All The spitfire questions you want to ask here

[Edgar]

Item C is locking the rudder...?

Yes

Edited January 4, 2015 by Edgar

[Peter Roberts]

With regards elevators, as Edgar stated, the pilot typically pushed the control column forward to get out of what was a pretty cramped cockpit. The control column was typically left this way to help re-entry to the cockpit, especially if a scramble was possible ( eg BoB)

Photos of parked Spitfires show this is common (drooped elevators that is)

PR

Edited January 4, 2015 by Peter Roberts

[Sky Pilot]

Has anybody done a 1/48 conversion of a Spit Mk V to a Mk IX ? I would like to do a number of such conversions, showing the warts and all. I have not been able to find a kit dealing with any of the conversions.

Also, does anybody know if any of the converted or later production Mk Vs ever have the narrow bulge cannon wing fitted.

Any polite suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

John

[PhantomBigStu]

A question that has bugged me for a while, is there way of telling whether a particular spit is A or B pattern camo as I've seen frames I know was one type portrayed on a decal sheet as the other

[Steve in Ottawa]

Has anybody done a 1/48 conversion of a Spit Mk V to a Mk IX ? I would like to do a number of such conversions, showing the warts and all. I have not been able to find a kit dealing with any of the conversions.

Also, does anybody know if any of the converted or later production Mk Vs ever have the narrow bulge cannon wing fitted.

Any polite suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

John

I've got to ask - with all the 1/48 Mk.IX kits around, why on earth would you want to go to all that trouble?

[Troy Smith]

Has anybody done a 1/48 conversion of a Spit Mk V to a Mk IX ? I would like to do a number of such conversions, showing the warts and all. I have not been able to find a kit dealing with any of the conversions.

Also, does anybody know if any of the converted or later production Mk Vs ever have the narrow bulge cannon wing fitted.

Any polite suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

John

Hi John

Never been any need in 1/48th to do a V to IX conversion.

By 'warts and all' I assume you mean reference to the very early IX with modified upper cowling panels? Just modify a IX cowling.

a C wing cannon access hatch could be fitted with any panel that fits it, the bulges are in the panel. So, yes, the VC certainly had the narrow bulge fitted. There are plenty of photos of this. The wide bulge was to allow for 2x20mm cannons, which was very rarely fitted due to weight, so the narrow inner bulge became standard on the C wing in time.

I think you are being confused by the term 'Mk V to IX conversion'

This was not some modification, but basic airframes laid down as mk V's, or having been assigned as Mk V's in the production contracts then had the appropriate IX parts added on the production line.

So they were built in the factory as IX's, is my understanding.

Remember, the IX is essentially a VC airframe modified to take the Merlin 60 series engine. The airframe designed to take the Merlin 60's was the Mk VIII, but the need for the IX squeezed it out, even though the VIII was thought to be the best mk to fly according to one of the test pilots.

I'll refresh my memory on this later.

Has your copy of The Spitfire Story arrived yet?

EDIT - http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html

Early Mk. IX Cowlings

On a very few and very early Mk. IXs, the upper cowlings were adorned by a pair of rather ungainly bulges, not unlike those of Messerschmitt Bf109G-6. These were positioned on both sides of the cowling above and behind the exhausts.

The starboard bulge incorporated a cooling scoop for the Heywood compressor, different from the scoops seen on the “standard” later cowlings.

Judging by their occurrence, it would seem that these cowlings were part of the Mk.Vc-to-IX conversions performed at Rolls-Royce in 1942. It looks like the original short Mk.V cowls were stretched by adding about nine inches to their rear, leaving a noticeable joint line.

A fragment of a rather well-known photo showing Spitfires Mk. IX of No. 611 Squadron over London. Careful scrutiny reveals that the FY-R in the background has the earliest type of cowling with add-on bulges and is therefore one of the early converted Mk. Vs produced before production jigs for the longer Mk. IX cowling became available.

