Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

[Giorgio N]

29 minutes ago, Bjorn said:

I am planning a thematic build, and have two questions to you all Spitfire experts:

 

- Which Spitfire version was the ultimate Spitfire? And I mean compared to contemporary fighters, not compared to other Spitfire versions.

- And, which one was the worst? Still compared to contemporary aircraft.

 

It is not an easy question to answer and I'm sure many will have their own ideas on the matter. Probably it's a questione that would deserve its own thread, but I'll give it a try..

IMHO the "ultimate" would be either the Mk.IX or the Mk.XIV. I'd have to check the in service dates of the XIV compared to the brand new jets of late WW2 though, so this may leave the Mk.IX as the type that when entered service was that much better than the other contemporary fighters. And yes, the VIII was better than the IX in many respect but when entered service had lost some of that edge over the enemies.

 

Worst for me would be the Mk.V trop. Not because of the features of the Mk.V itself, but the tropical filters caused such a loss in performance that this variant was inferior to many enemy fighters. Of course the V trop still served admirably in all theatres, even after better Spitfire variants were available

[gingerbob]

My "gut reaction" answer to the above questions:

 

"Ultimate": Mk.XIVe  - This is assuming that it has to have gotten into "useful service" during wartime.  Obviously nothing with a piston engine is really going to compete on a level playing field with a jet, so I'm not worrying about that fine-point.  The LF.IX/XVI was by far dominant in 2TAF, but it was more "at least as good as" contemporaries than "that much better".

 

"Worst": 2 nominations came to mind:

Mk.II (LR) - with the silly fixed fuel tank on the port wing only.  I guess it didn't have that much impact on max performance, but more than one was lost when it simply fell into a spin out of a left-hand turn.

Mk.VI - with the "bolted on" canopy (which could be jettisoned in an emergency), cabin temps at lower altitudes reached dangerous levels.  Performance really wasn't better than a Mk.V with Merlin 46, and since it still used the 'b' wing, extremely limited duration of fire from the cannons, assuming that they ever got the chance to shoot at something.  Plus the pointy tips, which made rate of roll suffer a bit.

[Troy Smith]

46 minutes ago, Bjorn said:

I am planning a thematic build, and have two questions to you all Spitfire experts:

 

- Which Spitfire version was the ultimate Spitfire? And I mean compared to contemporary fighters, not compared to other Spitfire versions.

 

Spitfire I when it entered service in 1938?   The only other competition could be the Bf109, and not sure if the E model had entered service at that point. (wiki says late 1938...) 

 

46 minutes ago, Bjorn said:

- And, which one was the worst? Still compared to contemporary aircraft.

Much harder, some suggestions.

If you are talking it's actual contemporaries, especially opposition, then again, Spitfire V when the Fw190 came into service in France,  the only thing it could do better was turn... 

Or possibly the Spitfire 24 when compared to early jets?

The Spitfire 21 was noted for having a lot of problems when it entered service, and it still had the high back,  so that is a possibility.

 

This may be better served with it's own thread though.

[Bjorn]

34 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

This may be better served with it's own thread though.

Thanks for all suggestions! Yes, you might be right! I'll start a new thread on this one.

New thread: 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Bjorn

[Vlad]

Silly question here, but what was the logic behind the circular grip at the top of the control column? Having spent a long time in flight sims and generally being used to a joystick, I can't work out how you're meant to hold the controls in a Spitfire, or how it can possibly be comfortable.

[Work In Progress]

You can hold it in any position you want in general flying. I know they look odd but there is no discomfort problem, and if you want a bit of extra muscle to the ailerons (where you have less leverage than you do in pitch with the hinged type of control column) then they are easy to grip with both hands, especially when you have gloves on.

 

Further to the comfort point: for almost all of your piloting time, i.e. when not in violent combat or intense aerobatics, then you're only holding any fighter control column very lightly anyway. It's thumb and forefinger rather than a full fist grip, just a very light touch. If you need to grip it hard in normal use then you aren't trimming properly.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Work In Progress

[Vlad]

Fair enough, but in combat what would be the "standard" grip? Two hands? One hand on top or to the side? Thumb reaching across for the trigger? I still can't help thinking it would feel very weird to hold compared to a regular stick.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Vlad

[Biggles87]

I can tell you from my limited Spitfire flying, ( 10-12 minutes ) that holding the grip at the top came naturally. Most of my flying time has been on gliders with a standard stick grip reaching not much higher than waist level, but the Spitfire grip is quite a bit higher and my forearm was just about horizontal when holding it.

 

John

[Vlad]

That does make sense I guess, and I can only hope one day to be able to confirm by personal experience.

