All The spitfire questions you want to ask here

[Potato Pete]

Another Sutton harness question - does the right hand thigh harness go through the slot in the side of the seat, or should it drape over the lip of the seat?

Cheers

Pete

[Edgar]

Another Sutton harness question - does the right hand thigh harness go through the slot in the side of the seat,

Yes, or it did, until late in the war (1944/5,) when they strengthened the seat, and moved the thigh straps back to the corners, to enable the thigh straps to become hip straps, because pilots were being lifted out of the seat, by negative G, and hitting the canopy.

We believe the initial position was to stop any possibility of the right thigh strap going over the seat raising/lowering handle and jamming it.

Edgar

[Adam Maas]

If it had been named Shrew, we would now believe that Shrew was a great name for a great fighter. You can get used to anything - I remember thinking that Tomcat was a pretty feeble name for the F-14 (and I've kept lived with tomcats that saw off much larger dogs).

The Tomcat was a name Grumman had long wanted to use (it was the original name for the Tigercat, but was rejected by the Navy as too suggestive).

Oddly the F-14 would inherit an unofficial name from another Grumman design (the Avenger, both were known colloquially as the Turkey)

[Potato Pete]

Cheers Edgar, thanks for the quick reply

Pete

[ViggenFan]

Hello there all Spitfire buffs.

I want to build a bunch of different Spitfire Mk.I Mk.II Mk.Vb Mk.Vc and so Mk IX, XVI, XIX, and XXI type.

Airfix has errors that are different from old and new molds on their Mk.I Mk.Vb MkVc and there is better parts of old Mk1 and old MkV than the new ones where they added new faults.

The problem is that the new ones have been wrong as wingfillet is in line with the wing oh wing has weird shape and thickness, also wrong shape of aileron and flaps.

That leaves CMR in resin but there is no good Mk.V if you do not use later 4 bladed later Mks which was converted mkVs and replace the propeller with three bladed one. I know the jungle of wings bumps on them, and wise and propellers 2,3,4 bladed ROTOL, DeHaviland etc.

Is it that CMR is the basis for AZ Models models and are they a good option? They types seem to be just about the same between CMR and AZ.

Is Admiral and Sword same basic mold as the AZ one?

Complicated? Spitfire seems harder than the Mustang because there are more pitfalls.

I do not want Academy, Italeri, Tamiya, Revell, as these all have their major shape issues and only few Mks available.

Many say go for Airfix but really the fillet problem and rudder exagerated panel lines makes it a daunting task to rescribe them all to look about the same.

Also to correct the Airfix family there is alot of filling of wrong panel lines and thinning wings and also maybe kitbashing old and new mold and mks to make them acceptable.

Thank you for any answers.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Admiral are part of AZ so most likely the same kit. Sword are nothing to do with AZ, so the Sword kits are totally different from AZ.

thanks

Mike

[ViggenFan]

So how is the verdict on the AZ models spitfires generally, is it Worth it to get the resin CMR instead of theese injection molded some in shortrun quality? or would this be overkill and make no sence.

Edited July 14, 2014 by ViggenFan

[Greenshirt]

Having built both I feel they are about the same in terms of difficulty. Both require basic modeling skills, albeit slightly different due to the different media used.

Tim

[ViggenFan]

Good, so Az it is then or the CMR ones if I like the more flexibility and the extra different propellers wheelhubs complete wings and other parts that will be leftover when builing one type from a CMR kit.(some of them are very well filled with extras)

I just arrived in Prague so i go hunt for them tomorrow in Town.

Or I give Mikemx a nice big order of kits.

[Graham Boak]

or both.

[Greenshirt]

or both.

+1

[Tbolt]

OK another stupid question - I'm building a Mk.VIII which I believe had an entry into service date of 8th July 1944 and I'm not sure what downward ID the aircraft should have. I've read some posts from several years ago and to quote Edgar:

"746's full wording is "To delete red and green down-ward recognition lights on wings," and is listed for the VII & VIII; the "Cleared" date, together with "Drgs & P.M.S. issued," and "Included in Mk VII & VIII D.I.S." is 1.5.43 (don't forget U.K. dates are written in the reverse of those of the U.S.)
989's wording is "To introduce two additional downward identification lights (red & green)" and was cleared 7-12-44 (very late, which probably explains why photos are so rare) for the VIII & XIV only."

So do I take it that my aircraft would not of had any ID lights?

Edited July 17, 2014 by Tbolt

[gingerbob]

Probably it would have had one- those mods were deleting and adding two additional lights.

bob

[Edgar]

Note that the amber under-fuselage light was moved back aft of the radio compartment in the VIII & XIV; on the XVIII it was moved further back still, to make room for the cameras.

Edgar

[Tbolt]

OK but the first order removed the wing lights and the second order was after the aircraft I'm doing adding the two lights so it would of just had the single amber light further back in the fuselage?

Are there any pictures or drawings showing the light in this position?

Edited July 17, 2014 by Tbolt

[Edgar]

[gingerbob]

Must be a control-line model

[Tbolt]

Thanks Edgar, that's perfect. I guess that picture is something like a Mk.XIV due to the lack of the radio access panel on the left side.

[johnd]

As I understand it, de Havilland constant speed propellers were fitted to Mk,V Spitfires. Were these the same units that were fitted to to the Mk.I? More precisely, could I use the parts from a 1/72 Airfix Mk.I on a Mk.V?

Thanks,

John.

[Work In Progress]

Yes,quite a few examples of the Spitfire V had the de Havilland prop but others used two different types of Rotol prop. So you need to check the correct prop for the specific aircraft you want to model.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Work In Progress

[johnd]

Thanks,but was the dH propeller and spinner unit the same as that fitted to the Mk.I?

John.

[Work In Progress]

Visually, yes. The Mark I had a two-position dH prop at first and then they were all converted to constant-speed. But the two look the same from the outside. Some examples of the II use the same prop - they didn't all have the 'fat spinner' Rotol.

This is the one you want.

http://www.3d-kits.co.uk/online-shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=145

Edited July 20, 2014 by Work In Progress

[johnd]

For completeness, was this the same dH unit fitted to the early Hurricanes?

Thanks,

John.

[gingerbob]

Can't answer the Hurri question, but someone will shortly.

Thanks,but was the dH propeller and spinner unit the same as that fitted to the Mk.I?

On early Supermarine-built Mk.Vs, yes (and those 2-position props were converted to constant-speed by the addition of a governor- didn't have to change props). In late '41 or something like that (early '42?) the DH Hydromatic was introduced, which had a similar shaped spinner that may have been somewhat larger- I don't know for certain- Australian Vcs used it, for example. The blade on these was somewhat beefier than the Mk.I type DH prop.

bob

Edited July 21, 2014 by gingerbob

[Graham Boak]

Spitfire & Hurricane: same prop, different spinner. The Spitfire spinner was wider at the base so the Hurricane spinner appears longer and sharper.