Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[72modeler]

4 hours ago, Modelraynz said:

Hiya!

Ive been reading  about post war xivs doing leaflet  drops before strafing- were these just thrown out of the plane or dispensed in some other fashion?

Cheers!

Maybe the flare chutes were used for this purpose or possibly the leaflet packets were placed in the flap wells and when the flaps were deployed, the leaflets were dispensed?I'm just guessing, you understand. @Graham Boak would be your best bet for a definitive answer, methinks!

Mike

[Navy Bird]

On 21/09/2020 at 14:42, Rolls-Royce said:

After punching card after card, waiting several days, only to see "Syntax Error" after "Syntax Error", I gave up and have never tried programming again.

 

You were lucky. My subscript was always out of range.   

 

Cheers,

Bill

[MilneBay]

12 hours ago, Modelraynz said:

Hiya!

Ive been reading  about post war xivs doing leaflet  drops before strafing- were these just thrown out of the plane or dispensed in some other fashion?

Cheers!

 

I would have thought that when the bullets started arriving was warning enough.

[Rolls-Royce]

4 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

You were lucky. My subscript was always out of range.   

 

Cheers,

Bill

Pretty sure I saw that one, too...😔

Edited September 24, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[Modelraynz]

@Rolls-Royce

 

When learning to code in SAS i asked what 'cards' referred to.. a stack appeared on my desk one day to which i replied "so you used to be blind?" 😁

 

 

[MilneBay]

2 hours ago, Modelraynz said:

@Rolls-Royce

 

When learning to code in SAS i asked what 'cards' referred to.. a stack appeared on my desk one day to which i replied "so you used to be blind?" 😁

 

 

 

Many many years ago back in the late 1960's I worked for the RAAF. I had a very very high security clearance which as far as I could ever work out had really nothing to do with the job I was doing. Regularly (this was during the Vietnam War days) I would receive ultra secret files with the raw data from RAAF bombing operations etc. Why, I have no idea as my job had nothing to do with mission planning or strike analysis. But because it was all so secret no one would ever tell me. All I know is that a messenger would come to my office, ask me to sign a form and hand me these files then disappear. A day or two later the same person would come, give me another form to sign and take the file away. This went on for some time.

 

Then one day another messenger, equally uninformative, arrived and gave me a very large cardboard box. I signed the proffered form and he departed. Curious, I opened the box and in the pre-modern computer days I discovered it was a complete set of the punched cards which contained the parts breakdown for the Macchi trainers the RAAF was just bringing into service. Again I had no idea why I had received them - my job was in spares supply for civilian contractors and mainly involved arranging supply of parts to these contractors for the more sensitive equipment the RAAF operated. But the punched cards were a mystery because there was no accompanying instructions as to where I had to send them. And given the security rating there was no one in the section I could ask.

 

The box of cards sat on top of two filing cabinets for about the next 15 months. Two cabinets because it was a very big box and because I could never find out what I had to do with them. Then one day there was knock at the door and a very red faced and cross RAAF officer stormed in, glared at me and exclaimed "You've got the bloody things!!!" grabbed the box and stormed out, still without any explanation. I had by this time, given the time I had worked for our glorious RAAF, come to consider that it couldn't be a serious organization anyway, so I took this episode as an indication of the ongoing in joke which only we who were involved would understand.

 

Shortly after someone somewhere worked out that I wasn't the particular person with the very high security clearance who should be the recipient of all this unrequested highly secret information, and both the files, and boxes of punch cards, stopped arriving ........  🤔        

[Rolls-Royce]

@MilneBay

Sounds familiar. We USAF types used to say that the only difference between the USAF and the American Boy Scouts was that the Boy Scouts had adult leadership...

Edited September 24, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[baldwin8]

If anyone could shed some light on this detail on a previously published photo. On the oil service panel are the letters Y-Y . I have seen this again on a latter mark Spitfire as Y/Y. Any insight as the meaning?

 

 

Again the oil panel ahead of the 403 crest marked Y/Y.

 

 

Thank you for reading.