 

Although it does conjure a somewhat jarring mental image of the kinds of people who drive with one hand outstretched on top of the steering wheel. 🤔

[Work In Progress]

There's really no 'normal' grip, you just do what works for you, and that depends on all sorts of variables wlike whether you're 5'2" and 8 stone, or 6'2" and built like a brick external sanitary facility.  Either thumb works for the trigger. For my personal experience I've never flown a Spitfire or Hurricane but have sat in enough and for me all normal flying is right hand occupying roughly 12 o'clock to 3 o'clock, two-finger grip. Same on the Harvard IIb, which I have flown and aerobated, and which also has a spade grip unlike a lot of US-sped Texans.  Mind you, I never felt the need for both hands on that for aerobatics or tailchasing.  (In fact the only things I can ever remember having to use both hands to roll is a Citabria or a Decathlon not fitted with aileron spades, and possibly a two-aileron Stearman on days when I had not eaten enough weetabix.)  But if you did want both hands for a moment then it's a simple and instinctively available movement if you have a spade grip, and pre mark 21 Spiftires, even with metal ailerons, do have heavy ailerons at high speed. 

 

Consider also this: if you want to swap hands on the controls for another reason, e,g fiddling with the GPS or taking a butch at the map, then it's very easy with the spade grip evven when you are not in trim. So that's an advantage. Bear in mind in the lousy ergnomics of both the Spitfire and Hurricane cockpits compared to the logic of something better designed like a Mustang. On the Spitfire the undercarriage control is on the right, so you have to change hands immediately after take-off, which is not ideal. On the Hurricane it's even worse because you have to use your right hand for the flaps as well as the undercarriage,. So there is a lot of hand-swapping on these aeroplanes especially at times when you are unlikely to be perfectly trimmed in pitch, or when the pitch trim is changing any way (because of speed changes and/or changes in U/C and flap deployment). The spade grip is a useful palliative for these inherent cockpit design flaws.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Work In Progress

[Vlad]

Very insightful, thank you. I didn't realise some of these aircraft had such wonky ergonomics! Guess it's not something immediately obvious when pressing buttons in a flight sim.

 

On the subject of control ergonomics, I'm amused by the enormous lever used to control the water radiator position. Was this item so important to adjust constantly to warrant the control being arguably more prominent than even the throttle?

[gingerbob]

Well, the radiator door (flap?) is a large-ish panel, and the pilot (on early models) was manually changing the position, so presumably a certain amount of leverage would be required or at least helpful.  Think about setting your parking brake on a manual-transmission car.  With the Spit IX and subsequent, the radiator exits were automatically controlled by thermostat.  Throttle, on the other hand, is a pushrod (or cable) moving a rotating "thingy".

[Vlad]

I suppose you're forcing something out into airflow but many contemporary aircraft had more discrete winding handles or wheel and pulley systems for controlling those kinds of surfaces.

[Work In Progress]

On the early Spitfire, is the radiator flap lever more important than the throttle? It is broadly equally as important, as on a non thermostatically controlled example if you are not managing the cooling every time you change speed, height or power setting you will quickly wreck the engine. And Gingerbob is right: the aerodynamic forces are very significant so you need a long lever (whereas the throttle doesn't have very much physical work to do at all). The flap is in high pressure air under the wing so gets the full effect of the local airflow, and there is no aerodynamic balancing at all. 

 

By contrast: you should try adjusting the radiator in a Hart variant. That is truly terrifying because you are using a wheel and sprocket and chain affair,  to lift and lower the whole weight of the radiator, full of seething coolant, to expose it to more or less of the ambient airflow. Personally I'd rather heave on a lever to move a flap. To quote veteran aeromodeller, aircraft restorer, and current Hawker Hind pilot Rob Millinship:

"...the Hind has a huge radiator that retracts in and out of the fuselage. To regulate the engine temp you simply lower it into the slipstream. To raise or lower the radiator there’s a ratchet wheel on the right side of the cockpit. I don’t know the weight of the radiator, but it’s a big brass construction full of water. To move it I have to reach down, grab a handful of the wheel, and heave back. It’s hard work especially if you’re flying in formation, doing 150 miles per hour at low level.

"Every time you move the throttle the temp changes, so you need to be working the radiator, sometimes quite vigorously. It can be hard work for a little guy like me. There are occasions where I’ve had to get right down into the cockpit to move that wheel. It’s bloody heavy to work. I’ve seen photos of the Hind roaring past the flight line apparently without a pilot. Everyone knows it’s me because I’m down inside the cockpit grabbing a handful of that radiator wheel!"

