All The spitfire questions you want to ask here

[mungo1974]

Going from the link

Built as armed MkIa

Converted to PR.IV 05/41 Merlin 45 & PR wings fitted

Circa 09/41 Converted back to Fighter Va gun wings fitted.

Later converted to PR VIIG Armed PR variant

Landing accident sent to 47 MU,Guns removed(this is were i get confused,did it keep it Va wings or not)

02/43 sent to Canada

[Graham Boak]

The gun wing was removed, replaced by a bowser wing, then later the bowser wing was removed and a gun wing replaced. Unless they also took the cameras out in 9/41 then it became a Type G/Mk.VII then. It is difficult to understand why they would actually want to convert it back to a pure fighter variant that was no longer welcomed anyway, though I agree that's what the published record (in Spitfire The History) actually says. I suspect it is corrupt.

The designation is either PR Type G or PR Mk.VII. It means the same thing, much as the PR Type D became the PR Mk.IV, just a change in the way of referring to it.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Graham Boak

[mungo1974]

These early PR variants confuse the hell out of me.....but i fancy a early NMF Spitfire in my collection

[Edgar]

That airframe has certainly been "got at." As a low-level "dicer," it might have been pink, but it appears to have been stripped of paint, and the rudder painted silver. (There is recorded a 1943 delivery of a Lancaster "5727," which had been stripped of paint, to America, so there is a precedent.)

The hole for the 1940 "formation light" is still visible in the tank cover, so it might not have the deflection armour fitted, there is a covered-over camera port faintly visible in the radio hatch, there are decidedly non-standard radio aerials fitted to the fin, not the rudder, the roundel and fin flash are not P.R. style, and it has the Mk.V style of oil cooler. I'm guessing that the photos were taken in Canada, since nobody is carrying a gas mask.

[gingerbob]

I think it most likely that the "PR.IV" is a red herring (obviously prior to the bare metal period ) - we aren't the only ones confused by the early PR conversions, the record cards show ample evidence of that! In other words, I doubt it ever had a bowser wing.

bob

[Iain Wyllie]

I see that the spinner has red and blue bands, too.

[Yankymodeler]

To start yet another topic in this thread; does anyone have information or drawings on how high the back seat was raised in the TR 9 versions? As I understand the front pit was moved forward 13.5"

Eric aka The Yankymodeler

[Work In Progress]

I'm guessing that the photos were taken in Canada, since nobody is carrying a gas mask.

Toronto, August 1946 according to the linked article

[Paul J]

A new Spitfire q from me. I have just completed paintwork on an AZ kit from the Joy Pack set. Its completed in late war 2nd TAF scheme but no serial or unit markings as yet. Reason is what mark am I doing? It has pointed rudder, clipped wings, narrow cannon blisters with cannon to outside position and .50s inside. I feel it can be a IXe or XVIe., but need expert guidance please!

[Graham Boak]

It could be either from that description. You don't even mention fastback or teardrop canopy - not that this would clarify things completely, but teardrop Mk.IXe would be pretty rare in 2TAF. Tell us the serial we'll tell you the mark.

[Work In Progress]

I think Paul needs to go the other way around, Graham. He has built a kit supplied with no decals and needs to find an identity that will fit with the features of the model he's built.

As it is from the Joy Pack it is a high back like this

http://www.azmodel.cz/product_info.php?products_id=635

[Graham Boak]

OK, but my answer still stands, that it can be either. It depends what he wants... Go looking in the decal sheets until something looks good.

[Paul J]

Cheers. It is a standard high backed fuselage. But I'll have a rummage in my Thomas/Shores 2ndTAF volumes to see what I can come up with re markings. But thanks regardless. And a good rummage in my generic decals for codes and serials!

By the way I always thought the description 'fastback' and 'teardrop' were one and the same??!!

