Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Ray_W]

9 minutes ago, fastterry said:

There is a diagram in the SAM publication of Merlin engined Spits, page 109 which shows clearly that the exhaust heat was only fed to the outer brownings. I'm sure the same diagram is in the Shacklady book too. A real annoying thing about all of this is that there are almost no clear photos of the rear of Spit radiators in the walkarounds and I suspect the heating pipes from the back of the radiator would have been removed during restorations anyway to improve cooling airflow. No guns to heat either of course.

TRF

Now it gets very interesting, what happened with the 'C' Wing? Same arrangement? 

[fastterry]

I suspect so as there is photo evidence of the pipe coming from the exhausts however why they were removed on some RAAF (and others) aircraft is unknown to me. It could be that a lot of the RAAF Mk V's were relegated to training with the arrival of the Mk VIII and maybe gunnery was practiced at an altitude which didn't affect the guns. The Spitfire saga continues. How long before we get to Volume 3?

TRF

[Ray_W]

4 minutes ago, fastterry said:

The Spitfire saga continues. How long before we get to Volume 3?

Why we love Spitfires. 

 

 

 

[Grissom]

Thanks, guys, for all your help.  I really appreciate it.

 

FYI, I'm modelling the 457 Squadron Mk Vc ZP-X flown by Bush Hamilton and Rex Watson - exactly the same aircraft you modelled recently, Ray_W.   (Very nice job, by the way!).   I will install two tubes in the radiator duct and route them through the sidewalls.   I don't have any reference photos of the duct and its plumbing so I will use a bit of artistic licence.  Wish me luck  

[fastterry]

Hey Grissom, if you check the LSP link in post 1448 you will see Thierry's manufacture of the pipes coming from the back of the radiator on his Mk 1. Mk V piping similar.

TRF

[Ray_W]

12 minutes ago, Grissom said:

Wish me luck

Keep hunting. You will find what you need. My thoughts are that the exhaust gun heating was a system addition - whether it just fed the MG's or was revised to include the Cannons with the universal wing I don't know. I still lean towards Cooper's assessment.

 

The challenge in the Vc is the universal wing and really how close this "C" wing was to what happened in the following marks. If they were designing a wing that now will have two radiators mounted, one under each wing, the ducting requirements would be different to a Mk V with a single radiator under one wing only that needed gun heating augmentation. Something that was not required with the two radiator set up.  If it was my design, I would provide a single duct to feed in and out depending on gun configuration requirements and try to accommodate the Mk V augmentation to feed into that duct. No doubt with associated design challenges. Also the Vc had changed to belt fed, what are the heating challenges associated with this? 

 

Ray

 

 

[Grissom]

Hi Ray_W,

 

Sorry Ray but it's been a long day and I'm not sure what you're saying.   Fastterry just referred me to this build on LSP:   https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/85370-the-antique-bob-revell-spitfire-mki/page/9/      In your opinion, is the builder making the ducting correctly?

[Ray_W]

6 minutes ago, Grissom said:

Hi Ray_W,

 

Sorry Ray but it's been a long day and I'm not sure what you're saying.   Fastterry just referred me to this build on LSP:   https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/85370-the-antique-bob-revell-spitfire-mki/page/9/      In your opinion, is the builder making the ducting correctly?

General comment, not referring to this build. 

[fastterry]

Just to keep the ball in the air I have some more info/thoughts. The exhaust gun heating system was obviously a pain in the groin in service, what I couldn't understand was why we had trouble (the RAAF) when the RAF didn't. The reality is the RAF had the same trouble but could fix the problems earlier because the revised bits were manufactured in England and could be fitted at local bases and MU's. The Vc universal wing is a curly one because the first ones were for Mk V's with one radiator and the rest for Mk VIII, IX and XVI aircraft with a radiator under each wing. The SAM book has a diagram on page 115 which shows the piping for the guns for the Mk IX & XVI (and presumably the VIII) which is pretty well symmetrical. These pipes fed both cannon bay and brownings as distinct from the earlier asymmetrical piping which finished at rib 8 on each side just outboard of the cannon bay (on the Vb). I can't find a diagram of the Mk Vc universal wing gun heating arrangement but I suspect it would have incorporated the pipe extension to the brownings as on the Mk IX wing. You can bet the loose and cracking exhaust heater pipes would have been removed for trainer Mk V's to reduce maintenance.

