Jump to content

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

warhawk

By warhawk
in Aircraft WWII

 Share

Recommended Posts

Caerbannog Very Obsessed Member

Caerbannog

Posted
Posted

Such a chart would be excellent.

I suppose the layout of the chart will be tricky to get all variations inside. I suppose it would be best to list the Marks horizontally with variations in an extra colum right next to the Mark and to highlight the difference in the variation.

It will probably be an almost endless project anyway so I think it will be best to keep posting updated charts here. I think it will be easier to make suggestions, additions or to point out mistakes when the latest version of the chart is shown. It will also help to structure this thread which will hopefully become quite long :-)

And maybe you should not limit it to RAF types but include all information you gather here - even on prototypes etc.

Rene

Link to comment
Share on other sites
warhawk Obsessed Member

warhawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Let's get this thread on its track...

I have started a huge revision of my chart, but first, I'd like to set one thing straight:

All Spits with the standard elliptical a/b/c/d/e wing had the same wingspan (not counting LF or HF) of 11.23m?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NPL Very Obsessed Member

NPL

Posted
Posted

If it was oriented towards modellers. I suppose that if I was to write a technical history of the plane, it would be super, but as a modeller, it is about what you can see. If you close the motor in, it is pretty the same what kind of motor we are talking about, as long as it does not have consequences for what you see. Then of course we have the superdetailer, and it marvelous what they can do also to small scales as 1/72.

So the basic thing for most modellers will be to have a complete (as complete as possible) catalogue of marks and variants.

Let's get this thread on its track...

I have started a huge revision of my chart, but first, I'd like to set one thing straight:

All Spits with the standard elliptical a/b/c/d/e wing had the same wingspan (not counting LF or HF) of 11.23m?

And as was said at the beginning of this story: You need better references than those which you mentioned. This is something about level of ambition, and what is practically possible. Living abroad as I assume is the case, you have no easy access to the documentation available in British archives, and ofter referred to especially by Edgar.

But good luck!

NPL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NPL Very Obsessed Member

NPL

Posted
Posted

Well, SOME of the documentation in the National Archives at Kew is accessible if you're overseas, but it can get pricey fast. (I speak from experience.)

In this age of digitalizing everything it should be possible one day to ask them to do it. They must have thought about it. Every decent library or archive is fastly digitalizing their Collections.

NPL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Procopius Blabber Mouth

Procopius

Posted
Posted

In this age of digitalizing everything it should be possible one day to ask them to do it. They must have thought about it. Every decent library or archive is fastly digitalizing their Collections.

They will PDF documents upon request, but there is a fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greenshirt Very Obsessed Member

Greenshirt

Posted
Posted

In this age of digitalizing everything it should be possible one day to ask them to do it. They must have thought about it. Every decent library or archive is fastly digitalizing their Collections.

True, but... My experience is the gov'ment will do the digitizing for free, but may take decades to complete the effort. And unless search/download is automatic (IOW, you do the searching and downloading) you still have to pay for their time to search, download and send.

Most folks I know that actually do research, spend the day and download/copy as much as they can. It ends up being the most efficient and cost effective method. Plus the added bonus of getting free assistance.

Some day I'll quit working, and then spend a day or many at the US National Archives, or USN Archives, or...

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
Fifer54 Very Obsessed Member

Fifer54

Posted
Posted

Just to put this into perspective, my 1973 edition of Bruce Robertson's 1960 book "Spitfire- the story of a famous fighter" includes a chart

of production variants of the Spitfire that lists 232 variants, and then 48 Seafire variations. We now know a lot more, so who knows what

that list would run to, if it was produced now, with the benefit of later knowledge . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Selwyn Very Obsessed Member

Selwyn

Posted
Posted

With all the vast variations on the build standards of spitfires, to me it would be more sensible if you format this as separate sheets for each mark of spitfire.

So you could document all the build variations of the Mk 1 on one sheet.

The second sheet would list all the variations of the Mk II etc etc.

It would probably easier to use and easier to compile in this format?

Selwyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
warhawk Obsessed Member

warhawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 12/21/2013 at 7:46 PM, Flankerman said:

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.

 

I had a re-think of this table, and decided to do just that!

I have revised it, and uploaded it to Google docs, so everyone interested can contribute

 

On 12/23/2013 at 5:06 PM, Nick Belbin said:

Then, of course, there are the T8 and T9. The Speed Spitfire. The myriad development versions of 'prototypes'.

Do you count 'unofficial' versions? Russian trainers, German test rigs . . .

Nick

 

I have decided to count only the basic, military, 'official' versions produced in Britain, + some notable test ones (Mk.III, Griffon Mk.IV)

So no "foreign-tinkered or one-offs".

For the trainers, I have Included the 'T' type wing to the options list, as I suppose it would not be the same as the fuel-laden 'D' type.

All other parameters should be the same as their respective "non-trainer" stock variants, if I'm not mistaken? 

 

On 7/28/2015 at 10:56 AM, Selwyn said:

With all the vast variations on the build standards of spitfires, to me it would be more sensible if you format this as separate sheets for each mark of spitfire.