[Graham Boak]

The teardrop canopy with the lower rear fuselage is draggier than the fully faired "highback", because of flow separation from the rear of the canopy, so the term "fastback" is used for the earlier version. I don't think that either term was contemporary, and are both American in origin. When I was younger we referred to the later one as the bubble canopy, but apparently this was also used for the bulged version of the standard canopy so has rather fallen out of use. I think (must check in STH) that RV was used at the time, standing for Rear Vision?

[johnd]

STH uses the terms 'reduced area rear fuselage' (p.279 in my copy) and 'rear view fuselage' (p.328) It also refers to the 'tear drop' canopy.

John.

[Edgar]

"RV" was Vickers/Supermarine's preferred terminology for the "low-back" "bubble canopy" or whatever you prefer..

[Paul J]

Found some late war 2TAF Spit units to choose from that will suit my 1/72nd clipped wing XVI! By the way photo evdence in the excellent 2 TAF books, in particular volume 3 pages 503 504, the photo spread shows 5 differant units operating the bubble top low back Spit XVI. French marked ones,74 sqauadron(4D code), 421 and 443 RCAF squadrons, 308 Polish squadron. These are but a few of the units operatimg them in numbers in the final few months of WW2 it seems. So they weren't that rare a type in combat use! Some of the units had both the standard high backs alongside the bubble tops too!

[gingerbob]

The RV ('rear view') XVI didn't come into service until something like March '45, so while there may have been a number of them, they certainly weren't in service for long before VE Day. (The high back XVI entered service in Nov '44, with a handful arriving in late October.)

bob

[Paul J]

something like March '45, so while there may have been a number of them, they certainly weren't in service for long before VE Day.

Thats the period mentioned in the book. But I'm not concerned with how many, when etc . I intended to do my model as very late WW2 and the period chosen fits with my chosen scheme. C1 roundels on tops of wings, no rear fuselage band, black spinner, standard camo pattern. I'll do pics when I've finished with the subtle weathering etc. .

[VoyTech]

units operatimg them in numbers in the final few months of WW2 it seems. So they weren't that rare a type in combat use! Some of the units had both the standard high backs alongside the bubble tops too!

Well, "in numbers"... One is also a number! The last sentence should rather read "Some of the units that had the standard high backs also got a few bubble tops, too." As an example, of the units you mentioned, 308 Sqn got two low-backs by the end of the war. 302 Sqn also got two, nominally, but both were used by the wing HQ. I can't think of any 2TAF unit that converted entirely to low-back Mk XVIs.

[Paul J]

Fair and inieresting comments Voytech., but the low back 16 is not one of concern for me at the moment as its not one I have been making. I'm quite content with the highback one I have just about finished. Annoying thing is the markings I chose to do mine in is available on the Sword kit. But no worries as I used some of my surplus generic decals and created the appropriate serial and codes from those sets. More fun that way!

[Steve in Ottawa]

Depending on your level of gnit-picking on the differences between a IXe and a XVI, there are two small items you may want to consider for the Mk.XVI:

• there is a position change (moved forward and inward) in the round access panel on top of the cowling, and
• there is one new panel line on top of the cowling that runs from side to side, just ahead of the front exhaust pipe.

There was a nice line illustration of this in a British magazine some years ago, but I can't remember which one or be certain of the author's name. As I said, these are pretty small items which won't hit some people's threshold of need for changing them.

[Edgar]

It was Vasko Barbic, and the change of position for the filler cap was what caused the bulge in the upper cowling of the IX (and XVI, since it was a common item, but not on the VIII) from July/August 1944:-

[Paul J]

I'll check, but the AZ kit has that extra line at the forward end. Not sure about the filler cap though. As mine is 1/72 and I'm not a micrometer modeller I can live without it.

[Paul J]

Just checked my 1/72 Az build of this Spit and it does have the correctly positioned 'filler' point as per righthand diagram above! Meanwhile in RFI I am posting images of my Spitfire builds done over the last couple weeks.