Jump to content

New Revell 1/32 Spitfire


grayh

Recommended Posts

[Edit: As usual someone slipped another comment in while I was writing this one.]

Can you show us any examples of wartime Mk.I/IIs with this type oil cooler? Or any of the evidence you referred to? I'd be very interested to find out more about refits (or installations during production).

I can't make any judgements about the Revell fuselage yet, since I don't have the kit (waiting... :tumble: ) . Sure, I can look at photos on line, but I don't feel confident making any pronouncements until I've seen it for myself. Do you know what the width is supposed to be where you are measuring?

bob

SMkIIA_zpse01de3eb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys - I'm going to add a point of moderation here. KingK_Series. I'm aware of your issues with LSP, and I'd ask you and others not to bring them up in here, as they're irrelevant for our purposes. We take polite and respectful discussion very seriously here at Britmodeller, and people that wander from that path usually find themselves out in the cold making noises like you just made in post #124, almost verbatim actually. :hmmm: Please don't bring that kind of nonsense here...

And to others, please don't goad people into getting themselves into trouble - most people are quite capable of doing that themselves without your help. It's not very mature to try and help them along. :fraidnot:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon fixing the air cooler will not be too much trouble for any half decent modeller with a bit of tubing and some filler. Will still save me a lot of money over a Tamiya- in fact I could buy 4 of them. A deffo for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why were the Wing stiffeners removed on the port wing but not the starboard wing on AR213 Edgar?

Because she didn't have them, having had just one wing replaced, due to damage, while retaining one original.

Have you accepted that those stiffeners were a field mod yet ? - I have now loads of pics of MkIIs and MkVs on the production line with no stiffeners, and very very few wartime pics of aircraft at Squadron with them, including MkIIs and MkVs.

Can't accept what isn't true; it was a factory and a field mod, which went onto factory-produced airframes from 16-7-42, and was issued as a leaflet, permitting the work to be done anyone qualified, from the same date.

Copies of the relevant factory drawings are available from the RAF Museum's library, and copies of the relevant mod leaflet can be viewed (and copied) in the National Archives.

As the strakes were only for the Va & Vb, production of which was largely over by the end of 1942, lack of production photos is hardly surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the photo on p. 107 in Spitfire - the history but not in the PSL book, Classic Aircraft No.1. Mine was a first edition published in 1971. Was there a second edition, or was it a different book?

Sorry, Iain, but a lot of my original library has gone, lent out and never returned, and I only have the first edition, too. I well remember how happy I was to think that I could build a V as a II. (That was before I did research worthy of the name, of course.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it that the mk III cooler was introduced onto the CB production line for all A and B wings in on April 11th 1941. -IE for all MKII and MkV Spitfires built after that point, production of the MkII ceased on 27th july 1941.

HOW do you have it? What is the source of this information, and what exactly does it say? Please understand that while I am skeptical (based on my own research and reasoning (the latter rather suspect)), I am also open-minded, and interested in establishing the truth. But since I have done a lot of work myself, I can't just accept someone's statement that this is so, when it goes against everything I've figured out (again, suspect!) thus far.

Incidentally, I looked at Wojtek Matusiak's "Polish Wings" book about Spit I/II, and aside from one photo that I eventually realized I'd mis-interpreted, I did not see any Mk.IIs in squadron service with the later type oil cooler. He did show one photo of a Spit in FAA service with it, however.

Sorry, I'm not at my usual "brain-station" right now, so I can't process other information until later! (I want to look up that last one you showed, and thanks for it.)

bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because she didn't have them, having had just one wing replaced, due to damage, while retaining one original.

Can't accept what isn't true; it was a factory and a field mod, which went onto factory-produced airframes from 16-7-42, and was issued as a leaflet, permitting the work to be done anyone qualified, from the same date.

Copies of the relevant factory drawings are available from the RAF Museum's library, and copies of the relevant mod leaflet can be viewed (and copied) in the National Archives.

As the strakes were only for the Va & Vb, production of which was largely over by the end of 1942, lack of production photos is hardly surprising.

AR213 does have stiffeners on the starboard wing , she does not have stiffeners on the port wing.

on LSP you claimed that was because she was fitted with a 'Mk V" port wing, which - because it had a MKIII oil cooler and stiffeners - was proof it was a "MkV" wing - ????

just to be clear - why does the port wing have no stiffeners? or were the stiffeners removed? when the starboard wing does have them?

