Jump to content

Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here


Sean_M

Recommended Posts

@Graham Boak

@Geoffrey Sinclair

 

Thank you for your feedback. It is indeed difficult and the lines are indeed somewhat blurred. From what I have seen from the Mk.24 pictures in my book collection many of the VN series Spitfires have the later style landing gear doors but there are some expections such as VN311. Interestingly, most pictures of Mk 24s with early style landing gear doors are from around 1947 to 1949 whereas most of the photos from 1950 onwards show the Seafire 47 style landing gear doors. I guess I am right with the presumption that a number of these machines were retrofitted with those landing gear doors during maintainance that simply were available from the supply lines in the 1950s.

 

In the end I just have to check carefully any reference photos before starting my 1/72 scale Spitfire Mk 24 project. 

Edited by 112 Squadron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.  Spitfire Mod 1762 "To introduce Seafire type oleo leg fairing & undercarriage door", applies to 21,22,24.  First mentioned as LTC 2200 28 May 46, then there are several dates that all appear to be July.  Also a couple of other notes in the Mod register that I can't make much sense of, but don't appear to tell us much.

 

This is after the "true" Mk.22s have all been built (that is, Castle Bromwich deliveries), as I recall.  So the implication is that it IS, or can be, a retrofit.

 

A quick look at the pilots' notes says that 22's guns were hydraulically fired, 24's were electric.  I'll have to go through it carefully to see if there are other differences specifically stated.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Me again, doing the Airfix f22 and as it was a prestated made a mess which will make the silver scheme more difficult and wash searching for non standard RAF camo/silver schemes and came across this interesting photo. Assuming it’s just a poor display repaint and non representative but still interesting. We’re there any non standard f-22s/f24s aside from the well known Egyptian desert one? 

51700939137_a85ea0907d_m.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

Probably a touch too esoteric 😂 maybe I should just go for the slate grey/dark earth scheme work by the 18s as a slight what if….not too much of an inaccuracy 

Edited by PhantomBigStu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, fubar57 said:

Brigade Model's made a Spitfire Tr.IX conversion years ago. Not sure its the same as the Grace mod

If it's like their 1/72 version it's  the standard Tr.9 with bubble top rear canopy.

[edit]

It is!

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/brigade-models-bkc48001-spitfire-t9-conversion--985442

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 1:20 PM, PhantomBigStu said:

Me again, doing the Airfix f22 and as it was a prestated made a mess which will make the silver scheme more difficult and wash searching for non standard RAF camo/silver schemes and came across this interesting photo. Assuming it’s just a poor display repaint and non representative but still interesting. We’re there any non standard f-22s/f24s aside from the well known Egyptian desert one? 

 

 

 

The overall grey Rhodesian aircraft for sure. A number of Syrian aircraft were also camouflaged.. and IIRC  it was these that had a desert scheme, not the Egyptian ones.

I'm not sure however if the Syrian aircraft were camouflaged while in service

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. That Rhodesia one would be tempting if sourcing the decals wasn’t an issue (or having to paint the bars). Though think I’ve found a scheme, found a photo of an worn f22 in clear dark earth camo then I found a photo of the same aircraft in pristine camo, must have been used for the Battle of Britain film that year. I’ve done a XIX (that might have actually been a XIV) from the film before so think I’ll shall do this if I don’t think it look fine in silver once mess is cleared up. 1518963-large.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I'm working on the Airfix 1/72 Mk. Vc and for the South African version, which has 4 Cannon (apparently),  Airfix has you put the red MG patches over the MG holes on the South African version as if it had all 4 MGs and the 4 cannon. Is this right?

 

I read this thread (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235104760-a-question-about-the-armament-on-the-spitfire-vcs-flown-in-malta/) about Spitfire armament in Malta, and read the spitfiresite.com's concise guide to Spitfire wing types, as well as their article on Hispano cannon.  I've also looked through my reference books and searched the interwebs and I just can't find a definitive answer to whether or not the C Wing was ever used with 4 cannon/4MGs.

 

The spitfiresite's Hispano article shows an MG in the inside Hispano bay of a Mk. IXe.  Could it be that when the C wing was used for 8 MGs that they put those long cannon covers on?  It seems like the machine guns would be too short for that.

 

So, my basic question is: for the Mk. Vc with 4 long cannon covers attached, should there be 4 red machine gun cover patches on the leading edges?