[Maxwell AFB archive]

These blisters were introduced to provide space for the enlarged supercharger unit of the two-stage Merlin. The enlarged blower took a lot of space behind the engine, the intercooler casing protruding above the line defined by the top contour of the engine. When Mk. V cowlings were used as basis for the new nose, more room was needed in the rear to accommodate the new item and so the makeshift bulges were “invented” as a temporary measure.

Another peculiarity of the “bulged” cowlings were the rather different panel division lines. Again, this feature originated in Mk. V cowlings being simply extended at the rear to make room for a longer engine.

One of the earliest Rolls-Royce(Hucknall) Mk.Vc-to-IX conversion with cowlings removed.

[Olav Hungnes coll.]

From the above photo of a Rolls-Royce (Hucknall) Mk.Vc to Mk. IX conversion, the additional cowling support frame is evident (1). Also visible is the intercooler unit (2) introduced with the two-speed two-stage supercharged Merlin 61 engine. Recognizable is also the associated bulkhead-mounted glycol header tank (3).

The new continuous lower cowling panel (4) replaced the exposed oil tank of the Mk.V. Finally, note the kinked panel line resulting from the adaptation of the original Mk.V cowling to the longer Mk.IX nose (5).

The earliest Spitfires Mk. IX emerging from the Supermarine Eastleigh production line during the same period as Rolls-Royce produced their conversions also seem to have had an interim cowling configuration. There were no extra blisters, but the various small bumps of the Mk.V cowl seemed to have been retained instead. I’d be grateful if anybody could provide more information on the cowling configuration of these early Mk.IXs.

But from a modelling point of view, you need to change a few panel lines and add bulges to IX, not try to convert a V by entending it, remember you would still need to change the underwing oil cooler.

A question that has bugged me for a while, is there way of telling whether a particular spit is A or B pattern camo as I've seen frames I know was one type portrayed on a decal sheet as the other

I assume you mean without a photo? Accurately, no.

the alternating A/B pattern was dropped in 1941 IIRC, there is a thread on it here somewhere. It was supposed to be done o odd/even serials, but there are variations.

Decal sheets are in the same area as profiles, which is 'don't trust without a photo'

[Edgar]

A question that has bugged me for a while, is there way of telling whether a particular spit is A or B pattern camo as I've seen frames I know was one type portrayed on a decal sheet as the other

According to Ted Hooton, "Scale Aircraft Modelling" November 1982 (it's really worth getting a copy for the rest of the information) it was even-numbered serials "A" scheme, odd "B," except for:-

K9787-9882, K9888-9891, N3160-3203, N3264-3295, P9557-9565, R6751-6780, R6799-6800, R6804-6818, R6829-6840, R6879- possibly 6880, but certainly R6904

which were A odd/ B even.

Castle Bromwich A even/B odd: P7350-7389, 7490-7509, 7590-7629, 7730-7759; A odd/B even: P7280-7329, 7420-7449, 7520-7569, 7660-7699, 7770-7789.

Supermarine deleted the mirror type scheme from 26-4-41.

[Sky Pilot]

Troy

Yet again thanks for your comments which confirm and clarify much of my understanding.

The reason for me considering the V to IX conversion was to produce an example of an F IX with wide wing bulges which I had spotted in the photo reproduced above. I'm not yet sure if there is a wide bulge wing compatible with the Eduard F IX kit. Neither am I sure if there is an aftermarket set for the wide bulges which would enable me to achieve the desired effect. I do, of course, intend to build the "proper" F IX and others.

It has just occurred to me that, regarding your "understanding" above, might it not be that the IXs shown in the photo above were conversions of existing Vs, hence the appearance of the wide wing bulges. I have also seen a photo, I can't remember where, showing a IX with wide wing bulges parked in a blast area.

And yes I have received my copy of The Spitfire Story - a right good read it is too.

PhantomBigStu

I can confirm what Troy says regarding the A an B patterns. The choice did become a bit arbitrary although I believe that, for production purposes the A pattern did become pretty much the norm. But remember DTWAP.

