Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Johnson]

13 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

A bit surprised to see the Seafire XV radiators indicated in the same group as the Spit V and Seafire II/III. My understanding is that the water radiator remained the same however the oil cooler was paired with another water radiator, Mk.IX style

That is what the Sword early and late Seafire Mk. XV have.

[72modeler]

On 3/22/2023 at 12:41 PM, PhantomBigStu said:

Got my ill fated sword xii conversion out to try and either get the nose shortening right or bin it, how long should the nose be in 1/72? 

PBS,

 

If memory serves, the nose of the Griffon II powered k XII and Seafire  15/17 was  five  inches shorter than the nose on the XIV, due to the single stage supercharger of the Griffon II compared to the two speed, two stage supercharger fitted to the Griffon 61 or 65 used on the XIV.. (I'm not even in he same galaxy as the late great Edgar Brooks when it comes to Spitfires, but I think I recall reading those figures) Hope I am right! We sure do miss you,, Edgar! So, I think you can just remove a scale five inches from in front of the angled firewall panel line on an XIV or Mk 22 cowling and you should be good to go; don't forget the teardrop shaped blister on top of the cowling of a Mk XII right behind the spinner backplate!

Mike

[Giorgio N]

7 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

Radiators as of January 1945

Spiteful

Spitfire VII, VIII, IX, PR.XI, XVI, Seafire XV.

Spitfire XIV, XVIII, PR.XIX

Spitfire F.21, F.22, Seafire F.45

Seafire XV (second listing)

Seafire LF.III

Oil Coolers

Spiteful

Spitfire VII, VIII, IX, PR.XI, XVI, Seafire XV.

Spitfire XIV, XVIII, PR.XIX

Spitfire F.21, F.22, Seafire F.45

Unfortunately no model numbers.  Each list as a miscellaneous category, which could hide any "missing" types.

 

This list now makes more sense: the Seafire III and XV are now listed as different radiators. The water radiator of the XV is listed twice, that makes sense as the port and starboard radiators were different. The XV oil cooler is the same as in the Spitfire VIII/IX, the difference being that in the latter the port and starboard units were the same.

[Dave Fleming]

Were the Spitfire XII (starboard) and Seafire XV radiators the same? I recall some discussion about whether the mk 12 had a 'Griffon' radiator a la mk 14, but can't recall)

Edited September 25, 2023 by Dave Fleming

[Giorgio N]

55 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

Were the Spitfire XII (starboard) and Seafire XV radiators the same? I recall some discussion about whether the mk 12 had a 'Griffon' radiator a la mk 14, but can't recall)

 

IIRC yes, they were the same. The lista posted by Geoffrey also point at this

[Work In Progress]

The XII rad housing is nothing like that of the XIV

[PhantomBigStu]

On 9/25/2023 at 3:26 PM, 72modeler said:

PBS,

 

If memory serves, the nose of the Griffon II powered k XII and Seafire  15/17 was  five  inches shorter than the nose on the XIV, due to the single stage supercharger of the Griffon II compared to the two speed, two stage supercharger fitted to the Griffon 61 or 65 used on the XIV.. (I'm not even in he same galaxy as the late great Edgar Brooks when it comes to Spitfires, but I think I recall reading those figures) Hope I am right! We sure do miss you,, Edgar! So, I think you can just remove a scale five inches from in front of the angled firewall panel line on an XIV or Mk 22 cowling and you should be good to go; don't forget the teardrop shaped blister on top of the cowling of a Mk XII right behind the spinner backplate!

Mike

Thanks, my XII is sitting there awaiting sanding, I went with a five inch reduction if I recall correctly.

 

Anyway my Seafire XV set arrived, turns out its missing the Seafire tail, fin what do I need to do the XII one to make it such? Though on he plus side it's came with an extra set of wing tops for the spares box so I won't be making a fuss with the seller. 

[Graham Boak]

Do you mean rudder?  Early Mk.XV had the same rudder, with an A-frame arrester hook under the fuselage.  Later Mk.XV had the sting hook taking up the lower part of the rudder.

 

 

[PhantomBigStu]

Yes, ignore my post, I rechecked the set and I actually have the later stinger rudder piece so my question was moot 

29 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Do you mean rudder?  Early Mk.XV had the same rudder, with an A-frame arrester hook under the fuselage.  Later Mk.XV had the sting hook taking up the lower part of the rudder.