 

Thanks folks!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, opus999 said:

I'm working on the Airfix 1/72 Mk. Vc and for the South African version, which has 4 Cannon (apparently),  Airfix has you put the red MG patches over the MG holes on the South African version as if it had all 4 MGs and the 4 cannon. Is this right?

 

I read this thread (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235104760-a-question-about-the-armament-on-the-spitfire-vcs-flown-in-malta/) about Spitfire armament in Malta, and read the spitfiresite.com's concise guide to Spitfire wing types, as well as their article on Hispano cannon.  I've also looked through my reference books and searched the interwebs and I just can't find a definitive answer to whether or not the C Wing was ever used with 4 cannon/4MGs.

 

The spitfiresite's Hispano article shows an MG in the inside Hispano bay of a Mk. IXe.  Could it be that when the C wing was used for 8 MGs that they put those long cannon covers on?  It seems like the machine guns would be too short for that.

 

So, my basic question is: for the Mk. Vc with 4 long cannon covers attached, should there be 4 red machine gun cover patches on the leading edges?

 

Thanks folks!

 

My guess is even if the guns were absent, you’d still want to plug the holes up ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illustration comparing different wing types from top to bottom;

  • B wing
  • A wing
  • C wing

spitfire-v-armament-layout.jpg

 

The C wing had only three gun arrangement options; all eight machine guns,  four machine guns with two cannon,  or just four cannon.  Not certain about four cannon with four machine guns altogether,  but it probably would of been a waste of ammo to include the smaller caliber.   Also the additional weight to consider when fully loaded,  as well as  creating flight instability with all those guns firing?

 

regards, 

Jack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JackG said:

Illustration comparing different wing types from top to bottom;

  • B wing
  • A wing
  • C wing

spitfire-v-armament-layout.jpg

 

The C wing had only three gun arrangement options; all eight machine guns,  four machine guns with two cannon,  or just four cannon.  Not certain about four cannon with four machine guns altogether,  but it probably would of been a waste of ammo to include the smaller caliber.   Also the additional weight to consider when fully loaded,  as well as  creating flight instability with all those guns firing?

 

regards, 

Jack

 

I thought that weight would be a problem as well.  I guess I didn't mention it here, but on my build thread.  Good point about all the guns firing.

 

For some reason I can't see the picture, just a placeholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, opus999 said:

For some reason I can't see the picture, just a placeholder.

Click on the little icon and you will see the picture. Spitfire site, Village.Photo and a lot of other sites has their security certificates expired.

 

/Finn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That probably wasn't the right way to embed the link. The 2 SAAF ORB does suggest that MGs were carried sometimes with the 4 cannon setup. This is with a reduced number of rounds, presumably for weight saving.

 

Edit: I had another look and most of the time the 4 cannon aircraft only carry 20mm ammo. I have noticed that at least one of the references to a Vc should be a VIII. The linked photos do look like they have canvas patches.

 

Edited by M20gull
Additional information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, opus999 said:

So, my basic question is: for the Mk. Vc with 4 long cannon covers attached, should there be 4 red machine gun cover patches on the leading edges

 

6 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

My guess is even if the guns were absent, you’d still want to plug the holes up ? 

 

5 hours ago, JackG said:

The C wing had only three gun arrangement options; all eight machine guns,  four machine guns with two cannon,  or just four cannon. 

The  C wing, or Universal wing, was fitted for  0.303 machine guns in the two outboard positions and either 2 20mm cannons or 2 0.303 machine guns in the 2 inboard positions. As far as I'm aware it wasn't possible to fit a 0.303 machine gun in one of the inboard gun positions if a 20mm cannon was fitted in the other inboard position.

The wing was therefore capable of being fitted with 1, 2, 3, or 4 0.303 machine guns; 1 or 2 20mm cannons; or 1 or 2 0.303 machine guns and 1 or 2 20mm cannons.

The more guns fitted, and the larger the guns fitted, the greater the weight and thus impact on aircraft performance and manoeuvrability.

Armament fitted was therefore a compromise between firepower and performance, and would depend on theatre requirements and command experience.

There are recorded instances of 2 cannon per wing and 2 cannon plus 2 machine guns per wing being used, but the most common fit was 2 machine guns plus 1 cannon per wing. The cannon could be fitted in either of the two inboard positions. 

Where gun positions were left empty, the gun port in the wing leading edge would be blanked, doped patches being common for machine gun ports and wooden plugs for cannon ports.

Where this was expected to be the normal operating setup the blanks would be painted to match the surrounding camouflage.