TRF

[Ray_W]

4 minutes ago, fastterry said:

You can bet the loose and cracking exhaust heater pipes would have been removed for trainer Mk V's to reduce maintenance.

I think the RAAF Vc's are nearly all combat aircraft.

 

1 hour ago, Grissom said:

457 Squadron Mk Vc ZP-X flown by Bush Hamilton and Rex Watson

Is shown with heater pipe into the cowling removed while at combat readiness without kill markings and later with kill markings.

[Dave Swindell]

From the MkV AP, VA's had gun heating from ducting behind the radiator only, VB's and VC's retained the ducting from the radiator to heat the cannon, and exhaust heating was introduced to heat the machine guns, ducted down the front of the firewall and out to the guns inside the D torsion box wing leading edge.

[Grissom]

Awesome, guys.   Thanks heaps, Ray, Terry and Dave.

[Graham Boak]

Fascinating comments, if not always consistent.  If the pipe from the exhausts was put to different use on the Spitfire than on other Merlin-engined aircraft, I'm sorry about apparently making a misleading assumption.  However the comment about air being taken down the leading edge doesn't explain the  bulge on the rear of the wing, which appears to have disappeared from aircraft at about the same time as the disappearance on the tube at the rear of  the exhausts.  Nor why the later aircraft didn't need such heating for the outer gun bays.

[Ray_W]

1 minute ago, Graham Boak said:

Fascinating comments, if not always consistent.  If the pipe from the exhausts was put to different use on the Spitfire than on other Merlin-engined aircraft, I'm sorry about apparently making a misleading assumption.  However the comment about air being taken down the leading edge doesn't explain the  bulge on the rear of the wing, which appears to have disappeared from aircraft at about the same time as the disappearance on the tube at the rear of  the exhausts.  Nor why the later aircraft didn't need such heating for the out gun bays.

Graham I agree. I feel there is still something missing in this discussion pertinent to the Mk Vc. Can you point us to a previous thread for the image or post one  of the rear wing bulge you refer to? 

[EwenS]

1 hour ago, Ray_W said:

I think the RAAF Vc's are nearly all combat aircraft.

 

Is shown with heater pipe into the cowling removed while at combat readiness without kill markings and later with kill markings.

After being replaced in front line units by Mk.VIII some (most?) of the RAAF Vc were relegated to training units for the rest of the war. So I could understand if difficult to maintain, non essential bits were removed.

 

[Ray_W]

37 minutes ago, EwenS said:

After being replaced in front line units by Mk.VIII some (most?) of the RAAF Vc were relegated to training units for the rest of the war. So I could understand if difficult to maintain, non essential bits were removed.

 

This may be the case but there are a number of images of 79 Squadron RAAF using the Mk Vc in 1944 based in the Admiralty Islands with gun exhaust fitted (some without). Also a similar story in the second half of 1943 based on other Papuan Islands some Mk Vc with and some without. I have not made a count but I do think the retention of the gun exhaust heating is in the majority of photos. A short list for the reasons with or without - improved reliability, change in usual mission height to something less than the Darwin high altitude requirement, lack of spares, simplified maintenance for non-critical aircraft or a combination of these. I don't know.  In the end, the usual story, need to try and find a photo of your chosen aircraft.  

 

Now, what is really interesting is what was the gun heating system in a Mk V with the so called "C" Wing.

 

For interest, another photo again from the AWM site titled Los Negros, Admiralty Islands August 1944 exhaust heater tube fitted.

 

 

Ray

[David Hadland]

On 7/15/2020 at 9:28 AM, Giorgio N said:

 

The Hobbyboss kit may be the cheapest but it is not the cheapest by such a margin as to be the best option: the Airfix Mk.I can be found for a pound or so more and will give you a much better model from the box compared to the HB option.

I know price is a subjective thing and a fiver more may not make a difference to me but may make a lot of difference to others.. still, I would rate the Eduard Weeekend Edition Spitfire as a kit with a great value for money factor: around £10 will give you a kit that is accurate, with great detail and quite easy to build even if it has a lot of parts

Thanks for the info, I've actually got 2 HobbyBoss kits in my stash a Soviet Yak-3 and a Soviet TU-2.

