Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[PhantomBigStu]

are the vokes filter on spitfires the same as the hurricane? Got plenty of hurri ones spare so wondering if I could use them on a spitfire Vtrop? 

[72modeler]

2 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

are the vokes filter on spitfires the same as the hurricane? Got plenty of hurri ones spare so wondering if I could use them on a spitfire Vtrop? 

I don't think they are identical. The shape of the intake opening seems to be different between the two aircraft, and the panel that forms the lower cowling would have to be a different shape, as well. In photos, it appears that the intake on Spitfires is rectangular in shape and the intake on Hurricanes can be D-shaped or one with a flat top and gently curved bottom lip. Not sure why the two different shapes to the Hurricane trop intakes- maybe due to different manufacturers or MU's? I didn't have any decent photos of the two aircraft from the same side or angle, but doing an internet search for "Spitfire Vb trop Vokes filter" and Hurricane Mk II trop Vokes filter" will get you some photos for comparison. @Graham Boak will be more helpful, I think, as we don't have the late great Edgar Brooks to educate us. (Sure do  miss that man!) Best I can do, I'm afraid!

Mike

[PhantomBigStu]

Thanks @72modeler

[Beard]

18 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

are the vokes filter on spitfires the same as the hurricane? Got plenty of hurri ones spare so wondering if I could use them on a spitfire Vtrop? 

I need some Vokes filters for Hurricanes and have loads of Spitfire ones. PM me, if you want to do a swap.

[PhantomBigStu]

2 hours ago, Beard said:

I need some Vokes filters for Hurricanes and have loads of Spitfire ones. PM me, if you want to do a swap.

Will do

[72modeler]

7 hours ago, Beard said:

I need some Vokes filters for Hurricanes and have loads of Spitfire ones. PM me, if you want to do a swap.

Is this the greatest modeling website or what?

Mike

[Graham Boak]

I don't know why there were two different shapes to the intake on the Vokes Filter, unless perhaps one design belonged on the Mk.I and the other on the Mk.II?  The external shape of the two filters differed because of the different length of the two noses.

[72modeler]

24 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't know why there were two different shapes to the intake on the Vokes Filter, unless perhaps one design belonged on the Mk.I and the other on the Mk.II?  The external shape of the two filters differed because of the different length of the two noses.

I hadn't thought of that, Graham- that's why you're my go-to guy for all things WW2 RAF! (BTW-I'm actually starting to gather the pieces/kits needed to do KZ193, one of the Hurricane Mk V's. (I'm thinking that taking photos and figuring out how to post them with text will be much harder than actually making the model!) It's one of my two New Year resolutions, and if I don't actually finish something before 2019, I am going to be drawn and quartered by my modeling buddies...jeez- tough crowd!

Mike

[PhantomBigStu]

Me again as beard has provided me with the trop filter for a spitfire, I can now do a MKV trop from the malta xtradecal https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/X72161 sheet using the airfix mkVa kit and a AML conversion I picked up. However I know some mk V had a different prop and spinner, my question is did these? 

[Graham Boak]

You mean the Mk.Vb kit?  The ones shown were early Supermarine-built Mk.Vs and so had (as shown) the De Havilland prop.  Some later Mk.Vs had the Rotol prop - my suspicion is that these will have been Castle Bromwich built examples but I've not seen confirmation of this.

[PhantomBigStu]

9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

You mean the Mk.Vb kit?  The ones shown were early Supermarine-built Mk.Vs and so had (as shown) the De Havilland prop.  Some later Mk.Vs had the Rotol prop - my suspicion is that these will have been Castle Bromwich built examples but I've not seen confirmation of this.

No, the new tool mkI/II got a couple of those in the stash,is that the same DH prop as the mk1 used?

[Graham Boak]

Perhaps not in all engineering details but yes as far as modelling is concerned.

[Andre B]

Was it common that Spitfire pilots had problems with opening the canopy after been hit during dog fight. Or is it just an "movie gimmic" as seen in Dunkirk, Pearl Harbour etc...

 

Cheers / André

[Graham Boak]

Any aircraft that has a sliding hood will have trouble sliding it back after the track has been damaged in battle.  That includes the Spitfire and Hurricane.   Because of this Malcolm designed the quick-release toggle that hung down from the canopy.  I don't know exactly where it was, nor when it was introduced.

[malpaso]

Early Spitfires had an issue opening the hood at speed, even without any damage! I think it was something to do with localised pressure and that’s partly why the funny little extra knock-out(?) Perspex panel appeared on the side of the canopy, presumably until the proper hood jettison noted above was fitted.  

From what I’ve read the pilots couldn’t open the hood until they were slowing down in the circuit for landing, and there was a fairly early realisation something had to be done to allow opening at higher speeds if necessary.

cheers

Will

[Andre B]

16 hours ago, malpaso said:

Early Spitfires had an issue opening the hood at speed, even without any damage! I think it was something to do with localised pressure and that’s partly why the funny little extra knock-out(?) Perspex panel appeared on the side of the canopy, presumably until the proper hood jettison noted above was fitted.  