 

Craig

[Johnson]

The method of fitting the straps of the Sutton Harness in a Spitfire seems to be a complicated and oft debated topic. And possibly changed with different marks of Spitfire. I've found several threads on BM, but this was very helpful with Edgar Brooks contributions;

 

 

But I'm still uncertain about quite where the straps attached to the frame or seat. I'm modelling a Spitfire Mk1 as it would have been in Aug 1940 and I'm using the Eduard 1/24 'Seatbelts RAF WWII' set.

 

For the shoulder straps, the instructions shows the lower of the two shoulder 'Y' belts going down the back of the seat, the upper going back down the fuselage and would go through the slot in the seat armour before joining a wire via a bayonet fitting that eventually attaches to frame 15.

 

 

Some modellers have taken the lower Y strap down the front of the seat and though the slot in the back, though in the above thread Edgar throws doubt on this.

 

In the excellent IWM 'The Daily inspection of a Spitfire' film, part 2 - The Flight Rigger, it shows the rigger checking the operation of the harness at 7m 45s into the film. Both parts of the 'Y' shoulder straps appear to go back through the seat armour.

 

 

Where do they go from there?

 

The upper strap presumably goes back to join to the wire which then attaches to fuselage frame 15 (as shown  on the Spitfire Site diagram). Does the other go down the back of the armour plate to attach via a wire to the seat frame or somewhere on fuselage frame 11?

 

The path and attachment of the lap belts also seems to be a cause of confusion. Does the starboard belt go through the slot in the seat (as some think), or merely over the side and bolted to the side of the seat as shown on the photos Edgar posted?

 

Any opinions, thoughts, speculation or definitive guidance much appreciated - thanks!

[PhantomBigStu]

2 questions, firstly were any spitfire xvis fitted with c wings? Secondly anything else wrong with the wings from the old frog viii/ix? In need of a pair of spit wings and there’s an incomplete frog kit on eBay 

[gingerbob]

No, I believe that all XVIs had the 'e' armament arrangement.

 

Don't know about the Frog kit, sorry.

 

bob

[Graham Boak]

The Frog kit had fat wings - I recall mixing with the Matchbox kit wings which were a bit too thin.  It may be possible to thin them down.

[PhantomBigStu]

Thanks @gingerbob and @Graham Boak

[PhantomBigStu]

Quick double question, got myself an AZ IX/XVI joypack, can I do an VIII by filling in the rear underside fuselage or is there more to it? Also got a spare XIX wing, a PRX/XI needs the deeper nose, fuselage camera and?

Edited November 12, 2020 by PhantomBigStu

[CplPunishment]

2 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

Quick double question, got myself an AZ IX/XVI joypack, can I do an VIII by filling in the rear underside fuselage or is there more to it? Also got a spare XIX wing, a PRX/XI needs the deeper nose, fuselage camera and?

Between and VIII and IXc there is more to it. And more still between and VIII and IXe/XVIe high back. Obviously the XVI bubble top is out of the question. The VIII was actually a better, strengthened airframe than the IX, which was really an interim stop-gap - a MkV with a bigger engine. The VIII airframe went on to form the basis of later Griffon-engined versions. The IXc is the closest as it will have the same 20mm and .303 armament - although you might want to check the style of blisters over the 20mm cannons. So, the differences between the VIII and IXc then: 

• VIII has retractable tail wheel, IXc does not.
• VIII has shorter span ailerons. They don't go all the way to the wingtip join line like those of the IXc.
• Watch out for carb intake, on early IXs this was short. On later IX's it looked more like that on the VIII, longer and reaching further forward.
• VIIIs tended to have the slightly larger broad-chord rudder, with the more pointed top. This was on some IX's as well. 
• Some VIII's where spec'd for high altitude and had extended wing tips. 
• VIIIs also had improved elevators which can be seen with a double-crank at the tip hinge line when viewed in plan. This is on some later IXs and XVIs as well, but not early IXs. 
• I think VIII's had additional fuel tanks fitted into the wing leading edge too, whereas the IX just has the standard one behind the engine.

