Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, KRK4m said:

The description states that in order to avoid confusion with the (green topsides) Japanese fighters, all Implacable aircraft had a greenish Dark Slate Grey colour replaced by a blueish Dark Sea Grey, which coloured the British machines closer to the US ones. Naturally, in addition to Seafires, this would also apply to Fireflies, Barracudas and Avengers.

Can anyone confirm this or explicitly deny this version? Were there still supplies of Dark Sea Grey paint on board the BPF aircraft carriers in 1945?

Not heard this one before.

I'll @iang  as he'd be a good chap to ask.  

[iang]

I've not seen any written evidence for this in Admiralty documents, which I have searched extensively. There is also no mention of this change in the 801 Squadron Diary.  Of course, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so If Wojtek Matusiak has written documentation on this I'd like to see it.  As for paint supplies, presumably any change in colours  would have to have been instigated before Implacable sailed for Ceylon in March 1944 to ensure sufficient paint supply in her locker.   

 

I also have a copy of the  1771 Squadron Diary and there is no mention of a change in colour to her Fireflies either (and yet there is detailed evidence on the application of BPF markings and  codes).

 

Below is a photo of PR240. It looks like it is in standard Seafire colours to me.

[Max Headroom]

I’m cobbling together Spitfire III N9237 in 1/72 in its final configuration.

 

 

One thing I’ve just noticed is that all the photos I’ve seen, appear to have been shot using ortho film and show the uppers in a uniform colour. I’m fairly safe in assuming Dark Green/Dark Earth uppers. What I can’t figure though is whether it has an A or B scheme. Anyone with a clue?

 

TIA

 

Trevor

 

[Troy Smith]

48 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Anyone with a clue?

you can see the camo pattern just in front of the N

]

 

which bloook to slope back, so B

which matches this

 

though logicallly the new nose would be fresher,  and maybe not as standard.

 

You probably have found this, but if not and for anyone else

HTH

[Ray_W]

59 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Spitfire III N9237

 

It's N3297 isn't it?

 

Certainly looks "B" pattern early in it's life per Troy's photo and this one.

 

 

Ray

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave Fleming]

On 18/05/2022 at 16:43, KRK4m said:

In my opinion, Seafire is also a Spitfire, so I'll try it here. Wojtek Matusiak, considered (probably not only in Poland) to be an expert on Spitfires, in his book on Spitfire (Monografie #40 by AJ Press) included a profile of a Seafire Mk.3 PR240 from No. 880 Sq.FAA, operating from HMS Implacable deck in the area of Truk Island in June 1945. The description states that in order to avoid confusion with the (green topsides) Japanese fighters, all Implacable aircraft had a greenish Dark Slate Grey colour replaced by a blueish Dark Sea Grey, which coloured the British machines closer to the US ones. Naturally, in addition to Seafires, this would also apply to Fireflies, Barracudas and Avengers.

Can anyone confirm this or explicitly deny this version? Were there still supplies of Dark Sea Grey paint on board the BPF aircraft carriers in 1945?

 

 

Dark Sea Grey seems strangely specific; I would have thought overall EDSG would make them 'more' like US Aircraft. Or perhaps a mixed grey of EDSG and white if some disruptive scheme required. I wonder where Wojtek got his reference from?

[112 Squadron]

Spitfire Mk IX MA587 was equipped with a  six blade contra/prop.  It later served in a standard configuration with the SAAF.

 

Was this contra/prop identical to the ones of the Griffon engine Spitfires such as Mk XIV  prototype JF317 or the Mk 21s which were equipped that way?

 

Did it have standard camouflage or yellow undersurfaces like other prototypes when it was flying with the contra rotating propeller ?

 

And are there any other pictures of this particular aircraft with the six blade contra/prop apart from that one (the picture of JF317 in on of the posts further down this page shows MA587 in the background):

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by 112 Squadron

[Max Headroom]

Quick question. Will Barracuda’s 1/48 Spitfire XVI cowling top meant for the Eduard kit, fit the ICM one?

 

Ta

 

Trevor 

[Troy Smith]

4 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

Quick question. Will Barracuda’s 1/48 Spitfire XVI cowling top meant for the Eduard kit, fit the ICM one?

