Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sean_M

Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a copy of the book 2nd Tactical Air Force Vol. 4 by Christopher Shores? Apparently, there are two rare pictures of Johnnie Johnson's Spitfire MK392 in it, as well as some interesting information on the e-wing Spitfire and its use with the 2nd TAF. If anyone could post these pages/information or pictures, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

roncl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me when the underwing camera blisters were introduced on the PR XI and were they a permanent fixture or removable.

Can't tell you when, but I believe they were an "option"- only fitted with certain camera suites or possibly only when they were specifically desired for the mission. Then again, I might be entirely wrong!

bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a copy of the book 2nd Tactical Air Force Vol. 4 by Christopher Shores? Apparently, there are two rare pictures of Johnnie Johnson's Spitfire MK392 in it, as well as some interesting information on the e-wing Spitfire and its use with the 2nd TAF. If anyone could post these pages/information or pictures, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

roncl

And I would really appreciate it if you bought a copy or borrowed it from a library, before either of the institutions that provide these services disappear. Just like model shops.

Yeah, I know we can't hold back the tide but at least I can have a moan.

Chris Thomas

Co-author, illustrator and photo-researcher of 2ndTAF Vols 1 to 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't get a satifacory answer on the BoB GB page so Ill repost here as it is spitfire query - During the BoB when the undersides were repainted in the field 'sky type s' (or whatever the erks could get hold off) were the maintenance markings on the underside ever reapplied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted this in other places on this forum and others but I'll give it a bash here to..

During the Battle of Britain SLt A Blake served with 'A' Flight 19Sqn RAF flying Spitfires.

According to the Squadrons Operations books down loaded from the National Archives SLt Blake scored using the following aeroplanes.

R6923 03.09.40 Me110 Damaged

R9431 09.09.40 He111 Dest

R6991 15.09.40 1130-1300 Do17 Damaged

R6991 15.09.40 1410-1505 Bf109 Dest, He111 Shared. R6991 Force landed damaged.

P4380 27.09.40 1145-1310 2xBf109 Dest

I would like to model R6991 but do not know the specific aircraft letter. The aircraft was only with 19Sqn for about 5 days until it was damaged. So it would have been in pretty clean condition. If you have the aircraft I'd letter (QV is the squadron code) for R6991 or any of the others listed I would be delighted to know it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I would really appreciate it if you bought a copy or borrowed it from a library, before either of the institutions that provide these services disappear. Just like model shops.

Yeah, I know we can't hold back the tide but at least I can have a moan.

Chris Thomas

Co-author, illustrator and photo-researcher of 2ndTAF Vols 1 to 4

Hi Chris,

I have a request in at my library to get a copy via interlibrary loan. I use the library almost all of the time. Christopher and your books on the 2nd TAF are outstanding! I own a couple of them. Thanks.

roncl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

I have a request in at my library to get a copy via interlibrary loan. I use the library almost all of the time. Christopher and your books on the 2nd TAF are outstanding! I own a couple of them. Thanks.

roncl

Thank you roncl, I really appreciate that.

CT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am researching the a/c options offered by the Eduard 1/48 Spitfire MK IXc Late Version kit (8281) and in particular MJ296 (DU-N).

In the kit instructions MJ296 is described as an HF IXc whereas, in the production pages, it is identified as an M66 powered LF IXc built at CB. The kit instructions also specify a different upper engine cowl than for the other a/c options which were also built at CB and powered by the M66. This raises the questions

A. Was MJ296 built as an LF but subsequently converted to an HF.

B. If MJ296 was an M66 LF should it sport the same "bulged" engine cowl as the other options - particularly as MJ296 was built after one of the other offered options, MH712. It appears that the CB LFs would, of necessity, have been fitted with the bulged cowl. The date August 9th 1943 comes to mind. It would also appear that the earlier M61 MK IXs, built elsewhere, were fitted with the "flat" cowl.

Any comments and opinions would be greatly appreciated.

John

Edited by Sky Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire the History has all MJxxx Spitfires as LF Mk.IXs. I suspect that this is a little early for the Merlin 70 of the HF variants, but would appreciate confirmation. STH says nothing about conversion to a Merlin 70, and it seems unlikely.

The bulged engine cowling was introduced for all production Spitfires but has no connection with the Merlin 66 fitting, which came first. Merlin 66-engined Spitfires were initially fitted with the flatter cowling - Mk.VIIIs, for example, are not seen with the bulged cowl. I suspect (pretty sure that) MH712 was also produced with the flat cowl, but being Western European-based could have received the bulged cowl as a replacement.

I would rely upon photographs for the state of these aircraft at the chosen time: not that these are always terribly helpful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The serial number of Smik's HF.IXc was ML296 not MJ296.

ML296 is listed as an HF Mk.IX with Merlin 70 in STH.

Many thanks for the above info.

The MJ296 error was due to a typo in Brett Green's review of the IXc (Late version) kit. I don't yet have the kit itself.

Considering the fact that ML296 was built well into the late Mk IX (XVI) phase I'm surprised that the kit instructions call for a flat cowling to be fitted.