 

 

 

[Dave Fleming]

Would the Vokes filter fitted to the PRIV be the same as the one fitted to the fighters? The Vokes filter was designed to have a larger oil tank, so I think it should have been able to contain the PR oil tank without modification

 

It certainly looks the same when you compare photos and the drawings in the attached thread
 

Dave (thinking the Airfix Vc might be a better start for a tropical PRIV)

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Dave Fleming

[Magpie22]

In short, yes, the same Supermarine tropical filter housing could be fitted to the PR.Mk.IV as well as the Mk.V aircraft. Your main problem with using the Airfix, (or any other), Mk.VC will be replacement windscreen and canopy.

 

Peter M

[Graham Boak]

Cough, spinners.

[Dave Fleming]

9 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Cough, spinners.

Barracudacast!

 

[Dave Fleming]

2 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

Your main problem with using the Airfix, (or any other), Mk.VC will be replacement windscreen and canopy.

I have the means....! 🙂

[Johnson]

 

What's that (strap?) on the port wing?

 

(looks like fun sitting on the tail!

[Graham Boak]

Looks like a cover for the pitot head when stationary.

[Work In Progress]

agreed, it passes up through the aileron gap so is definitely "remove before flight"

[Dave Fleming]

This may be the wrong place, but still on the recce Spitfire theme, I picked up the Osprey book on the Spitfire Photo-recce Units of WW2 (https://www.ospreypublishing.com/uk/spitfire-photorecce-units-of-world-war-2-9781472854612/).

 

Excellent book with some really interesting pictures I'd never seen before, including shots that fill in the blanks on PR1A markings (Type B upper surface roundels and almost Type D fuselage ones! Time to re-visit that one - the preview on Amazon shows these photos) and a 541 Sqn PRX in D day markings.

 

It does raised a couple of interesting questions re the pale schemes used on PRU aircraft in 1941/2 (It says first operational use of the pink scheme was in May 1941) and seems to make a distinction in the illustrations between the Camotint/Sky early PR1s and the colour used on the PR1G in 41/42, which it describes as ''pale green/almost white" (Also ties in with reports that the Benson and St Eval Flights had aircraft (described as standard fighter Spitfires, but probably PR1G) with 'pinkish or greensih white' low level schemes into 42. (RAF Historical Society Seminar 1991*).

 

So whilst the PR Pink aircraft were used, it seems that the 'green' scheme stayed in service too rather than being replaced. It's that description of the green version as an 'almost white' or 'greenish white' that intrugies me - anyone know if there is any documentation on that as being a separate or developed colour (A lighter shade of Sky?), or are we just looking at a casual observer's description of Sky (or faded Sky)? Any thoughts? @Paul Lucas  I recall you looked at this in your Battle over Britain book, but i can't recall if you touched on it in Colour Conundrums?

 

* https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-10-Seminar-Photo-Recce-in-WWII.pdf

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Dave Fleming

[alt-92]

As a corollary to that, Ventura (yes that Ventura) has several PR Spit and other related videos recently recorded.

https://www.youtube.com/@VenturaPublications

 

 

[Dave Fleming]

10 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

As a corollary to that, Ventura (yes that Ventura) has several PR Spit and other related videos recently recorded.

https://www.youtube.com/@VenturaPublications

 

 

 

Thanks - I'd been looking for the books but they are like hen's teeth and just as expensive!

[Paul Lucas]

3 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

This may be the wrong place, but still on the recce Spitfire theme, I picked up the Osprey book on the Spitfire Photo-recce Units of WW2 (https://www.ospreypublishing.com/uk/spitfire-photorecce-units-of-world-war-2-9781472854612/).

 

Excellent book with some really interesting pictures I'd never seen before, including shots that fill in the blanks on PR1A markings (Type B upper surface roundels and almost Type D fuselage ones! Time to re-visit that one - the preview on Amazon shows these photos) and a 541 Sqn PRX in D day markings.

 

It does raised a couple of interesting questions re the pale schemes used on PRU aircraft in 1941/2 (It says first operational use of the pink scheme was in May 1941) and seems to make a distinction in the illustrations between the Camotint/Sky early PR1s and the colour used on the PR1G in 41/42, which it describes as ''pale green/almost white" (Also ties in with reports that the Benson and St Eval Flights had aircraft (described as standard fighter Spitfires, but probably PR1G) with 'pinkish or greensih white' low level schemes into 42. (RAF Historical Society Seminar 1991*).