 

Ta

 

Trevor 

No, not without work.  The ICM fuselage is too narrow, the ICM upper cowl is noticeable slimmer than the Eduard. 

If you want to widen the fuel tank and do some mods, it could be made to fit. ....

 

But, In short, if detail and accuracy is an issue, the Eduard Merlin 60 series kits make everything else obsolete.  

 

Example, to bring the ICM kit up to the Eduard OOB standard, 

fix prop, blades too wide/thick, spinner too short. 

Upper cowl too slim

cockpit lack fine detail and the lower curve sidewalls, spine behind canopy slim.

Wheel hubs are poor, wheel wells basic, and lack open wing structure. Wheel doors lack curve.

Cannon bay blisters are all too shallow. 

 

that's from memory, and I'm sure there are more.   That said if you do have an ICM kit, many of the above issues can be fixed by using leftover alternate parts from any of the Eduard Merlin 60 series kits, as they have many of these parts as options, and much can be done with 'some modelling skill.   

As an aside, the 1960's era Monogram kit Mk.IX kit, while covered in rivets and lacking the gull wing,  and very little detail, is, shape wise, very good, as is  the Otaki/Arri kit...  but unless you really like upgrading old kits or enjoy nostalgia builds....

 

Sorry, rambling off topic Trevor,  

HTH

 

 

[Graham Boak]

The Otaki kit always looked nice, if you couldn't see the flat bottom, but the only time I ever saw the other one was probably the Monogram kit made up, it looked very chunk and blocky - flattish fuselage?  Unless you can think of another 1/48 Spitfire Mk.IX of about the same vintage?

[Max Headroom]

@Troy Smith and @Graham Boak thanks guys! I picked up the low-back XVI for £11 at the Chester Model Centre which I thought was a decent price. I know the cowling needs beefing up and have found a couple of decent sideways shots, but thought if there was a slot-in replacement……

 

I have the propeller off a long junked Otaki VIII that can be used to replace the kit item. 
 

Stickies look ok, but B type upper roundels???? 
 

This is just a ‘fun’ build and I’m not too concerned about the slim nature of the fuselage. Will post piccies once completed.

 

Trevor

[Troy Smith]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

but the only time I ever saw the other one was probably the Monogram kit made up, it looked very chunk and blocky - flattish fuselage?

I have an unbuilt Monogram IX, picked up cheap on here as some painting done.  even the over done rivet details is the right places, and shape wise is very good.  It is of course very basic in any fine detail....  I have the occasional fantasy about using various leftovers Eduard parts and seeing how it would scrub up....   but then I have occasional fantasies about many model kits..  Andin that case some serious Hurricane modelling is far more likely.. 

 Weird thing, the oldest 1/48th Spitfires, (excluding the Aurora BTK) specifically Monogram IX, Otaki VIII, Airfix Vb (78 tool) and Revell Mk,II (78 tool) are all overall very well shaped and dimensionally good (compared to known to be accurate kits), though only the Airfix as the gull wing. 

Weird shape errors occur later.... 

4 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

I picked up the low-back XVI for £11 at the Chester Model Centre which I thought was a decent price.

Hmm, not really.  Eduard Weekend Mk.IX kits are around £15 online,  

4 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

I know the cowling needs beefing up and have found a couple of decent sideways shots, but thought if there was a slot-in replacement……

Bear in mind, if you have an Eduard IX, the bulged XVI cowl, is a leftover, or ask in the Wanted section,  get some 4 spoke wheel hubs and UC legs and doors, maybe exhaust....  at the same time rather than some resin.... which pretty much defeats a cheap kit..

Or, get a cheap Eduard early IX or VIII, and use the 'free' AM of the included later parts  in to improve the ICM kit.

4 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

 

I have the propeller off a long junked Otaki VIII that can be used to replace the kit item. 

Honestly can't remember what the Otaki prop is like...

I have ended up with examples of nearly every 1/48th Spitfire kit made (no Aurora BTK, Starfix, or Nichimo though)  and done various comparisons, and also correction hack ups.... . 

Never got round to writing it all up, and my kits are, kits boxes in big boxes, so not always easy to recheck...   

4 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

Stickies look ok, but B type upper roundels???? 

maybe worth asking for some C type spares..?