Further it makes no sense to me that when a MkIa Spitfire lands at Tangmere in august 1940 and is found to have cracked wing skins over the wheel arches, causing a great deal of work to be done to institute revised internal production line wing stiffening as I have previously shown you photos of - and a field mod - plus everyone working on Spits I have ever spoken to from RAF Hendon to Airframes and Assemblies to the Shuttleworth crew have always said that it was a field mod - would they delay instituting that mod [the strakes] to late 1942 when the C wing was in full production?

makes no sense to me at all.

Further K9942 and R6195 both have A wings with early internal ribbing structure [ ie 1940 or early 1941 made wings] and strakes on the top surface of the wing.

Edited by KingK_series
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOW do you have it? What is the source of this information, and what exactly does it say? Please understand that while I am skeptical (based on my own research and reasoning (the latter rather suspect)), I am also open-minded, and interested in establishing the truth. But since I have done a lot of work myself, I can't just accept someone's statement that this is so, when it goes against everything I've figured out (again, suspect!) thus far.

Incidentally, I looked at Wojtek Matusiak's "Polish Wings" book about Spit I/II, and aside from one photo that I eventually realized I'd mis-interpreted, I did not see any Mk.IIs in squadron service with the later type oil cooler. He did show one photo of a Spit in FAA service with it, however.

Sorry, I'm not at my usual "brain-station" right now, so I can't process other information until later! (I want to look up that last one you showed, and thanks for it.)

bob

Shacklady

Nuffield Spitfire, list of mods for MkII Spitfire.

Additionally RAF Hendon records show MkXII Merlin engines over heating and requesting fitment of twin ganged cooler in early 1941.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it that the mk III cooler was introduced onto the CB production line for all A and B wings in on April 11th 1941. -IE for all MKII and MkV Spitfires built after that point, production of the MkII ceased on 27th july 1941.

So why were Fighter Command still asking for them to be fitted in May?:-

IIIoilcoolerwanted_zps0963f134.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shacklady

Nuffield Spitfire, list of mods for MkII Spitfire.

Additionally RAF Hendon records show MkXII Merlin engines over heating and requesting fitment of twin ganged cooler in early 1941.

"Spitfire the History" uses wrong dates for Spitfire modifications; in the Vickers ledger, there are dates under "Authority," which StH have interpreted as being authority to proceed, when they were nothing more than the dates of the Local Technical Committee's deliberations.

"Cleared," in the ledger, is the date for the modification to be incorporated into production schedules.

Edited by Edgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Spitfire the History" uses wrong dates for Spitfire modifications; in the Vickers ledger, there are dates under "Authority," which StH have used as being authority to proceed, when they were nothing more than the Local Technical committee's discussions.

"Cleared," in the ledger, is the date for the modification to be incorporated into production schedules.

that may be so

but if you have an engine over heating, - and the MkII's Merlin XII engine's clearly were, and I was a Fighter Command pilot, it's the last thing I'd want to have to think about - engines seizing in mid flight with 109s by the hoard trying to get onto my tail

plus Edgar, the MkV went into production in 1940 [being MkI orders and converted to MkVs on the line], and the first deliveries to squadrons was in march 1941 - so if all the ganged oil cooler was available for converted Mk1s for march 1941 delivery, why not on CB MkIIs that were being produced from the same lines?

- your claim doesn't make any sense - ?!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes She does!

AR213

No, she really does not. You can't use the present tense for a picture that is at least 12 years old.

What that picture shows is that at one point she did , some time between 1990 and March 2002, when in that paint scheme under Victor Gauntlett's ownership.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, she really does not. You can't use the present tense for a picture that is at least 12 years old.

What that picture shows is that at one point she did , some time between 1990 and March 2002, when in that paint scheme under Victor Gauntlett's ownership.

With all due respect ----

the older pic is therefore much more relevant to the point in question

Edited by KingK_series
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect ----

the older pic is therefore much more relevant to the discussion in hand

I hope you don't mind me saying... but it's very hard to follow what point you're making (and learn from what knowledge you obviously have for this aircraft) when it seems everything must be argued against, and in a rather confrontational tone. You're drowning out your own information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the older pic is therefore much more relevant to the point in question

Not when you're trying to claim that AR213 is in exactly the same configuration as she was when built in 1941, when she plainly isn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in the second picture she has six-pipe exhausts and what looks like a flat sided front screen . . .