From what I’ve read the pilots couldn’t open the hood until they were slowing down in the circuit for landing, and there was a fairly early realisation something had to be done to allow opening at higher speeds if necessary.

cheers

Will

 

Noticed that little perspex panel more close in the movie "Dunkirk". I knew'd about it in years but never seen it so close so those splitpins on the inside was seen. That made me start to wonder why it was so difficult to open the canopy even without damages or if the rails hade been hit. I tought that perspex was there for some kind of security but never tought it was there because an pressureproblem. Thanks for charing knewledge!

 

Cheers / André

[Jeff.K]

Spitfire mavens, there's a new Kopro Vc just dropped. 

It has four cannons. My understanding with Vcs is that some had four, some not. I'm interested in Malta Spits, especially those of Beurling. Any tips on what had what? Also, anyone see the kit yet? If so is it as good as their Vb? 

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, Jeff.K said:

Spitfire mavens, there's a new Kopro Vc just dropped. 

It has four cannons. My understanding with Vcs is that some had four, some not. I'm interested in Malta Spits, especially those of Beurling. Any tips on what had what? Also, anyone see the kit yet? If so is it as good as their Vb? 

Nearly all the pics I have seen of VCs on Malta have had two of the Hispanos removed, probably to save weight and increase climb.  It seems to vary as to whether it was the inner or outer which was removed.  The only VCs I've seen with all four canon were aircraft being delivered so, presumably, they had two guns stripped out as soon as possible.   Doesn't necessarily mean none of them carried four cannon of course, but it would seem it was the exception rather than the rule.

 

I would definitely recommend Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces 83 - Malta Spitfire Aces as a reference book if you can get it.  It has two profiles of aircraft flown by Beurling.  One, on which his victory tally was painted, was actually a VB, EP706.  It has the Squadron codes T + L on the fuselage in a pale bluish colour and the overall finish appears to be of an aircraft that had its camouflage toned down with an undisclosed dark colour (which has caused much debate). 

 

In Osprey's book no.16 'Spitfire V Aces' there is a photo of another aircraft from the same unit, 249 squadron, BR586 T + M and the top surfaces look very dark and pretty much monotone rather than, say, a thin wash.  Interestingly the wing roundels look like they are painted in a lighter than normal colour, the blue at least anyway.  Presumably this was to make them easier to see against the recently applied dark overall colour.  

 

The other Beurling profile in book 83 is a VC, BR120.  Artwork depicts it as being in the standard desert scheme but with a thin, darker paint wash over the mid-stone parts of the camouflage.  It has the squadron codes T +D which are depicted in white, a very non-standard fuselage roundel and only one (outer, I think) canon fitted. 

 

Spitfire colours from Malta have been debated for years and no one seems to have the definitive answer as to which darkening colour(s) were used.  Whatever it was it must have been something that was readily at hand and in large amounts.  As Malta was primarily a naval base it was, perhaps a Royal Navy colour.  Some aircraft were apparently re-painted en route to Malta aboard the USS Wasp so it's odds on that those Spitfires were painted in a US naval colour.  Whichever way you look at it it's a real can or worms but the good news is that whichever colour you choose no one can say you're wrong!

 

 

 

Hope that helps!

[Graham Boak]

Operations Calendar and Bowery delivered 4 cannon Spitfires to Malta.   Stories that this was done to ensure a supply of spare cannon on Malta appear to be just that  - stories.   Malta was clearly unaware of any such idea as the aircraft continued in service with all units, but early trials by 257 Sq resulted in the removal of one pair because they adversely affected handling and performance. This seems to have carried across to the other Takali unit, but not to those at the other base.  There are photos of Barnham's aircraft (Calendar) still with four cannon some time after its arrival.

 

Although not documented, it seems clear that the original intention was that the standard armament for the C wing was to be 4 cannon, but it seems that Boscombe trials led to the same conclusion as reached on Malta ar much the same time.  Much to the disappointment of the Admiralty who where looking for heavy armament to defeat armoured shadowers - the BV.138.

 

Buerling was initially not a Takali pilot, but transferred to 247 when 601 Sq transferred to North Africa. He is then often linked to an ex-601 Sq aircraft that remained on the island, but did this have 4 cannon?  By then such aircraft will have been rare.

 

247 was the first unit to convert Spitfires to fighter-bombers, and to do this the bomb carrier was placed in the inner cannon bay.  It is not known whether this outer cannon necessarily implies fighter-bombers but the reverse is clearly true - on 1942 Malta.

 

Recent research shows that the required colour was Dark Mediterranean Blue, although the Wasp deliveries included many(?) aircraft in Temperate Sea Scheme.  The USN did not have any such dark colour in its aircraft colour schemes: suggestions that thick ship paints were used on high performance aircraft should be treated with derision.