John

Edited January 6, 2015 by Sky Pilot

[Tbolt]

Troy

Yet again thanks for your comments which confirm and clarify much of my understanding.

The reason for me considering the V to IX conversion was to produce an example of an F IX with wide wing bulges which I had spotted in the photo reproduced above. I'm not yet sure if there is a wide bulge wing compatible with the Eduard F IX kit. Neither am I sure if there is an aftermarket set for the wide bulges which would enable me to achieve the desired effect. I do, of course, intend to build the "proper" F IX and others.

It has just occurred to me that, regarding your "understanding" above, might it not be that the IXs shown in the photo above were conversions of existing Vs, hence the appearance of the wide wing bulges. I have also seen a photo, I can't remember where, showing a IX with wide wing bulges parked in a blast area.

And yes I have received my copy of The Spitfire Story - a right good read it is too.

PhantomBigStu

I can confirm what Troy says regarding the A an B patterns. The choice did become a bit arbitrary although I believe that, for production purposes the A pattern did become pretty much the norm. But remember DTWAP.

John

I'm slightly confused by what you are trying to achieve by converting a Mk.V to a Mk.IX as the Eduard IXc "early version" has the wing in with the wide cannon bugles and would surely be the best kit to use for a converted Mk.V airframe.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Tbolt

[Edgar]

Eduard do have wide bulges in at least one version of their IX, and John Adams (Aeroclub) does (did?) a set of IX improvement parts, V230, which includes two rudders and three sets of bulged covers.

[Graham Boak]

As said above, there were a lot of Mk.IXs built with the broad bulges: the first JEJ is an example, I believe, as were the aircraft of the Polish Fighting Team in North Africa. The mod for the narrow bulges only came in long after the first conversions. These were partly done by Supermarine and partly by Rolls Royce, and were done on aircraft built as Mk.Vs, as opposed to those reallocated from Mk.V to Mk.IX before manufacture. Hence the differences from each other and the standardised F Mk.IX.

I would agree that working backwards from a Mk.IX kit would be a better route. See if you can track down a copy of "Voytek" (Wojtec Matusiak)'s article on the early Mk.IXs from, IIRC, Air Enthusiast. This is the best single source for these machines and covers details not readily (if at all) picked out of the details In "Spitfire The History".

[gingerbob]

Just to clarify a bit, the "conversions" were not completed Mk.Vs, they were airframes sent to Rolls Royce Hucknall for completion. There were two batches, according to Supermarine, and the first batch included Mk.V cowling panels, which RR adapted to do the job, thus the warts and all. The second batch had proper Mk.IX cowling panels.

I assume that the reason for this was that A: Hucknall had the capability and wanted work, and B: Supermarine had a "choke point" in the final assembly sheds or some such aspect of production. I don't, however, really know what the thinking & negotiations were behind this. Hucknall continued to do some Spitfire IX conversions into 1943, including some airframes ex Castle Bromwich. At one time Hucknall (or RR) had hoped that as the Spit IX programme wound down they'd be able to re-engine Mustang Is, but that idea went a somewhat different direction!

bob

[Navy Bird]

As said above, there were a lot of Mk.IXs built with the broad bulges: the first JEJ is an example, I believe, as were the aircraft of the Polish Fighting Team in North Africa.

The first JEJ - would that be EN398?

Cheers,

Bill

[Sky Pilot]

Gentlemen - and any ladies who might read this - many thanks.

My problem - up to now - has been my inability to see the wood for the trees. Acting on the advice offered I shall follow the Eduard IXc path which seems to be the most practical one. I have not been able to source the Aeroclub conversion set, and the Ultracast set, apart from it being "specified" for Hasegawa and Tamiya kits, would be rather expensive. Actually I do recollect having seen the Eduard IXc sprues earlier it just didn't click

Might I say how impressed I am and grateful for the involvement and courtesy of the members of the forum.