Nick

Yes , a lot of non-original features there , which together with odd wings and a four bladed prop suggest an aircraft that's been rebuilt , possibly more than once.

Andrew

Edited by Andrew Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming back to the kit, I am still hoping for some actual evidence, whether documentary or (ideally) photographic which shows Revell to be correct in providing a late-type oil cooler for P7849, an aircraft delivered on 9 January 1941 to 12 M.U., and depicted in the kit colour scheme and decals as in service in June 1941 with 19 Squadron.

Pics of Mark I and II aircraft taken in 1942 or later do not help, given the retrofitting that is known to have taken place.




			
		
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when you're trying to claim that AR213 is in exactly the same configuration as she was when built in 1941, when she plainly isn't.

ok so lets try to make this simple

Your pic of AR213 is a recent pic taken after a great deal of restoration.

my question to you is -

you claimed on LSP that AR213 had a 'MKV' port wing with twin ganged cooler and strakes, and that both strakes and twin cooler proved that therefore the port wing was as you put it a 'MkV' wing

My point is that strakes and or twin oil cooler prove no such thing, and further there is no such thing as a Mk V wing, therefore I was trying to ask you to explain why you said that - especially when in the earlier state of the aircraft - the strakes were on the starboard wing.

Edgar, I just couldn't follow your argument - and it seems sometimes that you follow paperwork without actually looking at the aircraft or the engineering

Now I return to the important question which you have not responded to ;-

Further it makes no sense to me that when a MkIa Spitfire lands at Tangmere in august 1940 and is found to have cracked wing skins over the wheel arches, causing a great deal of work to be done to institute revised internal production line wing stiffening as I have previously shown you photos of - and a field mod [the strakes] - plus everyone working on Spits I have ever spoken to from RAF Hendon to Airframes and Assemblies to the Shuttleworth crew have always said that it was a field mod - would they delay instituting that mod [the strakes] to late 1942 when the C wing was in full production?

makes no sense to me at all.

Further K9942 and R6195 both have A wings with early internal ribbing structure [ ie 1940 or early 1941 made wings] and strakes on the top surface of the wing.

And

Edgar, on 07 Jul 2014 - 5:30 PM, said:snapback.png

"Spitfire the History" uses wrong dates for Spitfire modifications; in the Vickers ledger, there are dates under "Authority," which StH have used as being authority to proceed, when they were nothing more than the Local Technical committee's discussions.

"Cleared," in the ledger, is the date for the modification to be incorporated into production schedules.

that may be so

but if you have an engine over heating, - and the MkII's Merlin XII engine's clearly were, and I was a Fighter Command pilot, it's the last thing I'd want to have to think about - engines seizing in mid flight with 109s by the hoard trying to get onto my tail

plus Edgar, the MkV went into production in 1940 [being MkI orders and converted to MkVs on the line], and the first deliveries to squadrons was in march 1941 - so if all the ganged oil cooler was available for converted Mk1s for march 1941 delivery, why not on CB MkIIs that were being produced from the same lines?

- your claim doesn't make any sense - ?!!!!

Edited by KingK_series
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm losing th e w i l l . . .

What are you trying to say?

- as far as the kit is concerned, for those people who want to build a Battle Of Britain MkI or 611 Squadron MkII, you need to make an early single oil cooler fairing, for those who want to build a may 1941 - July built MkII , I say the Revell kit oil cooler is correct, others will clearly not be persuaded - the issue is more between Edgar and myself and our different approaches to research.

However the oil cooler issue is very very minor

ditto rivets

ditto elevator/rudder/aileron surface detail

either way the above are very minor issues, the cooler is a detail, very very easily scratch built - what is far far far more of an issue as far as the kit is concerned, - is the fuselage shape, mid fuselage too wide, the nose above the exhausts is much too narrow and doesn't have the right shape as it narrows to the spinner, there are flats on the underside of the leading wing edge at the wing root, and there are three distinct planes in the fuel tank armour which are not correct, all of which make this kit look wrong in profoundly more significant ways than the prop or the oil cooler, etc etc etc etc.

these are the issues I have been trying to raise - the oil cooler is a total distraction -

Edited by KingK_series
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...