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Operations Calendar and Bowery delivered 4 cannon Spitfires to Malta.   Stories that this was done to ensure a supply of spare cannon on Malta appear to be just that  - stories.   Malta was clearly unaware of any such idea as the aircraft continued in service with all units, but early trials by 257 Sq resulted in the removal of one pair because they adversely affected handling and performance. This seems to have carried across to the other Takali unit, but not to those at the other base.  There are photos of Barnham's aircraft (Calendar) still with four cannon some time after its arrival.

 

Although not documented, it seems clear that the original intention was that the standard armament for the C wing was to be 4 cannon, but it seems that Boscombe trials led to the same conclusion as reached on Malta ar much the same time.  Much to the disappointment of the Admiralty who where looking for heavy armament to defeat armoured shadowers - the BV.138.

 

Buerling was initially not a Takali pilot, but transferred to 247 when 601 Sq transferred to North Africa. He is then often linked to an ex-601 Sq aircraft that remained on the island, but did this have 4 cannon?  By then such aircraft will have been rare.

 

247 was the first unit to convert Spitfires to fighter-bombers, and to do this the bomb carrier was placed in the inner cannon bay.  It is not known whether this outer cannon necessarily implies fighter-bombers but the reverse is clearly true - on 1942 Malta.

 

Recent research shows that the required colour was Dark Mediterranean Blue, although the Wasp deliveries included many(?) aircraft in Temperate Sea Scheme.  The USN did not have any such dark colour in its aircraft colour schemes: suggestions that thick ship paints were used on high performance aircraft should be treated with derision.

247 Squadron?  Do you mean 249?  247 never served on Malta or flew Spitfires. 

[JackG]

If I remember correctly from reading the Buzz Beurling 'Hero' book written by Brian Nolan, a pair of cannon as well as one pair of .303's were also removed to conserve ammo - can anyone else confirm this?

 

regards,

Jack

Edited June 20, 2018 by JackG

[Jeff.K]

i've got the Osprey books and Beurling's own account (on audiobook via Audible). i vaguely remember his as having two cannon. 

 

regarding the colour (color for us Yanks) can of worms i'm used to this, i'm very deeply into WWI and... well if you can say PC10 and not shudder... you don't know PC10. 

 

got the Malta spitfire colours book and quite familiar with USN colors so that i'll sort out to my satisfaction (if no one else's). i think the usual USN blue-grey was the color, although thin washes may have been done. it's also possible that a grotesquely thinned deck blue was used but that's like, "well if you thin tar enough..." 

 

re: 247: i think we can safely assume 249. and i think my Beurling bus(es) will be rockin' two cannon not 4. 

 

hope the Kopro kit's up to it, Sword are scarce. 

[Graham Boak]

That had also been said, but "Laddie" Lucas of 249 Sq (thank you Jack) is the source of the quote about the trials that 249 carried out.  It's no doubt true that removing guns would conserve ammunition, but it is also true that they would penalise handling and as both airbases then operating Spitfires initially retained the full cannon armament (but no mgs) then Lucas's account appears the most factual.

 

Personally, I would only retain 4 cannon on a model of an aircraft on delivery, or operating from Hal Far immediately afterwards.  And attrition was high - if not quite as high as claimed anecdotally!  But then a lot of Spitfires under repair doesn't help squadron readiness numbers.

[Chuck1945]

Totally OT but tied to Graham's comment about a USN blue.

 

Dana Bell commented on Hyperscale in a thread about his latest monograph on USAC/USAAF Olive Drab 41 that his next booklet is planned to cover USN blue-gray and light grey camouflage including "...The Blue Gray book is getting more interesting with the discovery of additional information on the use of Dark Blue (aka Deck Blue), but we'll just have to wait to see when we can release everything."

[Graham Boak]

 I look forward to Dana's work - do you have a contact for the OD book?  However the hard facts remain.  Aircraft drag is partly dependent upon the size of the pigments in the paint, something that was clearly recognised by the RAF's introduction of smoother paints in 1940 and the furore over the very rough Special Night (RDM 2).   Small pigment size is not a requirement for deck paint, or indeed any other ship paint.  There are also other differing requirements linked to the higher speeds, higher altitudes and hence lower temperatures needed on aircraft (I'm not sure that the added protection needed from UV was recognised in those days).  Deck paint does have to face its own problems, mainly severe physical abrasion and the salt water environment, but has no driving requirement to light weight.  For these reasons these are very different products.  Using a non-aircraft approved paint would inevitably result in immediate performance penalties through additional weight and drag, with following problems due to poor adhesion.

 

It may of course turn out that there was a Deck Blue produced in aircraft-dedicated paints as well as the familiar ship paint.  Roll on Dana's work.

 

In this case, we know from the colour photos of Weaver's(?) aircraft on the Sicilian beach in September that adhesion was not a problem with the paints used.  There's also room for considerable doubt that Wasp would be carrying enough aircraft-dedicated paint (of whatever colour) to repaint 100 Spitfires.  However, as we now know more about the painting of these aircraft, we can rule out the use of even appropriate US paints.  As I said some years ago, if the RAF could get 100 Spitfires to the Wasp they could get tins of paint - and this is exactly what they did.  Although despite the myth, most if not all repainting was done ashore in a Scottish MU (where required).