I'm sure there are other differences too, less obvious as the MkVIII airframe was a re-design over the Mk V/IX. Other's may add or correct me.

 

Re the Mk XI. I am assuming you want to use a Mk IX/XVI as the basis of a Mk XI... 

• So, yep, deeper chin for the larger oil tank to extend the range.
• You'll need a different windscreen without armour plate.
• You'll need camera ports on the port side where the radio hatch is and 2 camera ports underneath, same as the XIX.
• There are also 2 blisters, one under each wing for the additional fuel pumps, again, similar to the XIX, but some XI's had wing-mounted cameras in additional under-wing bulges.
• There may be issues using a XIX wing as it will be designed for larger radiator tubs due to the Griffon needing more cooling. The XI has tubs similar to the VIII/IX/XVI.
• And fitment of the carb intake might also be an area to watch as the carb scoops are different between the XIX and XI.
• Some/a lot of XI's have the pointed broad-chord rudder.
• I've noticed that they also have small bulge on the starboard side behind the spinner, under the exhausts which looks like a coffman starter as looks the similar to that on a MkII (I've not noticed this before on the XI). But my references to Morgan and Shacklady point out that all XIs were electric starters so I'm not sure what is covers - but it is there on all MkXI photos that I have. And now you have me looking, I've seen this on some MkIX's as well, but not all, even though all MkIX's are electric starters too.
• XI's also had retractable tail wheels.
• And they have the later style double-cranked elevators.

Hope this helps. Again, if I'm out with any of the above, I'm happy to be corrected by far more knowledgeable folk here on the forum. 
Paul.

[Graham Boak]

Seems a pretty thorough list, although some of the changes are later production standard and apply to both lines.  Here's a bit more background.

The extended wing tips are not specifically a high altitude mod, they were intended for all Mk.VIIIs but found to cause wing and fuselage structural failures so removed.  As they were on the Mk.VIIs when they began operating as standard fighters.

Both F Mk,.IXs and F Mk.VIIIs had high-altitude rated engines, but not the pressurised cockpits of the Mk.VII.  Production changed to the LF Mk.IX and LF Mk.VIII, pretty early on in the Mk.VIII line.  There was no external feature distinguishing these on the Mk.VIII, but the F. Mk.IX has several early production features making it different from the LF, notably an intake for the oil cooler in one wing - port?

The wide cannon bulges were fitted to early production of both examples to allow for the carrying of four cannon.  Or when needed: this was rarely done in practice but was seen on a few Australian Mk.VIIIs.  There was no Mk.VIIIe with an outer thin bulge.

The elevator extended tip was also seen on late Mk.Vs, and again was a standard production change.

The larger Aerovee filter included a filter, and was standardised.

The wider "Mk.XII" rudder was also standardised, fairly early in the production of the Mk.VIII.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The official production reports, Supermarine production,

F.VIII November 1942 to November 1943, total 272
LF.VIII May 1943 to January 1945, total 1,226
HF.VIII May to November 1944 plus 1 in March 1945, total 160

F.IX June 1942 to June 1943, total 519
LF.IX February 1943 to June 1943, total 40

 

Vickers production,

F.IX February to October 1943, total 733
LF.IX 1 in March and 1 in June 1943, then August 1943 to August 1945, total 3,971
HF.IX March 1944 to June 1945, total 400

[PhantomBigStu]

So in short just buy an eduard viii and save the joy packs thanks guys 

[Giorgio N]

Can't add anything to the list of differences between the Mk.IX and VIII but having the AZ kit I can comment on what this kit need.

Most parts are already included in the box but unfortunately a few differences will require some work. These are:

- The retractable tailwheel: the AZ kit does not provide parts for this, so you're left on your own. You can remove with a knife the plastic where the tailwheel wells is located but then you're left with having to source or scratchbuild the tailwheel itself and the well doors. The latter can be made with plasticard, cut and curved to shape. for the tailwheel you may modify the original part (keep the wheel and the yoke and replace the leg with a metal pin of the required length.