John

[Sky Pilot]

Your advice please.

Did Eduard ever release a Profipack version of the Spitfire IXe - Late ?

John

[Troy Smith]

Your advice please.

Did Eduard ever release a Profipack version of the Spitfire IXe - Late ?

John

Hi John

yes

http://www.eduard.com/store/Eduard/Spitfire-Mk-IXe-1-48.html?cur=1&listtype=search&searchparam=spitfire%20ixe

[Sky Pilot]

Hey Troy

I already knew about the ProfiPack kit (8283) but, based on Brett Greens review, took it to be the Early version.

In the Summary : Conclusion part of the review the following appears

"Eduard releases the early version Spitfire Mk.IXe as a standalone kit, and it delivers all the fantastic attributes of its late and early Mk. IXc predecessors - accurate dimensions, impressive detail, and useful options."

Similar statements appear in several places later in the review.

Actually I did notice, that at the bottom of the engine cowling, the air intake looked to me like the later (forward) style.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

John

[Graham Boak]

This is casual use of the term "early", applying specifically to the Mk.IXe and presumably only means the standard canopy not the teardrop. The aircraft shown has all the features of a late production Mk.IX, as indeed would all e wing aircraft. The narrow blister is further outboard than is the case for a Mk.IX with the c wing.

[Troy Smith]

Hey Troy

I already knew about the ProfiPack kit (8283) but, based on Brett Greens review, took it to be the Early version.

In the Summary : Conclusion part of the review the following appears

"Eduard releases the early version Spitfire Mk.IXe as a standalone kit, and it delivers all the fantastic attributes of its late and early Mk. IXc predecessors - accurate dimensions, impressive detail, and useful options."

Similar statements appear in several places later in the review.

Actually I did notice, that at the bottom of the engine cowling, the air intake looked to me like the later (forward) style.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

John

HI John

AFAIK, the only difference parts between any of the Eduard IX kits is the wing sprue, which has 3 types, IXc with wide bulges, IXc with narrow bulges, IXe, the only difference I think is the gun bay bulges.

The rest of the sprues are common, leaving some useful spares for other kits, eg the ICM IX

While the use of specific wing sprues means not having gun panel lines to fill, it also means you have to pick your boxing for what the end use wing will be or do some surgery.

Other IX kits have separate panels for this, which is why Aeroclub used to do a wing gun panels blister set, and Ultracast and others still do, as the ICM cannon bulges are a bit small.

If you do end up with the Eduard IXe boxing above there are some of the decals I'd like if they are spare

[Sky Pilot]

I now suspect that I, yet again, have been at the wrong end of the stick - Mk IXe wise.

Would it be correct to assume that the euphemisms "early" and "late" apply, respectively, to a/c fitted with the standard canopy and the teardrop canopy ?

[Doug Rogers]

I suspect that as with a lot of things Spitfire related, the answer is not necessarily. Others will know more though.

[Troy Smith]

I now suspect that I, yet again, have been at the wrong end of the stick - Mk IXe wise.

Would it be correct to assume that the euphemisms "early" and "late" apply, respectively, to a/c fitted with the standard canopy and the teardrop canopy ?

Hi John

I don't think the term 'early' and 'late' are easily applied to the IXe,or are in fact useful. This I'd say applies to any IX really.

the only really 'early' IXe are the field conversions done in the summer of 1944, rather or would be applied to standard or low back IX or XVI.

Similar situations exist with other British types, eg the Lancaster and Typhoon, where there are a series of continual modifications introduced durig the service life without the type gaining a new Mk number, the Typhoon is a particularly complex for this!

I'd advise not worrying about the term, In many ways, it's easier to work back, find a subject of interest, then focus on the details of what actual aircraft you wish to model , try pin down that airframes specifics, or as best you can, as unless you have photos showing those, then you are into the, realms of a 'best guess' based on date and serial and other similar airframes.