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Work In Progress

[ABeck]

Thanks for comprehensive information on the mod suggestions concerning a high back long span Mk. XIVc (previous page).

 

I have all the mentioned kits at hand sawing and junking will not be a problem.

 

My next two questions:

Currently approaching my work space will be an Airfix Mk.Vb. I am planning to do an "Abadan" Spit with already painted on Red Stars. From my interpretation and compromising with Richard Franks` (latest Valliant issue on Merlin Spitfires) idea that the planes coming from actual MTO operating squadrons where in Mid Stone and Dark Earth on upper surfaces the question of colouring the undersides will remain. In my view the colour  is clearly lighter than Azure or MSG and I am tending to Sky Blue (close to FS 35550). What about the wheel hubs and the spinner??? The fuselage bands are VERY light. Does somebody please have a suggestion, are they really Sky? The outer wing leading edge ID stripes are painted over:Dark Earth ?

 

No 2: The 48th Eduard Spits have different wing set sprues. These are labeled as #8220 then followed by a letter, e.g.

8220 H for: short span aileron, gun fairing on inner panel, no wheel bulge and Mk. VIII lower wing.

As I do not possess kits of all variations: Has anyone yet made a systematic table with all the sprue variants?

 

Thanks in advance for any ideas!!

 

Regards

 

Andreas Beck

[Troy Smith]

3 minutes ago, ABeck said:

Currently approaching my work space will be an Airfix Mk.Vb. I am planning to do an "Abadan" Spit with already painted on Red Stars. From my interpretation and compromising with Richard Franks` (latest Valliant issue on Merlin Spitfires) idea that the planes coming from actual MTO operating squadrons where in Mid Stone and Dark Earth on upper surfaces the question of colouring the undersides will remain. In my view the colour  is clearly lighter than Azure or MSG and I am tending to Sky Blue (close to FS 35550). What about the wheel hubs and the spinner??? The fuselage bands are VERY light. Does somebody please have a suggestion, are they really Sky? The outer wing leading edge ID stripes are painted over:Dark Earth ?

 

No trop filters, not from MTO units. Not desert scheme

 

They are undoubtedly in Day Fighter Scheme, Dark Green Ocean Grey upper  over Medium Sea Grey,  leading edge stripes were only on DFS planes, as also Sky bands and Spinners,

see here https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Camoflage-Markings/01-Supermarine-Spitfire/Supermarine-Spitfire-Camo-and-Marks_Page_19-960

Remember these are 2nd hand planes photographed in very bright overhead sunlight.

 

You'll get told lots of stuff about wheel wells, BUT, from photos, they outer wheel part is the underside colour, the inner leg part is the interior colour, at this point Aluminium paint.

 

there are more photos from this sequence, in Red Stars 4,  including shots of the roundels being sprayed out, and the red star sprayed on, and the black outline applied. 

12 minutes ago, ABeck said:

No 2: The 48th Eduard Spits have different wing set sprues. These are labeled as #8220 then followed by a letter, e.g.

8220 H for: short span aileron, gun fairing on inner panel, no wheel bulge and Mk. VIII lower wing.

As I do not possess kits of all variations: Has anyone yet made a systematic table with all the sprue variants?

Systematic table, not that I know.

But, AFAIK, 5 types  (I have the Royal Class, Aussie eight, Spit XVI profipack and some more)

MkVIII wing,  short ailerons, leading edge tanks,  narrow cannon bulges. 

MK IX wing, 3 types,  wide bulge, Narrow inner bulge,. E type wing, with thin outer bulge.

Mk XVI, e type wing with a wheel bulge.  (the IXe type in some XVI boxings as well)

 

the wheel bulges only appeared post war with the 3 spoke wheel AFAIK.   at this point I think  chapter and verse could be supplied by @gingerbob

 

the Eduard site illustrates what in the box, and has pdf's of the instructions, with the trees labelled.  All I know if that doing specific wing bulges per boxing is a PITA.   One final point, the leading edge of Spitfire wings is a thicker gauge metal than the rear part, in this the rivets are filled and  rubbed down,  and are nearly invisible 1:1, Eduard leading edges are covered in divots.

 

HTH

[Graham Boak]

I' m sure that ME use could be ruled out by looking at the individual histories of the aircraft in Spitfire The History or the Air Britain serial books.   Or indeed confirmed, although I doubt it.  This is just lazy thinking on the part of the author and rather confirms my prejudices against this series.  There are undoubtedly lots of good stuff in there, but overall unreliable.

 

I've seen a list of the Eduard sprues, if not here then on 72nd Modeller.  Also for the Fw190.

