Graham Boak Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) I don't think it was a complete fallacy - not for the first 100 at least. They were well into the final build stage as Mk.Vs before being chosen for conversion. For the later ones that may be a fair statement. What is true is that none of them were handed over to the RAF for service as Mk.Vs: I suspect that (after the development stage) any aircraft already fitted with an engine would not have been so chosen to become a Mk.IX, as that would have been wasteful. Edited January 24, 2015 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Hi all, please I would like to know what is the object visible in the rear part of the cockpit; this seems very common on early MkI Spitfire. Thank you Flavio Thank you Bob, but I suspect this device was not a voltage regulator. According to some sources "....on early Spitfire it was mounted low on the back of frame 11, directly behind the pilot's seat [thus not visible]. Starting in the N30xx series this was repositioned higher on frame 11, appearing low in the rear transparency, and from N32xx it was mounted more higher, directly behind the pilot's headrest". In addition on some Spitfires both devices are installed: Flavio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 wiki gives the length of mk 1 as 9.12 m when is that measured from? I would assume from the from without the spinner to the tail through the centre line of the fuselage. Am I correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) wiki gives the length of mk 1 as 9.12 m when is that measured from? I would assume from the from without the spinner to the tail through the centre line of the fuselage. Am I correct? Again in English? Lengths can be all sorts of definitions: the two most usual for aircraft being 1) the overall length from frontmost point to rearmost with the datum line parallel to the ground, On a Spitfire this would mean with the tail raised. 2) the same, but with the aeroplane at rest on the ground standing on whatever arrangement of wheels it has. Sometimes, e.g. on an aeroplane with no spinner, a big prop and a steep deck angle on the ground, 2) can vary marginally according to the position of the prop blades. You always include spinners unless you say you are not including them. On a late Mossie or a Hornet, for example, the spinners stick out a fair way in front of the tip of the nose of the fuselage. Edited January 24, 2015 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The Mk.I A.P. lists the length, with the spinner in place, as 29'11", which comes to 9.1186m., and seems close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 I am looking for pictures of the noses of Spitfires. Preferable originals in B & W. As some of you may know I have been working on paint masks. The from patterns on the nose are not uniform. I though that I had managed to draw a time line post Jan 1941 where things do look like they settle down. I already have the option on starboard side of the nose (if Patt, to use a "S" curve as seen on ZP-A. The top is giving me problems. Look at RN-N p7895 colour pic. It appears that the camo line was mostly diagonally straight, but I have seen B & W pics only one or 2 where the came runs from the spinner, back towards the windscreen and curves to the side. There is a photo in Spitfire - The History that show what I mean. I think it is caption `Spitfire 1940 - Jeffrey Quill' Thanks Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 There's really no need to get too hung up on the precise camouflage pattern(s.) They were issued as drawings on 1' squares superimposed over a scale drawing of the aircraft, and were meant solely as a guide. It's already known that Eastleigh and Castle Bromwich's patterns differed, especially on the nose, and it's possible, even likely, that Westland's was also at variance; spare parts, like wings, cowlings, elevators, etc., were supposed to be supplied unpainted, apart from primer, so matching the new with the old, in the event of a repair, was supposed to be simple. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Pilot Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Were any Spitfires from the Mk IXs onwards ever designated as "Tropicalised" ? If so, what were the distinguishing features. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Once the Aerovee filters came into use on all production there was no longer any need. Arguably some earlier aircraft would have qualified for such a designation, but none received the Vokes filter with its draggy chin fairing. Aboukir-type filters can be seen on some early Mk.IXs defending the Nile Delta, but these would have been a local fit. The other key features of Tropicalised Mk.Vs were a larger radiator, older radios, and a desert survival kit. Only the last would be required by the time Mk.IXs came into use overseas, and presumably wouldn't require a specific designation. Edited January 25, 2015 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve in Ottawa Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 There's really no need to get too hung up on the precise camouflage pattern(s.) They were issued as drawings on 1' squares superimposed over a scale drawing of the aircraft, and were meant solely as a guide. It's already known that Eastleigh and Castle Bromwich's patterns differed, especially on the nose, and it's possible, even likely, that Westland's was also at variance; spare parts, like wings, cowlings, elevators, etc., were supposed to be supplied unpainted, apart from primer, so matching the new with the old, in the event of a repair, was supposed to be simple. Interesting note about the spares being in primer, Edgar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 There's really no need to get too hung up on the precise camouflage pattern(s.) They were issued as drawings on 1' squares superimposed over a scale drawing of the aircraft, and were meant solely as a guide. It's already known that Eastleigh and Castle Bromwich's patterns differed, especially on the nose, and it's possible, even likely, that Westland's was also at variance; spare parts, like wings, cowlings, elevators, etc., were supposed to be supplied unpainted, apart from primer, so matching the new with the old, in the event of a repair, was supposed to be simple. Edgar, Once again you have returned my sanity Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Were any Spitfires from the Mk IXs onwards ever designated as "Tropicalised" ? If so, what were the distinguishing features. John There are 2 examples in Building Tamiya IX one a North African spitfire (polish) and another the Australian one with a slipper tank. Here is a great build article http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234952230-132-tamiya-spitfire-ix-81-sqn-tunisia-summer-1943/page-3 