It's also worth knowing what can be built from what kit, in the case of the Eduard Spitfire IX, the only 'limiting factor' to airframe is the type of wing supplied.

cheers

T

[Sky Pilot]

Troy

I am currently planning a number of builds - all Spitfires.

For starters

a) A Mk Ib (from a Mk V) probably Airfix - control surfaces could cause a problem - what are they like on the ICM kits

A Mk IIb (from a Mk V) probably Airfix - control surfaces again ?

c) An F IX - probably an Eduard IXc

d) Another F IX - probably an Eduard IXe

Not necessarily in that order. So yes there will be some spare decals. Either from the kits or aftermarket sets. I'll keep you in mind. Why were you whistling at me - cheeky !

Er' indoors will go spare I know but I always remind her - It keeps me off the streets.

John

Edited January 8, 2015 by Sky Pilot

[Troy Smith]

Troy

I am currently planning a number of builds - all Spitfires.

For starters

a) A Mk Ib (from a Mk V) probably Airfix - control surfaces could cause a problem - what are they like on the ICM kits

A Mk IIb (from a Mk V) probably Airfix - control surfaces again ?

c) An F IX - probably an Eduard IXc

d) Another F IX - probably an Eduard IXe

Not necessarily in that order. So yes there will be some spare decals. Either from the kits or aftermarket sets. I'll keep you in mind. Why were you whistling at me - cheeky !

Er' indoors will go spare I know but I always remind her - It keeps me off the streets.

John

the whistle was 'innocent - not me guv' type....

Er indoors would go spare if she saw my Spitfire stash then. But, as you rightly point out, it's a quiet stay at home and actually pretty cheap hobby.

Regarding question, the ICM ailerons are metal. The other surfaces look decent, and have bother types.

The Eduard IX are very impressive, I'm less taken by the rivets personally, at the least they should not be on the leading edge 'D' sections at all, this as thicker gauge metal, and they rivets were filled and rubbed down, and are essentially invisible 1:1, as this area was found to be crucial for speed.

I have a stack of the ICM kit I picked before the Eduard came out, and they match other kits better for cross kitting variants.

That to me is the big drawback to the Eduard kit, though if they have any sense they will do a XIV kit

For the IB and IIB, I'd start with the new Airfix VB, and add new ailerons and oil cooler, you may just want to wait for the new Mk I kit, and then ask Airfix spares for some fabric Ailerons.

You big problem will be finding documented markings, as photos are rare, the IB can be done as the 92 Sq plane shown in The Spitfire Story, I can only think of a couple of shots of the IIB though, in Spitfire - The History, and IIRC only one in squadron markings.

I don't think there have been aftermarket options done for these either.

Even generic sheets of RAF codes are of only limited use. - http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/2/p/137680/1433121.aspx#1433121

Regarding fabric vs metal ailerons, the only IX kit with fabric ailerons is the Otaki (then reboxed by Arii/Matchbox/Airfix and AMT in the US) VIII, which is in fact basically an early IXc, it's old, lacks the gull wing (though Aeroclub made and insert) and cockpit detail, and has incorrect fabric ailerons, but otherwise is very nicely shaped and has quite amazing fine recessed detail considering it was tooled in the mid 1970's!

I got one of these cheap via the sale pages and was very impressed.

Sprue shots here

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/amt/kit_amt_8881.shtml

HTH

T

[Work In Progress]

All agreed except don't forget that if you want to build it as a IX rather than a VIII you have to revert to the fixed tailwheel (not hard) and in most cases of the early IX, will also need to find an original shape rudder from somewhere, or modify the kit one.

the Otaki (then reboxed by Arii/Matchbox/Airfix and AMT in the US) VIII, which is in fact basically an early IXc, it's old, lacks the gull wing (though Aeroclub made and insert) and cockpit detail, and has incorrect fabric ailerons, but otherwise is very nicely shaped and has quite amazing fine recessed detail considering it was tooled in the mid 1970's!