Had a look and the Spitfire Mk IXc Late Version looks nice and you're right it's about a fiver extra so it's not that much of a stretch for me. 

 

In fact the Eduard Weekend Edition range looks pretty affordable.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Battle of Britain Mk.I realm of possibility to have Eau de Nil lower color, or was it only Sky & Sky blue. I have all three Sky type S, Duck egg green/blue, & Eau de Nil. I was hoping to go with the E.d.N as a slightly different color. If not will stick with Sky. 

[Black Knight]

I'll stick my neck out;

early change over, June into July there might be some tonal variation, but not as much as often thought.

By mid-August and after, attrition replacements coming out of the factories and from MUs as well as front-line repaints would have the required standard Sky Type S

my advice, fwiw, stick with Sky

[Graham Boak]

From the research done for Paul Lucas's excellent work on the subject, a colour identified as eau-de-nil was seen on a small number of wrecks.  This somehow was converted into a large number of examples in the published work.  Looking more closely, all the actual finds corresponded only to units based around the Humber in early June, when Sky was specified.  So if you are doing a model of an aircraft from one of these few (three?) units, or perhaps another in the same area at that time, then you've got good evidence for the use of that particular colour.  There was a similar or smaller number of finds suggesting Sky Blue, or indeed other colours including Sky Grey.  There is anecdotal evidence that a blue (darker than the very light Sky Blue) was seen on Hurricanes in the London area (possibly the prewar BS381C Sky Blue?), and probably because of this a similar colour was used in the BoB film, at least on Hawker's own machine, as personally observed.   It has also been reported that the shade of Sky was different at this time than later.  None of these anomalies can be backed from official records. 

 

But as said, aircraft coming from the factories after June 6th - perhaps some leeway should be allowed on the precise date - will have been in Sky.  It has been suggested that a sudden demand on Sky paint stocks will have resulted in paint manufacturers slapping a "Sky" label on any duck-egg blue/green colour they had in stock.  This is the kind of claim that drops out of a clear sky without any actual evidence yet is impossible to disprove other than by pointing out that Sky was already an approved colour in use elsewhere in the industry.  Stocks may not have been as low as this theory requires.  Bear in mind that it was normal for such changes to have a period of grace where in aircraft were still operational in the old colours.  So for the period preceding the official date for the start of the Battle black/white undersides could still have been seen in the front line.

 

Take what you will from these gleanings - there remain a large number, a majority, of units for which any evidence for the underside colour is lacking.   My personal feeling is that aircraft already in use are quite likely not to be repainted with Sky, but I would therefore expect to see more references to Sky Blue than actually appear.  For later-produced aircraft I'd assume Sky.  So the first thing to check is the serial against first-flight information (which may be only approximate)

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

From the research done for Paul Lucas's excellent work on the subject, a colour identified as eau-de-nil was seen on a small number of wrecks.  This somehow was converted into a large number of examples in the published work.  Looking more closely, all the actual finds corresponded only to units based around the Humber in early June, when Sky was specified.  So if you are doing a model of an aircraft from one of these few (three?) units, or perhaps another in the same area at that time, then you've got good evidence for the use of that particular colour.  There was a similar or smaller number of finds suggesting Sky Blue, or indeed other colours including Sky Grey.  There is anecdotal evidence that a blue (darker than the very light Sky Blue) was seen on Hurricanes in the London area (possibly the prewar BS381C Sky Blue?), and probably because of this a similar colour was used in the BoB film, at least on Hawker's own machine, as personally observed.   It has also been reported that the shade of Sky was different at this time than later.  None of these anomalies can be backed from official records. 

 

But as said, aircraft coming from the factories after June 6th - perhaps some leeway should be allowed on the precise date - will have been in Sky.  It has been suggested that a sudden demand on Sky paint stocks will have resulted in paint manufacturers slapping a "Sky" label on any duck-egg blue/green colour they had in stock.  This is the kind of claim that drops out of a clear sky without any actual evidence yet is impossible to disprove other than by pointing out that Sky was already an approved colour in use elsewhere in the industry.  Stocks may not have been as low as this theory requires.  Bear in mind that it was normal for such changes to have a period of grace where in aircraft were still operational in the old colours.  So for the period preceding the official date for the start of the Battle black/white undersides could still have been seen in the front line.