 

Anyway,  hope of some use,   the ICM is actually reasonable,  just the Eduard is right in all the areas the ICM is not....  my complaints on the Eduard are the integral wing bulges,  and the rivets in the leading edge D section,  and it look fiddly to build.

The ICM would still be OK if the Eduard was priced say like a Tamiya, so £10 vs £25-30,  but it's not. 

 

Anyway, your model, your choice,  the ICM even OOB makes up into a very decent looking Spitfire.

cheers

T

[Max Headroom]

@Troy Smith thanks for the heads up. I have plenty of spare roundels, tail flashes and serials accumulated over the years and fancy a camouflaged example but with post war ‘bright’ markings. I don’t have the Eduard kit and this is an exercise in scratching. BTW a square spade grip!!! 10 amp fuse wire sorted that out 😁

 

Trevor

[Tony C]

Not specifically Spitfire related but can anyone provide drawings/photos or any details about the trolley/trailer that is carrying the the Spitfire fuselage, in the picture that CMK have used for their item 4102...

 

 

...as I'm trying to build something similar!

 

Many thanks

TonyC

 

 

[112 Squadron]

Number of bubbletop canopy Mk XIVe and Mk XVIe? 

 

Although I am having quite a lot of books about the Spitfire I have never figured out the exact number of bubbletop canopy equipped Mk XIVe as well as Mk XVIe. All I know is that the later production batches had this modification but how many out of the total number manufactured? I am also aware that there were some late Mk IXe delivered featuring bubbletop canopies. Many of them were serving in the post-war SAAF. Does somebody here at the forum know the answer?

[gingerbob]

F.XIV low backs: 27.  Not well identified by serial number. All FR.XIVs (not counting the initial conversions) are low-back.

 

It is far more murky on the Merlin ones.  I've never seen a specific number given.  My own analysis suggests that low-back fuselages were initially finished as XVIs, which makes sense as that was the "standard" Mark for 2TAF.  Some low-back IXs did also appear.

[FinnAndersen]

8 hours ago, gingerbob said:

...It is far more murky on the Merlin ones.  I've never seen a specific number given.  My own analysis suggests that low-back fuselages were initially finished as XVIs, which makes sense as that was the "standard" Mark for 2TAF.  Some low-back IXs did also appear.

FWIW, Denmark received 41 F.IXe's between 1948 and 1951. Of these TE197, -231, -233, -236 and -296 was lowback. 

 

HTH Finn

[k5054nz]

On 7/1/2022 at 7:29 PM, gingerbob said:

Some low-back IXs did also appear.

Of which the South African Air Force Museum's TE213/5518 is one!

[gingerbob]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:14 PM, FinnAndersen said:

FWIW, Denmark received 41 F.IXe's between 1948 and 1951. Of these TE197, -231, -233, -236 and -296 was lowback.

 

Great, added 2 or 3 new serials to my working file, and if I remember to do it, by elimination I can mark the others as high-backs. (or can I make that assumption? as it stands, those five are the latest aircraft going to Denmark, which certainly fits)

 

6 hours ago, k5054nz said:

Of which the South African Air Force Museum's TE213/5518 is one!

 

Yep, got that one already!

 

Thanks,

bob

[Dave Fleming]

Not sure where I got it from, but I have a note that says mk IXs in the serial range TD175 to TE343 were low back. For XVI it was any aircraft in the range RW, SL, TD and TE.

 

II don't think there is any external distinguisher between a late mk IX and a mk XVI )

Edited July 4, 2022 by Dave Fleming

[MrB17]

I found a possible source of the wide cannon blisters that the Airfix are including in their upcoming 1/24 Spitfire Mk.IXC. I have probably spent way too much time searching for any photos of that type of wide blister with a squarish front. I have gone back to about 2005 both here and on other sites, as well as a pile of books. The only photo I could find was of a RAAF Spitfire Mk.Vc with the 4 cannon installation, it was on ADF serials via the Australian War Memorial. I am hoping @Magpie22 may have a better photo of the 4 cannon arrangement on the RAAF Spitfires. The access panel lying on the ground in front of the port wing looks very much like the one Airfix chose as the wide blister. Also note how the leading edge of the blister is almost perpendicular to the panel, and the sides run parallel to the edge of the panel a fair distance. However this is not a Mk.IX,and the early IX’s included on the decals would have had the teardrop. I put together a collage of teardrop cannon blisters and a brief explanation of each photo. I had posted it in the Airfix 1/24 Spitfire Mk.IX thread after I saw the test shots, however I thought it might be of more use here, considering how many Spitfire kits are out there. The blister is very elusive viewed from different angles and I can see how some may interpret it differently. I won’t post it here unless it’s a good fit.
Here’s the link to the Airfix 1/24 Spitfire. Below that the photo showing the square front wide blister, which I am thinking is pretty rare.