 

So whilst the PR Pink aircraft were used, it seems that the 'green' scheme stayed in service too rather than being replaced. It's that description of the green version as an 'almost white' or 'greenish white' that intrugies me - anyone know if there is any documentation on that as being a separate or developed colour (A lighter shade of Sky?), or are we just looking at a casual observer's description of Sky (or faded Sky)? Any thoughts? @Paul Lucas  I recall you looked at this in your Battle over Britain book, but i can't recall if you touched on it in Colour Conundrums?

 

* https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-10-Seminar-Photo-Recce-in-WWII.pdf

 

The PRU Pink Spitfire in 'The Battle for Britain' (N3117 '3' circa July 1940) was included at the insistence of Peter Scott who was adamant that it's pilot had claimed that it was a very pale shade of pink. Where Peter got this information from I now don't recall, but wherever it was, I wasn't convinced at the time and had the same aircraft also illustrated in Sky. 

 

I have covered PRU colours in 'Colour Conundrum', a two part article first published in the June and July 2020 issues of SAM and just reprinted in 'Colour Conundrum Compendium No.3'. I would be interested to know from where the date for the first use of PRU Pink of May 1941 comes from as the earliest mention of it that I currently have from a primary source is August 1941, by which time it seems to have been in use for some time.

 

As to whether there was a 'greenish white' that was different from Sky, I have no idea. I have never seen anything about the existence of such a colour, but the PRU had considerable license in how they painted their aircraft, so I suppose anything is possible. Again, I would be interested in where this idea comes from. It could be nothing more than a colloquial description of a badly chalked Sky finish or it could be another 'lost' colour.

 

[Dave Fleming]

13 hours ago, Paul Lucas said:

The PRU Pink Spitfire in 'The Battle for Britain' (N3117 '3' circa July 1940) was included at the insistence of Peter Scott who was adamant that it's pilot had claimed that it was a very pale shade of pink. Where Peter got this information from I now don't recall, but wherever it was, I wasn't convinced at the time and had the same aircraft also illustrated in Sky. 

 

I have covered PRU colours in 'Colour Conundrum', a two part article first published in the June and July 2020 issues of SAM and just reprinted in 'Colour Conundrum Compendium No.3'. I would be interested to know from where the date for the first use of PRU Pink of May 1941 comes from as the earliest mention of it that I currently have from a primary source is August 1941, by which time it seems to have been in use for some time.

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

It's mentioned in the book regarding a sortie on 4th may 1941 by Fl Lt Taylor, where he broke out of a cloud layer to find himself 150 feet from a group of Bf109s. the 109s didn't see him so he droppe d back into the cloud. the pilot credited the lack of reaction to the pale pink camo being tried operationally for the first time. (For attribution of that, you would need to ask Andrew Fletcher, but it's worth noting that  the aircraft was Type G R7059, which was just delivered to PRU on 1st May 1941, It's also the PR Type G that's most photographed!

I think Andy is on BM, I'll tag him. @Andy Fletcher

[Andy Fletcher]

14 hours ago, Paul Lucas said:

I would be interested to know from where the date for the first use of PRU Pink of May 1941 comes from as the earliest mention of it that I currently have from a primary source is August 1941, by which time it seems to have been in use for some time.

 

As to whether there was a 'greenish white' that was different from Sky, I have no idea. I have never seen anything about the existence of such a colour, but the PRU had considerable license in how they painted their aircraft, so I suppose anything is possible. Again, I would be interested in where this idea comes from. It could be nothing more than a colloquial description of a badly chalked Sky finish or it could be another 'lost' colour.

 

Hi Paul,

 

The 4 May 41 date comes from the 1 PRU ORB and is the earliest reference I can find to its use in any primary source.

 

The light green/off white colour reference comes from the image of X4944 which is described in primary documentaion as white or green. The photo was sent to me by the late Wg Cdr Roy Buchanan who described it as white as opposed to the slighly darker green (camotint) dicers that were also in use at the time.

 

Cheers

 

Andy Fletcher

[Dave Fleming]

Thanks @Andy Fletcher , gives another option!

[Paul Lucas]

@Dave Fleming and @Andy Fletcher, thanks for that chaps, I'll hunt down the ORB reference the first chance I get. I don't know why I don't already have it, though the last time I looked at the ORB, I may not have gone any further than the end of 1940. So much to do, so little time. . .