 

Take what you will from these gleanings - there remain a large number, a majority, of units for which any evidence for the underside colour is lacking.   My personal feeling is that aircraft already in use are quite likely not to be repainted with Sky, but I would therefore expect to see more references to Sky Blue than actually appear.  For later-produced aircraft I'd assume Sky.  So the first thing to check is the serial against first-flight information (which may be only approximate)

 

8 hours ago, Black Knight said:

I'll stick my neck out;

early change over, June into July there might be some tonal variation, but not as much as often thought.

By mid-August and after, attrition replacements coming out of the factories and from MUs as well as front-line repaints would have the required standard Sky Type S

my advice, fwiw, stick with Sky

Thank you both... I will go with Sky for the color. If it helps though I’m building what I presume to be a new aircraft. Admittedly I'm not very good with Spitfire history and production knowledge, thus the reason for always asking questions in this thread. I am building what I presume to be a new aircraft replacing one that was lost in the Battle of France. I wouldn't think they would take a Spitfire from another unit to replace a lost aircraft. I assume it would come straight from a production line thus the new production thought.
        The unit would be 92 Squadron late July and August of 1940. I know 92 wore the QJ codes Starting in late June/July, replacing the GR codes worn before and during the stay in France. The serial numbers Im going with are from a post in this thread. 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235069194-robert-stanford-tuck-new-questions/

 

Im hoping the codes and serials are accurate. The three aircraft I'm looking for are Coded QJ*R R6613, QJ*Y N3268, & QJ*Z N3040 supposedly from Tucks log book ?  

 

 Again without any other info at this time I will go for Sky. And again Thank you for being patient with my odd and out of the blue questions. 
 

Dennis

 

[Graham Boak]

From the serials and dates, they will all have been repainted whilst on the unit.  For 92 Sq, X4422 was one of the wrecks investigated, a 27 September crash, and identified as Sky - as we would expect from an aircraft in the X range.  The book includes a photo of QJ.W N3093, captioned as "with its undersides repainted in what the pilot termed "a pale blue"" - but this was 616 Sq ... oops, mea culpa.  There's a photo of QJ.P N3249 with a light colour under the wing but the earlier roundel plus added yellow ring and large codes.

 

Aircraft (Sunderlands excepted, because of the slow production rate) were not delivered directly to a squadron but to a Maintenance Unit (MU) where they would be fitted with military equipment such as radios and armament, and painted (if necessary) to the current requirements.  Also in the MU would be aircraft that had left the squadron for major overhaul (or rebuild after damage) and then had been cleared for return to service, but would normally not return to the same unit but simply be available for reissue.  Quite likely older airframes would be sent to an Operational Training Unit in preference, but not necessarily.

[Troy Smith]

11 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Battle of Britain Mk.I realm of possibility to have Eau de Nil lower color, or was it only Sky & Sky blue. I have all three Sky type S, Duck egg green/blue, & Eau de Nil. I was hoping to go with the E.d.N as a slightly different color. If not will stick with Sky. 

 

Hi Dennis, and anyone else,  a few years back I collated a load of post and cuttings on Sky, and possible variations of , here

with links to previous discussions as well.

 

Worth a read, as I did a load of cross referencing on it.   

 

Has links to a thread on Eau de Nil as well.

HTH

 

[Grissom]

Hi Everyone,

 

I have a couple more questions concerning RAAF Spitfire Mk Vc's.   Firstly, I'm building a rendition of the machine flown by 457 Squadron pilots, 'Bush' Hamilton and Rex Watson - aircraft with codes ZP-X.   I'm converting a 1/32 Hasegawa Mk Vb kit and I am in the process of turning the 'B' wing into a 'C' wing.   All good, so far.   So, with a specific airframe identified, I'd like to know if this aircraft had an IFF Remote Contactor device on the right side of the cockpit, or some other type of IFF device.   Secondly, I can't work out if this airframe had a radio aerial extending from the dorsal antenna post to the rudder.   I've looked at a plethora of photos but find anything definitive.   The 'Langdon Badger' Mk Vc at the South Australian Historical Aviation Museum has such an aerial but I don't know if it it's a 100% accurate restoration and, if so, whether a similar set-up was fitted to ZP-X.   Any advice would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks in advance.

[Peter Roberts]

Magpie22 is your go to with this and he has posted previously on just this plane. You might find your answers here:

 

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Peter Roberts