 

Cheers

Jeff

[Peter Roberts]

Nice find Jeff - that does look a bit like the blister used by Airfix, and Tamiya.

 

It may be worth noting that the blister is for the ‘C’ wing, to enable two cannon per wing, but did not necessarily require the aircraft to be so equipped. Not many Vc’s flew with four cannon in combat, and when they did, it was only for a brief period.

[Graham Boak]

However, many were built with the wide fairing even if fitted with only two cannon, so if it is a matter of looking for the right shape then photos of Mk.Vc will do as well.  Just avoid photos taken from above and behind as these pick up the widest part and miss the curve at the front.  Hence the too flat appearance of some representations.

 

I think that photos of the Mk.Vc with the slim fairing may be less common than expected, certainly this is true of the later (extended horn balance) elevators.

[MrB17]

Yes, my point was concerning the shape of the blister fairing, it just happened to be on a 4 cannon equipped Vc. I was just trying to figure out what the source of the Airfix 1/24 squarish one might have been. Oddly their 1/72 Vc features the teardrop shaped blister fairing. Where they ever got the idea that a Mk.IX early had a different shape than the Vc is beyond me. The early IX’s were made from Vc airframes and they simply hadn’t made the narrow blister yet. The more wide teardrop is a very elusive shape and as you have pointed out, it can be deceiving when viewed from different angles, especially from behind. I have been playing with contrast etc. on a bunch of other photos, I have found even more and clearer ones that really show the front being semi-circular and approaching the wing surface at a fairly shallow angle, giving it a flatter look. I will post them later today, it’s 03:30 and I need my beauty sleep. Good night all.

 

Good morning, I’m back with a few more interesting photos and my original collage of Spitfire Vc & IXc cannon blisters (fairings). Below is my key to the photos in the collage, and I have made additional comments to the newer photos below each. I have read quite a number of threads on this topic, going back as far as 2005. Not only on BM, But also HS, Key Aero, WWII Aircraft, etc. as well as consulting books and diagrams (if it’s not a blueprint, it’s a loose reference).

 

 I can see that @Graham Boak was aware of the elusive shape of the blister, going way back. Also the late Edgar Brooks thought there was some reference that the square blunt front fairing existed, as well as others. AML did aftermarket fairings in 1/32? Both square and teardrop to convert the Hasegawa Vb. There was even a reference to the square fairings being Westland made, and labeled as such on the conversion kit. The tie to Westland was quickly put to pasture. The photo I found, below the collage is what made me revisit the whole matter. (maybe it’s the mandala effect) In any case, I have learned a lot of interesting things about Spitfires and so I share with you what I have learned and hope it helps someone someday. 
Well it’s 04:10, I better step away from the computer, it’s my mom’s 85th birthday party later on. The key to the collage is below:

 

#1 611 squadron Spitfire IXc early, clearly not anything close to the Airfix big flat square front blister thing.

#2 The only photo I could find that possibly shows a blunted front on the blister, is on some SAAF Vc Trops, and even then, the lighting is poor and additionally, they appear to have 4 cannons installed. (really irrelevant) The second aircraft looks like it has standard large blisters. The c wing was designed for 4 cannons from the get go, so why would they require a different blister? Different cannon types? The blister panels are painted a darker colour than the surrounding camouflage, so were they modified? At any rate, they are Vc’s not IXc’s and they are not as flat as the Airfix ones, nor do they have an almost square front.

 

#3 Here you can see the profile of the blister towards the front of the wing on an early IXc.
 

#4 This photo is very misleading and a probable cause of misinterpretation. The cross section of the blister has a larger radius towards the front, but the high point is almost at the halfway mark, this makes the blister appear flatter, because you are seeing the larger radius from the rear. Note the shadows and how they capture the profile.
 

