new larger tail was fitted. Take essentially the same wing and put a jet fuselage on it and you’ve got the Attacker.

If that isn’t enough, you can do a I, V, or IX on floats (they even thought about an Attacker on floats!). Postwar there was one VIII and twenty-some IXs converted to a two-seat trainer configuration, with regular cockpit moved forward and a second grafted on behind with raised bubble. There were (and still are) some different two-seater field mods. Prototypes/ testbeds, for the more adventurous, would present some truly unique looking subjects (Mk.IX with XIV fin and contra-prop, anyone?)

bob

Edited December 21, 2013 by gingerbob

[John Aero]

I seem to remember Vasko Barbic here in the UK did much of this some time ago. I think Edgar and Bob and some others could do most of this standing on their heads and I feel they ought to do so, before someone else claims credit for all the research they have fished of the internet for free.

John

[Edgar]

The whole thing is fraught with problems, and it needs careful use (and interpretation) of the evidence. For example, although the ASR Mk.II had the designation "IIC," it never had "C" armament. The tropical Mk.V radiator was 1" deeper than the normal temperate type. Lengths need to be carefully checked, since the A.P. would often measure from the tip of the propeller shaft, not the tip of the spinner. There's more (much more,) and it needs a lot of individual input, and a good deal of cooperation, since it's all too easy for one person to forget one little thing.

Edgar

[Navy Bird]

I agree that such a chart would be a valuable reference, and that it will need the combined contributions of MANY knowledgeable individuals (of which I am not one). I suspect, though, that the chart may have more asterisks (denoting a departure from a particular variant) than there are variants. Would this ultimately end up with serial number blocks instead of Marks?

And to really open Pandora's Box, how about we also list the best kits, in each scale, for each configuration? :wicked:

Cheers,

Bill

[Troy Smith]

IIRC there was a chart or drawings in a Model magazine, which showed the changes in the drawings highlighted in different colours, which worked very well I thought.

I could see a website of this working, with a front page like this, showing the basic variants, and then click on variant to go a pages or pages of specifics, even down to serial blocks of changes.

This would allow a reasonably simple and easy to see basic guide to development, for initial or beginner reference, but then link to the finer detail.

a quick look above shows a variant of this has been suggested.

One book missed, The Spitfire Story by Dr.Alfred Price.

A good clear guide to the why's and how's of Spitfire development, and a better initial guide for beginner than the Morgan and Shacklady book I'd say, and available a lot cheaper too.

Only real drawback, does not covers Seafires, and maybe not the Spiteful/Seafang, book in box and not easily accessible.

cheers

T

[venomvixen]

This is why I like Fireflies better than Spitfires.

[Procopius]

This is why I like Fireflies better than Spitfires.

Blasphemy!

[venomvixen]

Blasphemy!

You betcha!

[Mark]

Danni's right to a degree, I'd rather model a Mk.V Firefly than one of those pointy winged Mk.VI or VII Spitfires...