- The leading edge fuel tanks: these can simply be scribed before assembling the wing. Ideally the tank filler cap would also have to be reproduced, a simplified way to do it is to drill a hole where the cap is and then insert a plastic rod from the bottom, leaving this very slightly below the wing upper surface. Not 100% correct but simple and quite realistic.

- The light under the fuselage was farther to the rear on the Mk.VIII.. much farther: on the Mk.IX it was between the radiators, on the Mk.VIII it was behind the radio compartment. As this is only reproduced by a scribed circle on the kit, it's easy to simply fill this. More difficult is to add the light in the new position and there are different ways: scribe a circle in the new location and paint this silver, cut and apply a circle with silver decal, or drill a hole and insert and a piece of clear sprue then sand to shape.

Then there is another small detail regarding the main wheel wells and the type of landing gear legs: at some point the leg with front facing links was introduced and this required cutting a corner on the wheel well. You may want to add this or not, depending on the aircraft you want to reproduce and how accurate you want to be..

Speaking of wheel wells, the doors for the main wheel well should be bulged and not flat as in the kit, but this is not a Mk.VIII specific thing as all other variants with a C wing had this

 

All other bits can come from the box: the Aerovee intake is part 33, the elevators with extended horns are the same used on most Mk.IX and are part 8, the larger rudder is part 9 (but early Mk.VIII used the smaller rudder, part 7). The wing was a C wing, so follow the instructions for the IXc for guns and bulges. Early Mk.VIII had the wide bulges (part 37) and then the narrow bulge was used (part 38).

 

As you see it is not too difficult to build a Mk.VIII from a IX as the modifications are relatively easy. The missing parts (tailwheel and doors) can also come from any Eduard Spitfire IX box as they are on the sprue and listed as not for use, so you may ask around if anyone have them and is willing to send them to you.

Of course an alternative would be to simply build an Eduard Mk.VIII, that has all the correct features...

 

 

[CplPunishment]

9 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

So in short just buy an eduard viii and save the joy packs thanks guys 

LOL! Depends on how accurate you want to get and how much effort you want to expend - and it doesn't look that much going off the previous comment. But yeah, I'd buy and a good VIII (not done the Eduard VIII in 1/72 personally) and expend the extra time and effort on making it even better with some resin and/or photo-etch. Good luck! 

Edited November 12, 2020 by CplPunishment

[Giorgio N]

8 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

So in short just buy an eduard viii and save the joy packs thanks guys 

 

Depends on how much you like Spitfires and how far you want to go in getting an accurate kit... for me yes, this would be the best option, but I do like Spitfires a lot 😀

[Graham Boak]

The standard Eduard Mk.VIII does not give the wide cannon blisters - disappointing as at least one of the schemes listed does.

[PhantomBigStu]

35 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Depends on how much you like Spitfires and how far you want to go in getting an accurate kit... for me yes, this would be the best option, but I do like Spitfires a lot 😀

And how lazy I'm being, I have plenty of eduard spares 😁

Edited November 12, 2020 by PhantomBigStu

[Work In Progress]

On 10/4/2020 at 12:43 PM, Graham Boak said:

The Frog kit had fat wings - I recall mixing with the Matchbox kit wings which were a bit too thin.  It may be possible to thin them down.

 

The Frog wing also has no gull-wing centre section 

[Orso]

I have the Airfix 1/72 scale Spitfire Mk.22 kit but I would like to build it as a Mk.24.

 

I looked at the instructions of the Airfix 1/48 kit and noticed that one need to drill out a hole in the bottom of the fuselage and add a clear part.
The kit has also different guns for the 22 and 24 but that seems to be it when it comes to the 1/48 kit.

 

I tried to go through the two large Spitfire threads and my conclusion came to this:
The propeller in the kit is to small (like a Mk.XIV) but looking at my XIV from Sword it seems to be to large so I'm thinking of a swap between them.
I saw a note that the Airfix guns are to short for a Mk.22 and more right for a Mk.24. If that is so, it is one thing less to fix.
What about the hole drilling of the hull? Is that something needed for a Mk.24? If so, wher is it positionet and what size should it be?

Is that what is needed to build a Mk.24?