I intend to model ML296 and unless otherwise persuaded will fit it with a bulged cowling.

Comments will be most welcome

EDIT

While I'm at it can anyone tell me when the different exhaust types - tubular, fishtail/flared etc came about.

Edited by Sky Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this may not be the correct conduit and i do not want to waste an experts time but i have a question about spitfire wings and hope someone will advise (or at least tell me where and how to fire the question?).

On certain real airworthy frames there are two bars or reinforcing spars on the top of each wing of Mk 2 or V. I thought these were repairs as a result of taxiing accidents (as opposed to a modern requiremenr or improvement ). Therefore why are these reproduced

(incorrectly) on some Airfix and other 1/72 models ?

This must have been mentioned before but i just cant find it .Please help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're probably "reproduced incorrectly" because it is thought easier to remove them than to add them if needed.

They are external reinforcements, which was a mod for 'a' and 'b' wings (though examples on 'c' wings can be found). I personally have not yet understood the predictability of this mod. Obviously it wouldn't have been before a certain date (early '42? Edgar has answered the question before, and I'm just hoping I'm somewhat close), and I believe that any wing panels built after a certain date would have incorporated an internal mod that would make the strakes unnecessary. But there may even be some other factor that made it a more individual case. They are MOST often associated with Vbs, but that doesn't imply anything in particular.

bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Ia from the IWM at Lambeth in 2011 before everything was moved around. This airframe is in the condition it was in on retirement in 1945. It's totally unrestored so the reinforcement strips are definitely 'period'.

DSCF1831.jpg

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody please tell me do the Ultracast and Barracuda bulged upper cowlings for the Eduard XVI cater for both the XVI and late IX or will some filling and scribing for the IX be necessary.

TIA

John

Edited by Sky Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I can't speak for the Ultracast cowlings but I have both the Barracuda ones and the Mk XVI cowling fits the Eduard Mk VIII without any problem. I don't have the Eduard Mk IX but I don't think there was any major difference in the nose shape between the two.

HTH

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I can't speak for the Ultracast cowlings but I have both the Barracuda ones and the Mk XVI cowling fits the Eduard Mk VIII without any problem. I don't have the Eduard Mk IX but I don't think there was any major difference in the nose shape between the two.

HTH

John

Hey John

Thanks for your response.

The reason for my request was related to the bulged cowling being fitted to the Mk IX and the Mk XVI with appropriate positioning of the Glycol filler caps. The Mk XVI filler was positioned forward of where the Mk IX filler would have been located. As far as I can make out, from the available images, neither of the Mk XVI cowlings show any evidence of either filler.

I agree that the Mk XVI cowling will "fit" the Mk VIII but it needs to have the filler positioned as for the Mk IX.

Edited by Sky Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't get the point of your request, I hadn't even noticed the missing filler cap.

John

Next Question :bye:

Am I right then in assuming that the bulged cowl has neither a IX nor a XVI filler cap ?

We'll get there John.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again, I have just checked and the Barracuda Mk XVi cowling has a small circle to the left of centeline and about 20% forward of the rear edge. Is that any help to you? I'm just confused now, but that doesn't take much.

Cheers

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

I have a question, sorry if the topic was already covered.

Sources say that "Mk. LF IX" was referred to as "Mk. IXb".

Does that mean there were Spitfires Mk. IX fitted with "b" wing?

It seems that Italeri Vb and IXc in 1/72 have interchangeable parts (similar molds, if not the same).

I have both in my stash, and I would like to build an (another) Mk. Vc, so I was wondering if is correct to fit "b" wings on Mk. IX, before I start searching for cammo and marking references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know the LF IX was initially referred to as the IXB. This capital 'B' refers to the low-rated engine and not to the wing/armament, which is always denoted in lower case as per Va/Vb/Vc. All IXs were wither IXc or IXe; none had the b wing.

What sometimes confuses things is, for example, recent photos of aircraft such as MH434, an LF IX/IXB whch has a c wing but has the outer cannon stubs removed, so that at a distance it looks like a b wing. A closer look shows that the middle (.303) gun station is in the correct location for a c wing, i.e. one frame outboard from where it would be on a b wing. Some Seafires also had this arrangement from the factory.

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Justin for clearing that up.

Before posting here I have compared drawings of "b" wing with photos of Mk. IX - and of ever present on the web MH434 - the machine gun cover panel is in the correct position for "c" wing, I've also compared the production list and period photos... it just didn't make much sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Justin for clearing that up.

Before posting here I have compared drawings of "b" wing with photos of Mk. IX - and of ever present on the web MH434 - the machine gun cover panel is in the correct position for "c" wing, I've also compared the production list and period photos... it just didn't make much sense...

As you have the Italeri kits, keep in mind that the c wing of the Spitfire IX has an error in the outer MG location. IRRC the spent case exhaust slot is located one bay closer to the wing roots, so that it's not aligned with the MG location.

Speaking of b and c wings, even in case the outer cannon stub is absent, it's possible to tell one from the other from the gun fairing as the types used on one wing or the other were quite different. This of course in case the top or bottom of the wing are not visible, as the b wing has totally different bulges

Share this post


Link to post
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...