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I' m sure that ME use could be ruled out by looking at the individual histories of the aircraft in Spitfire The History or the Air Britain serial books.   Or indeed confirmed, although I doubt it. 

Indeed Graham....

 

I couldn't be bothered last night... but the first two in the line up

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p026.html

Quote

BM185 Vb CBAF M4639 MU 9-3-42 403S 29-3-42 FAAC 21-4-42 111S 23-6-42 CAC ops 12-9-42 GAL 82MU 6-11-42 Baron Inchcape 18-12-42 USSR 24-3-43

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p020.html

Quote

AD236 Vb CBAF M4524 MU 14-9-41 602S 23-9-41 81S 5-4-42 132S 7-5-42 FACB 12-7-42 Scottish Aviation 222MU 1-11-42 Nanking 28-11-42 USSR 6-2-43

 

can't quite read the 3rd serial.

 

[ABeck]

Thanks a lot! Did the same job using the serial listing in Morgan/Shacklady. What i the abbr DFS standing for ( defense fighter squadron ?)?

[gingerbob]

Day Fighter Scheme

[Troy Smith]

14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

They are undoubtedly in Day Fighter Scheme, Dark Green Ocean Grey upper  over Medium Sea Grey,  leading edge stripes were only on DFS planes, as also Sky bands and Spinners,

 

32 minutes ago, ABeck said:

What i the abbr DFS standing for ( defense fighter squadron ?)?

I even typed it out as I thought DFS might confuse,  but didn't put the abbreviation next to it!!!  Sorry. 

 

Though, yellow leading edges were NW Europe only I think now,  and DFS ended up as the standard Spitfire scheme

can't see them on this rather fine photo in Italy

Quote

Two spitfires of 241 Sqn. on patrol over the mount Vesuvius area on Jan. 27th, 1944.

Spitfire mk. IX's in Italy by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

 

[Andrew Jones]

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

I even typed it out as I thought DFS might confuse,  but didn't put the abbreviation next to it!!!  Sorry. 

 

Though, yellow leading edges were NW Europe only I think now,  and DFS ended up as the standard Spitfire scheme

can't see them on this rather fine photo in Italy

Spitfire mk. IX's in Italy by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

 

Yellow leading edges were I believe a Fighter Command identity marking , so any fighter aircraft not under this umbrella would not need to carry them , although , as you do point out some aircraft do carry them in other commands.

 

Andrew

[Giorgio N]

Spitfire IXs in Italy were quite a mixed lot...

A number were coming from the desert in desert scheme, later deliveries were in Day Fighter Scheme. Of the "standard" features seen on Fighter Command aircraft, the yellow leading edges were generally not used while Sky bands and spinners could or not be retained. Some aircraft eliminated both features, others eliminated one or the other. Codes were sometimes in Sky, often in white, other times in red or combination of colours.

Mind, while I said that yellow leading edges were generally not used, there are a couple of recorded examples...

[Oliver_88]

First, can I say that I'm sorry but I am not a scale modeller. I guess its somewhat accurate though to say that I am at least trying to paint a model? During my research this forums seemed to be a great resource with a wealth of knowledge, so decided to chuck a post up to ask these questions and confirm my assumptions. I hope that this is okay? I'm interested in painting some Seafires, the Ib version to be specific.

 

1. Now I understand from searching in these threads that interior parts would have been painted aluminium. And that the wheel wells and covers appear to be an heated debate between either underside colours or aluminium. But the question I want to ask is what about the parts that the ailerons attach into on the wings, the parts that the elevator attaches into the horizontal stab, and rudder attaches onto the vertical stab. Here's an image for reference about the places I'm on about if unsure what I mean. Consider that an interior part like the flaps are?
   
   
   
    
2. Can anyone provide an opinion on what mark the two images linked below show?
3. Can anyone provide an opinion on what serial the two images linked below show?
   
   https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205150784
   https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205186541
   
   I was thinking it is a Seafire Ib rather than Seafire IIc due to how far back the cannon bulges appear to be. Although to contradict that, are those the slinging lugs I can see just above the leading edge wing root? I also was thinking that what can be seen of the serial could be showing 357 indicating MB357 which was an Seafire Ib. But maybe its an trick of the eyes and the 4th and 5th characters could be showing 67, 52 or 62 instead, not to mention what the partial hidden 3rd character could instead be. Do you think I am right in my original assessments?
    
4. Does anyone know any other good images showing the same winged trident emblem as used there. As I am curious about what the tail-esque part beneath the emblems wings is, banner with squadron motto perhaps?

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Oliver_88

[Dave Fleming]

'b' wing, and I'd say '57' as the last two