Edgar deals with this in part here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/52482-spitfire-carb-intakes/ as fore the Vokes and Abo filter here is another thread http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234908199-spitfire-xvi-help-needed/page-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Pilot Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Were any Spitfires from the Mk IXs onwards ever designated as "Tropicalised" ? If so, what were the distinguishing features. John OOPS !! Have I just started WWIII ? ---- "early" or "late" ? It's all VERRRRRY INTERESTING. Edited January 26, 2015 by Sky Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 OOPS !! Have I just started WWIII ? ---- "early" or "late" ? It's all VERRRRRY INTERESTING. Not at all - Thats what this thread is for. We share, we learn, we build better models Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 What war? Not even a disagreement - which do indeed tend to lead to greater understanding. You asked were any Mk.IXs "ever designated as "Tropical"". The answer is no. The links are mainly talking about the Mk.V's Vokes and Aboukir filters. The former was not used on the Mk.IX and the latter was, but in small numbers and without any redesignation. The Aerovee filter was sometimes referred to as a tropical filter (as indeed it was) in early trials, but after adoption it was fitted universally without any redesignation of the aircraft. It would be interesting to learn if any modifications were made to the first Mk.IXs sent out to North Africa, notably to the Polish Fighting Team, but there's nothing obvious in external shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoSheds Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 It isn't easy trying to second-guess somebody's meaning from what they've written. He could simply mean that the parts are only appropriate for the IXc, and a shorter type would be needed for a IXe(which you're not doing, so we can safely ignore that.) There is a second possibility, which also won't apply to your model; during trials of the E wing layout, it was found that the blast from the .5" Browning was causing the tapered fairing, on the 20mm cannon, to collapse against the barrel. A strengthening piece was eventually fitted inside the fairing, which gave it a slightly barrel shape, and this became standard on both C & E wing cannons. The report on the trials didn't happen until early February 1944, and the initial reaction was to do nothing until damage was reported by squadrons in the field, so it's doubtful if Johnson's would have had the modification. In the end I didn't need to trouble Mr Green, in looking around at general mk IX info and hundreds of photos, I have come to see that you were exactly correct in your reply - both the length and shape are appropriate to the IX 'C' in 1943. In fact the only photos I have seen from the time that show the more bulbous and shorter shroud are on an E wing*. Not that I ever doubted you BTW - an interesting resource on this early vs late question is here Roger *Now how long do you think it will take for someone to prove me wrong?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Purely for my own edification - does anyone agree that this is a shadow of the erk on the wing and not those dreadful wheel well that manufacturers insist on putting on early Spits. I mentioned it in another post and felt it not my place to press the issue but it was one one of our resident expert who set me right when I first joined the forum. If I recall it was when I was going my Airfix Va Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackG Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I see his shadow following the curve of the bulge? Another early spit, and looks to have that bulge, just behind the extended post indicating land gear is down. regards, Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 If you mean between the open gun bays, that's shadow. But there IS a subtle bump directly aft of the gear down indicator, as Jack said. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The universal wing fitted to the Mk.Vc went to a flat uppersurface, and a lower-sitting main undercarriage leg. So the earlier A and B wings had a bulge. I wouldn't like to be too definitive, but the photos look compatible with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lime Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The universal wing fitted to the Mk.Vc went to a flat uppersurface, and a lower-sitting main undercarriage leg. So the earlier A and B wings had a bulge. I wouldn't like to be too definitive, but the photos look compatible with that. So would it be safe to say that I need to revise my understanding of Spitfires and their foibles once again?! Should I now be thinking along the lines of small bulges for Mk.I/II and Va/Vb, with nothing on Vc's onwards until we get to the later Griffon marks? I've got a few early 1/72 Airfix Spits on the go just now and thought I'd managed to bottom out the details for the ones I'm doing (prop types, aerial pole, canopy, rear view mirror etc) but would welcome anything new to consider. Regards, Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev67 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Talking of Spitfires, as I know nothing about them, and have never made a model of one, but does anyone know what happened to the Spifires outside RAF Uxbridge and RAF Northolt, as I rememer them when I was young in the 70's and early 80's until they replaced them with replicas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Roberts Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) I believe the 'C' wing incorporated a different undercarriage geometry. The legs were racked slightly more forward. As Graham said, they (the legs) then sat slightly lower when retracted so the doors incorporate a bulge, or curve, to go around them. I believe post war there was a change in this arrangement, possibly due to different airfields/runways being used, hence the little upper wing bulge re-emerged, but too sure on that point. PR Graham, similar minds! you put up your post as I was editing mine - thank you for confirming my thoughts Edited January 27, 2015 by Peter Roberts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Bulges reappeared on the later Merlin variants at/around the end of the war as changes were made to the axles angles to suit operation from hard surface runways. The c wing also incorporated a stronger structure/skin above the wheelwell. Edited January 27, 2015 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Posted this in a VC conversion thread the C wing introduced a 2 degree [iirc] forward rake to UC geometry. VB VC Foward rake is obvious. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts