Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[PhantomBigStu]

Got my AZ joypack and the spitfire spares box out, realised I now have a spare PRU wing and a MkIX highback fuselage so wondering could I scratch a PRXI? 

[PhantomBigStu]

Me again. Been diving in the spares box and playing with AZ joypacks and I’m going to end up with a spare D wing, high back ix/xvi fuselage and ix/xvi radiators, and suddenly a prxi looks possible. Anything I need to bare in mind for such a conversion? 

[PhantomBigStu]

Me again. Been diving in the spares box and playing with AZ joypacks and I’m going to end up with a spare D wing, high back ix/xvi fuselage and ix/xvi radiators, and suddenly a prxi looks possible. Anything I need to bare in mind for such a conversion? 

[Graham Boak]

Consider deeper oil tank under the nose, PR canopy with no armour so a rounded windscreen, blisters on sliding canopy, camera windows/lenses with small oil flow gutters.  Not sure if all these would apply to the PR Mk.XI, or perhaps only some?,

[k5054nz]

16 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Consider deeper oil tank under the nose, 

Unless one builds the current iteration of PL983.

[Johnson]

Don’t think the PR IX had the canopy blisters. But better check.

[112 Squadron]

Some of the early Mk XI had the canopy blisters like the Mk IVs. Here a link to a picture of Supermarine Spitfire PR Mk XI EN427 from May 1943:

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire2/spitfire-pr-mk-xi-en427-may43/

 

But the majority flew with a later style canopy that is similiar to the PR XIX.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by 112 Squadron

[Giorgio N]

A suitable canopy can be found in this set:

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/pavla-models-v72-70-spitfire-prxix-early-production-and-pressurized-late-production--153342

 

Of course for the XI you have to use the non-pressurized canopy 

[112 Squadron]

One of the prototype Spitfire Mk XIVs, JF 321, was equipped with a contra-prop and had a larger vertical fin. Since I am planning to model this aircraft I would like to ask if anyone of the experts here in the forum can help me to find the right measurements for the fin of this particular prototype in 1/72:

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire2/spitfire-mk-xiv-prototype-jf321/

 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by 112 Squadron

[alt-92]

On 9/9/2021 at 11:46 AM, Giorgio N said:

A suitable canopy can be found in this set:

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/pavla-models-v72-70-spitfire-prxix-early-production-and-pressurized-late-production--153342

 

Of course for the XI you have to use the non-pressurized canopy 

Hmm... maybe I do need to bring my glasses next time, I could have sworn on handling that set it didn't have a single piece curved windscreen. 

[72modeler]

2 hours ago, 112 Squadron said:

help me to find the right measurements for the fin of this particular prototype in 1/72:

I think you could use the fin flash to calculate the width of the fin at its base. IIRC, the width of that style fin flash was 24" ( 609.6 mm) so using that measurement as a yard (meter) stick, you should be able to get a pretty close approximation, using the fin flash in the photo as a measuring stick.

Mike

 

I'm pretty sure I have seen scale drawings somewhere that had that style of fin, but I can't recall where.,,maybe the Valiant Wings monograph on Griffon Spitfires?

[FinnAndersen]

1 minute ago, 72modeler said:

... I'm pretty sure I have seen scale drawings somewhere that had that style of fin, but I can't recall where.,,maybe the Valiant Wings monograph on Griffon Spitfires?

Indeed, p. 154. The caption says "Interim enlarged vertical fin with straight leading edge"

 

I'd say that the rudder is not changed, so the height is standard. Good idea to use the fin flash to get to the actual length.

 

/Finn

[112 Squadron]

@72modeler @FinnAndersen Thank you for your helpful comments. As far as I know all of the MK XIV prototypes were actually MK VIII airframes. So the rudder I have to use is a board chord rudder. Would it be correct to source a spare board chord rudder from an Eduard Spitfire kit for the construction of JF321 or do I have to stick with the rudder of a standard MK XIV and just modify the fin?

 

[FinnAndersen]

1 hour ago, 112 Squadron said:

@72modeler @FinnAndersen Thank you for your helpful comments. As far as I know all of the MK XIV prototypes were actually MK VIII airframes. So the rudder I have to use is a board chord rudder. Would it be correct to source a spare board chord rudder from an Eduard Spitfire kit for the construction of JF321 or do I have to stick with the rudder of a standard MK XIV and just modify the fin?

 

You should be alright with the standard rudder. I compared the Eduard rudder with the rudder of a Sword XIV and they were similar. 

 

/Finn

[WV908]

Dumb question time. Why does the XII have the early underwing fit of single radiator plus oil cooler and not the later twin radiator fit? 

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[Graham Boak]

Because it has a single-stage supercharger and thus lacks the intercooler between the stages which requires extra cooling.  It does however have the tropical radiator from the Mk.V rather than the slightly smaller original temperate one.

[WV908]

Thanks @Graham Boak 

 

 

It's true what they say about one question leading to another haha as I'd now like to know why the Seafire XV and XVII have the twin radiator arrangement despite being single stage also?

 

Cheers,

WV908

[gingerbob]

I think it is because they were set up for tropical climes, whereas the XII was strictly UK.

[WV908]

Ah so that would necessitate the extra cooling. Thanks 🙂

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[Graham Boak]

I think Bob probably has the answer, but possibly these later variants also had a little more power?  This might be linked to the clutch problems on the Mk.XV that delayed its use.  The Mk.XII does appear to be something of a "rush" variant, using what was available/just arriving, so it is possible that it was simply easier to use what was available in some numbers if it managed to do the job.  Perhaps it was always a little marginal on cooling, whereas the later variants were optimised - and allowed for tropical use.

[Troy Smith]

On 13/10/2021 at 21:55, 112 Squadron said:

@72modeler @FinnAndersen Thank you for your helpful comments. As far as I know all of the MK XIV prototypes were actually MK VIII airframes. So the rudder I have to use is a board chord rudder. Would it be correct to source a spare board chord rudder from an Eduard Spitfire kit for the construction of JF321 or do I have to stick with the rudder of a standard MK XIV and just modify the fin?

 

 

On 13/10/2021 at 23:53, FinnAndersen said:

You should be alright with the standard rudder. I compared the Eduard rudder with the rudder of a Sword XIV and they were similar. 

 

/Finn

This surprised me, and I think it was posted, or confirmed by @gingerbob,   the standard Mk.XIV rudder , the rear part, is the same as the broad chord pointed tip rudder as fitted to the VII/VIII/IX/XII/XVI.... 

 

Just the horn balance is different, being bigger, but not as deep,  and the fin height was taller.  

 

There is a later broad rudder, as seen on the Mk.XVIII 

These differences are discussed here

 

[112 Squadron]

Spitfire Mk 24 landing gear doors

 

As far as I know the landing gear doors of the Mk 24 were similar to the ones of the Mk 22. However, some machines had landing gear doors that were similar to those of the Seafire 47. It can be seen on some photographs. This raises a number of questions:

 

Were the last Mk 24s delivered with the Mk 47 style Seafire landing gear doors or was this the result of later modifications due to the fact that no other spare parts were available?

 

Provided that the Spitfires were delivered from Supermarine in that configuration are there any records about which aircraft had the Mk 47 landing gear doors?

 

My educated guess is that those 27 of the 81 Spitfire Mk 24 which were still in the PK letter series and were initially modified from Mk 22 probably still had the old landing gear doors. But how many of the remaining Mk 24 with VN letter codes had the Seafire style landing gear doors?

 

Maybe one of the experts here knows the answer.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by 112 Squadron

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Unfortunately the distinction between the Spitfire 22 and 24 is a little blurred.  Using the RAF Contract Cards and Serial Registers there were 78 mark 24 and the Contract Cards include the note,  "The designation Spitfire F Mk 24 has been approved for Spitfire F Mk 22 aircraft fitted with a rear tank.  Air 2 (a) 23 March 1946, M11592."  Which is a month after mark 24 began to be officially produced.  Meantime the production reports think only Spitfire 24 were built from February 1946 on, in fact 2 of the February production were mark 22 and the last mark 22 produced was PK515 in November 1946, it was then converted to mark 24.

 

On top of that Serials PK313, VN301 (April 46) and VN314-6 (February 46) can be considered F.22 converted to F.24.  PK313 is counted as an F.22 even though it is the final entry in the PK serials F.24 contract card but with a delivery date of 17 March 1945, and its entry in the F.22 contract card is ruled through, it was a conversion.

The PK serials contract card has the heading Spitfire 24 (ex 22)  There were 24 PK serials, 678, 679, 681 to 683, 685 to 689, 712 to 714, 716 to 726 (24)  Produced at South Marsden.  Delivered July to November 1946.  Note PK680, 684 and 715 are therefore considered built as mark 22.

There were 54 VN serials 301 to 334, 477 to 496.  Vickers Armstrong.  VN301 to 330, 333 and 334 officially produced to February to December 1946, VN331, 332 and 477 on officially produced June 1947 to March 1948, with 2 produced in June 1947.

Seafire 47 production began in July 1947 at South Marsden and ended in March 1949, total production 90.  So the overlap time wise is with the final group of VN serial mark 24.

[k5054nz]

Are there any 1/48 kits or conversions available of "Grace" mod Spitfire two-seaters?

[Graham Boak]

The usual reason given for the change in designation to Mk.24 was a change in the electrical system - from 12v to 24v?  Another difference sometimes quoted is the use of the long barrel Hispano on the Mk.22 and the short barrel Hispano on the Mk.24, but as Geoffrey says, the difference was a little blurred, some Mk.22s being seen with the short barrels.  This seems to have confused Airfix on their model of the Mk.22.   The addition of the fuselage tank was seen on earlier variants with no change of Mark number.  I presume that it did have to be built in on the production line.