So you could document all the build variations of the Mk 1 on one sheet.

The second sheet would list all the variations of the Mk II etc etc.

It would probably easier to use and easier to compile in this format?

Selwyn

 

Thank You for the suggestion, but I feel this would make the chart too hard for a quick overview.

I have compiled it to be as short as possible, but in one sheet, so any scale modeler can quickly see what types of Spitfire could be built from a certain kit, and what could not.

 

Please have a look at the first post for the new version, or click HERE

Edited by warhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham Boak Blabber Mouth

Graham Boak

Posted
Posted

Rudders, tyres, fins, tailplanes, elevators, ailerons, windscreen, sliding canopy, aft canopy, teardrop canopy, camera windows, armament, aerials, intakes, radiators, wing bulges, strakes, wingspan (Mk.III), nose (deepened) oil tank(s), bomb carriage, external tanks, rockets.  These are all missing from your options, but would be required knowledge for a modeller (depending on which variant he wished to make).  As for then determining which kit he might have and how that would relate - that's another matter given that some kits are basically a good representation of these parts and others aren't.  Good luck, but I really think that you've some way to go on a very complicated subject.

 

As I see it, the basic problem is that even if provided with a final (later?) version of this list, in the end a modeller will still need to know whether the Mk.Vc he wishes to make had which options of the possibilities.  Wide gun blister or narrow?  Early elevator or with the increased horn balance? Early or late rudder? (Ok, I think some Mk.Vc had the later rudder, but maybe not.)  Tropical filter or temperate?  Clipped or standard wings?  A list like this would not help unless linked to serial numbers - good luck with that - and even then not entirely reliable given subsequent modification from the initial production standard.  I don't really see that the stated aim is achievable with a chart such as you describe - and certainly not one that is easy to use in a simple format.

 

PS  You specifically mention the F. Mk.IV but fail to include it.  But then there was only one.  However you do include the only prototype, which had a different wing.  As did the first F.Mk.III (different again) but not the second.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
warhawk Obsessed Member

warhawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Thank You for very prompt answer and inputs.

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Rudders... fins, tailplanes, elevators, ailerons, windscreen, sliding canopy, aft canopy, teardrop canopy, camera windows, armament, aerials, intakes, radiators, wing bulges, strakes, wingspan (Mk.III), nose (deepened) oil tank(s), bomb carriage, external tanks, rockets.  These are all missing from your options, but would be required knowledge for a modeller (depending on which variant he wished to make).  As for then determining which kit he might have and how that would relate - that's another matter given that some kits are basically a good representation of these parts and others aren't.  Good luck, but I really think that you've some way to go on a very complicated subject.

 

I believe that :

  • Rudders/Fins/Elevators would require obtaining rights to some accurate drawings and putting them inside the document.
  • Ailerons/Windscreen/teardrop canopy I can add relatively quickly. What do You mean by sliding canopy?
  • Camera windows/aerials/Wing bulges are a bit too specific for this table. I could add a note below, that, e.g. C wing type had variations. 

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

some kits are basically a good representation of these parts and others aren't. 

 

I agree completely, However, this table assumes that a modeler has the kit of sufficient accuracy (or one that he is satisfied with). 

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

PS  You specifically mention the F. Mk.IV but fail to include it.  But then there was only one.  However you do include the only prototype, which had a different wing.  As did the first F.Mk.III (different again) but not the second.

 

maybe it is best to remove those and avoid confusion?

 

33 minutes ago, dnl42 said:

FWIW, I suggest you add a license to ensure this is used as you intend and contributors understand their rights and obligations. There are many choices, with the Creative Commons licenses being examples you may useful.

 

Shoud I include this as a note in the document if i proceed with one, or there are other ways of proceeding with this?

 

Also, I believe I have set it to "anyone can edit" already?

Edited by warhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dnl42 Completely Obsessed Member

dnl42

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, warhawk said:

Shoud I include this as a note in the document if i proceed with one, or there are other ways of proceeding with this?

Citing the license in the document is best. Many open source licenses, including the various CC licenses, can be cited by name (and version as appropriate).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Harrod Newbie

David Harrod

Posted
Posted

This looks like it will soon outgrow a spreadsheet and would suit putting into a database with a web frontend. You can then run any query you like on it. It also becomes scaleable, you can add any information you like such as individual aircraft serial numbers linked to the exact layout of that aircraft. Happy to help if you want to look into it further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
warhawk Obsessed Member

warhawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, David Harrod said:

This looks like it will soon outgrow a spreadsheet and would suit putting into a database with a web frontend. You can then run any query you like on it. It also becomes scaleable, you can add any information you like such as individual aircraft serial numbers linked to the exact layout of that aircraft. Happy to help if you want to look into it further. 

 

Thank You for the suggestion.

However, this transcends the scope of my of Spitfire interest, as well as HTML knowledge (none at all exactly). 

And someone's drawings would have to be used and licensed, which I am trying to avoid.

 

Also, after seeing that not a single green field was added to it by anyone else, my enthusiasm has started to dwindle a bit about the whole thing...

 

Regards,

Aleksandar

Edited by warhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...