#5 Early IXc showing the profile of the blister very clearly.
 

#6 It’s a Seafire but it has c wing large blisters. This photo is interesting because of the lighting where you can scarcely make out the top of the blister, but the shadows are quite prominent.
 

#7 Vc showing the larger radius of the front on the blister.
 

#8 Vc Trop and I like this photo because of the camouflage and lighting making the starboard blister appear to have a blunter front than the port blister.
 

#9 Early IXc, and although the wing mat is covering half of the blister, it takes up the curve of the profile.
 

#10 Vc and a similar viewing angle to #4 but closer and you can easily see how someone might think that the front is blunt.

#11 Early IXc and here you can see the effect of the shallower front, however you can’t see the front, so another misleading possibility.
 

#12 Early IXc with a glossy finish showing to good effect the flatter shape of the front part.
 

#13 Wreckage of a C wing spitfire and although a bit grainy, is a better view of the teardrop outline.
 

#14 RAAF Vc in a dark finish, notice the effect of the crew member on the starboard wing and how it makes it appear different than the port blister.
 

#15 Really nice shot of the blister on a Vc probably Malta bound.
 

#16 RCAF early IXc showing the profile of the blister from a different angle.
 

#17 RCAF early IXc and a beautiful look at the profile of the blister.
 

#18 RAAF Vc Trop showing to good effect the high point of the profile about halfway back.
 

#19 RAAF Vc Trop with heavy weathering and the lighting in the photo makes the whole blister look squat.
 

#20 RAAF Vc Trop, compare this with #19 and how the camouflage demarcation makes the blister appear taller than #19.
 

#21 RAAF Vc Trop with a nice 3/4 view of the blister.
 

The drawing is only shown because it portrays well, the outline and profile of the blister with the high point about half way back, and the shallow angle of the forward edge where it meets the panel. As a rule I don’t rely on drawings, but this gives a close approximation. 

C armament wide cannon fairing with nice outline of the teardrop shape.

C armament wide cannon fairing good plan view despite the dents. I think this is looking at the underside, the shadows are playing tricks (is it a mound or a crater kind of thing).

Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire IXc wide cannon fairings. Approach of front edge is blunt and outline is square.

Barracuda addresses the squareness but the approach to the wing is still blunt, and the last 2/3 should taper in more. See top view of dented wide cannon fairing.

Airfix 1/24 Spitfire IXc wide cannon fairings, even more square, with the sides of the blister running parallel to the edge of the panel for a bit. Almost a rectangle with a tapered end.

Check out the cannon fairing laying on the ground in front of the port wing. Although this is a 4 cannon installation, that should have no bearing on the shape. Unless my eyes deceive me, that looks remarkably similar to the Airfix 1/24 IXc and the Tamiya 1/32 IXc, wide cannon fairing, the only problem is that this is a Vc. This is a real head scratcher.

This photo blew me away (almost) until I got a closer look, the angle of the sun, the shadows and the odd profile of the blister shape (the profile doesn’t follow the outline shape, but to make it clearer, if you took a perfectly circular cross section teardrop shape and sliced it in half front to back, the high point would be where the maximum width is about 1/3 back instead of 1/2 and the front edge would be perpendicular to the wing) instead the profile curves down smoothly from 1/2 and meets the wing at maybe 30 degrees instead of 90. The blister shape is more complex and reflection and shadows can make it appear differently. However in the photo above this one, I am seeing what Airfix has done, again unfortunately, it’s a Vc not a IXc. 
Do the square front cannon fairings exist? I say yes. However there must have been vert few made, and again Vc’s not IXc’s.

Oh man! It’s 04:25! What am I doing!

Last one, restored Spitfire Vc with wide cannon fairings. Since this photo, it has been fitted with a Vokes filter. This from HawkeyeUK on Flickr 

04:31!!!

Cheers

Jeff 🥱

Edited August 7, 2022 by MrB17
Additional information

[Mark]

Spitfire question for you all that I have not found the answer to anywhere, despite searching extensively!

 

What colour is the interior of the underwing radiators? Not the radiator faces themselves but the interior walls of the housing.