Where patches were fitted over gun ports with guns fitted they wouldn't generally be camouflaged, dull red being a common colour for these.

As always, the best reference is a photo of the aircraft you are modelling, next best is a photo of other squadron aircraft at the same timeframe or squadron records or pilot logbooks if they mention armament fit.

    

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FinnAndersen said:

Click on the little icon and you will see the picture. Spitfire site, Village.Photo and a lot of other sites has their security certificates expired.

 

/Finn

Oh... silly me.  I was clicking the icon and it was opening the slide show.  I copied the link and opened it in a new tab and I was able to see it.   Makes sense about the security certificates.  That's pretty frustrating though!

 

7 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

 

 

The  C wing, or Universal wing, was fitted for  0.303 machine guns in the two outboard positions and either 2 20mm cannons or 2 0.303 machine guns in the 2 inboard positions. As far as I'm aware it wasn't possible to fit a 0.303 machine gun in one of the inboard gun positions if a 20mm cannon was fitted in the other inboard position.

The wing was therefore capable of being fitted with 1, 2, 3, or 4 0.303 machine guns; 1 or 2 20mm cannons; or 1 or 2 0.303 machine guns and 1 or 2 20mm cannons.

The more guns fitted, and the larger the guns fitted, the greater the weight and thus impact on aircraft performance and manoeuvrability.

Armament fitted was therefore a compromise between firepower and performance, and would depend on theatre requirements and command experience.

There are recorded instances of 2 cannon per wing and 2 cannon plus 2 machine guns per wing being used, but the most common fit was 2 machine guns plus 1 cannon per wing. The cannon could be fitted in either of the two inboard positions. 

Where gun positions were left empty, the gun port in the wing leading edge would be blanked, doped patches being common for machine gun ports and wooden plugs for cannon ports.

Where this was expected to be the normal operating setup the blanks would be painted to match the surrounding camouflage.

Where patches were fitted over gun ports with guns fitted they wouldn't generally be camouflaged, dull red being a common colour for these.

As always, the best reference is a photo of the aircraft you are modelling, next best is a photo of other squadron aircraft at the same timeframe or squadron records or pilot logbooks if they mention armament fit.

    

So it sounds like, regardless of whether the MG bays are empty or not, there would be patches, like @Corsairfoxfouruncle said.

 

I turned to wikimedia and found a whole series of photos of the SAAF in WWII.  In that collection I found this:

 

1024px-Royal_Air_Force-_Italy%2C_the_Bal
Royal Air Force- Italy, the Balkans and South-east Europe, 1942-1945. CNA2102
Lea T (Fg Off), Royal Air Force official photographer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Seems to answer my question! :) 

 

[Edit] interesting that the auto-generated caption says Royal Air Force, but it's in the SAAF collection.  Well, it's still evidence.

 

[Edit2] I went to the wikimedia page and the full caption says: Royal Air Force- Italy, the Balkans and South-east Europe, 1942-1945. Supermarine Spitfire Mark VCs of No. 2 Squadron SAAF based at Palata, Italy, flying in loose line astern formation over the Adriatic Sea while on a bombing mission to the Sangro River battlefront.

Edited by opus999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, opus999 said:

Oh... silly me.  I was clicking the icon and it was opening the slide show.  I copied the link and opened it in a new tab and I was able to see it.   Makes sense about the security certificates.  That's pretty frustrating though!

 

So it sounds like, regardless of whether the MG bays are empty or not, there would be patches, like @Corsairfoxfouruncle said.

 

I turned to wikimedia and found a whole series of photos of the SAAF in WWII.  In that collection I found this:

 

1024px-Royal_Air_Force-_Italy%2C_the_Bal
Royal Air Force- Italy, the Balkans and South-east Europe, 1942-1945. CNA2102
Lea T (Fg Off), Royal Air Force official photographer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Seems to answer my question! :) 

 

[Edit] interesting that the auto-generated caption says Royal Air Force, but it's in the SAAF collection.  Well, it's still evidence.

 

[Edit2] I went to the wikimedia page and the full caption says: Royal Air Force- Italy, the Balkans and South-east Europe, 1942-1945. Supermarine Spitfire Mark VCs of No. 2 Squadron SAAF based at Palata, Italy, flying in loose line astern formation over the Adriatic Sea while on a bombing mission to the Sangro River battlefront.

Note the gun covers in this photo … There was a discussion here awhile back about these. The two views are either its fresh camouflage paint or red paint on the covers. 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...