112 Squadron Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 (edited) @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 October 26, 2021 by 112 Squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted November 24, 2021 Share Posted November 24, 2021 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted November 24, 2021 Share Posted November 24, 2021 How's this for non-standard? from: https://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/7844-132-revellmatchbox-spitfire-mk22/ 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted November 24, 2021 Share Posted November 24, 2021 (edited) 28 minutes ago, gingerbob said: How's this for non-standard? from: https://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/7844-132-revellmatchbox-spitfire-mk22/ 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 November 24, 2021 by PhantomBigStu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted November 24, 2021 Share Posted November 24, 2021 Well, let's see- how bout these? See if any of these Mk 22's do it for you: Mike https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/spitfire_f22_f24_vn318_01_large_zpsiqknvya5-jpg.458298/ https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire2/Mk22_Prototype_PK312_mar45.jpg ...and, of course, this well-known example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Spitfire_22.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/96/4e/4d964e2f8f0a02be08398da48f0d744a.jpg http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5603287256_84b2d56055_z.jpg PK596: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/bc/09/69/bc0969366e27ff949634cc6b24bef9ed.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/613_Supermarine_Spitfire_F.22_PK599_RAT-K_613_Sqn_RWY_05.49.jpg PK519 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjoI50K7us8PrFOAS0cUVlIyE3If-dU8gtlvn_-yL7iNw1mQ6lV8UQO_Uz78aZOqIhMM8&usqp=CAU 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted November 24, 2021 Share Posted November 24, 2021 Thanks all good options should I decide to do camo’d one but was looking at ones specifically not in raf grey/green, guessing it’s a shortlist of one unless I go the WHIF route….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k5054nz Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 On 10/23/2021 at 5:25 PM, k5054nz said: Are there any 1/48 kits or conversions available of "Grace" mod Spitfire two-seaters? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fubar57 Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 Brigade Model's made a Spitfire Tr.IX conversion years ago. Not sure its the same as the Grace mod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malpaso Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 I'm not certain, but that may be PK664. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 8 minutes ago, gingerbob said: I'm not certain, but that may be PK664. Its PK624, least that it’s labelled as and the later worn photo is definitely 624 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 (edited) That was my second guess. Edit: Here's another good colour shot from the starboard side: https://www.hippostcard.com/listing/vickers-armstrong-supermarine-spitfire-f22-pk624-single-seat-fighter/8959382 Edited November 27, 2021 by gingerbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opus999 Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 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 More sharing options...
JackG Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 Illustration comparing different wing types from top to bottom; B wing A wing C wing 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 More sharing options...
opus999 Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 1 hour ago, JackG said: Illustration comparing different wing types from top to bottom; B wing A wing C wing 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 More sharing options...
FinnAndersen Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 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 More sharing options...
M20gull Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 (edited) 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 March 4, 2022 by M20gull Additional information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 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. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 I'd like to know more about documented cases where 4x20 and 4x303 were used, because I'm pretty sure that wasn't according to Supermarine's "owner's manual"! bob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opus999 Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 (edited) 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: 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 March 4, 2022 by opus999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 (edited) 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: 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 March 4, 2022 by Corsairfoxfouruncle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now