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

It was retained as an option on Mk.VIIIs, IXs and XIVs.  It may even had been an option on the e wing, but one requiring significant rework.  However the AM had long intended all fighters to have four 20mm cannon as standard, and this was abandoned on Merlin Spitfires and early Griffon Spitfires.  It was finally achieved on the Mk.XX series, but by then the aim had shifted to six 20mm, which fouled up the Meteor design for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Which display year are you doing?

good point, 2013 in Lock markings edit: think I’ve got it, non-standard prop&spinner and mkv chin intake and oil cooler so looks like a mkv kit will need to be raided

Edited by PhantomBigStu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/27/2020 at 6:59 PM, Dave Fleming said:

Looking ahead to the new Airfix Vc, does anyone know when (a)  the 'wide' upper wing blister was replaced by the 'narrow' one and (b) four cannon fit replaced by two cannons on mk Vs  in production, or was it a field mod?

 

I know early mk IXcs had the wide blister, but there was (IIRC) some crossover in production

@Dave Fleming

I’ve come into this thread rather late but may be able to help a little. Alfred Price was right on the money when he described the Spitfire V as the “variant much varied”.

 

The short answer to your question, "when the 'wide' upper wing blister was replaced by the 'narrow' one" is, “the first quarter of 1943”.

 

My interest in RAAF Spitfires has resulted in me undertaking a survey of the many variations of the Mk.VC in RAAF service. Comparing photos of RAAF A/C with production information comes up with the data tabled below. Bear in mind that this only a small sample, but has the advantage that the RAAF received Spitfire VC aircraft from the Supermarine, Westland and Castle Bromwich lines. I have not tried to correlate this data with aircraft serving in the ME and Europe.

 

Supermarine production.

Production of the Spitfire VC at Supermarine ceased in August 1942. Photos of BR serialled A/C and BS serialled A/C up to, and including BS300, the last in the sequence, show only the wide cannon-feed fairing. The RAAF modified a number by fitting the narrow fairing in 1944/45, but they were not delivered that way.

 

Westland production.

All AR serialled A/C received by the RAAF, (produced in May to Sep 1942), had the wide cannon-feed fairing.

EE serialled A/C up to and including EE851 had the wide cannon-feed fairing. (Produced from Sep 42 to late Jan 43).

EE serialled A/C from EE852 on had the narrow cannon-feed fairing. (Produced in late Jan 43 and Feb 43).

EF serialled A/C all had the narrow cannon-feed fairing. (produced from Feb 43 to Nov 43).

 

Castle Bromwich Production.

ER serialed A/C all had the wide cannon-feed fairing. (Produced in October 1942).

ES serialled A/C all had the wide cannon-feed fairing. (Produced in Nov & Dec 1942).

JG serialled A/C all had the wide cannon-feed fairing. (Produced in Dec 1942 & Jan 43).

JK serialled A/C. Only three A/C in this sample – too small to call. (Produced Jan to Mar 43).

JL serialled A/C. Small sample, but have the narrow cannon-feed fairing. (Produced Apr 43).

LZ serialled A/C. Early aircraft in this group, LZ 840 to LZ874, had the wide cannon-feed fairing. (Produced in Mar & Apr 43).

                           Later A/C, (LZ884 on), had the narrow cannon-feed fairing. (Produced Apr & May 43).

MA serialled A/C all had the narrow cannon-feed fairing. (Produced from May to July 1943).

MH serialled A/C all had the narrow cannon-feed fairing. (Produced from July to Aug 1943).

 

Bear in mind that this only a small sample, but it has the advantage that the RAAF received Spitfire VC aircraft from the Supermarine, Westland and Castle Bromwich lines. I have not tried to correlate this data with aircraft serving with the RAF in the ME and Europe. It would also be an interesting exercise to correlate the cannon-feed fairing sizes with those of Spitfire IX production which had serials intermixed with VC A/C at CB.

 

Other variations to watch out for in Spitfire VC production are the rear-view mirror, dorsal ID light, mast on the rudder, cover plate on wheels, and mechanical U/C indicators. R/T and IFF fit also varied depending on time frame and theatre of operations.

 

Although the above is by no means definitive, it may be of some help in deciding what bulges to put on your Spifire VC.

Peter Malone

Edited by Magpie22
Spelling correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

@Dave Fleming

I’ve come into this thread rather late but may be able to help a little. Alfred Price was right on the money when he described the Spitfire V as the “variant much varied”.

 

 

Fantastic Information Peter, many thanks for sharing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we say down in Oz, "no problem, mate". I may be demanding payback soon and contacting you re Hawker P.1127 details. :rolleyes:

 

One thing I should have mentioned re aircraft fitted with the narrow cannon-feed fairing is that the panel under the gun bay, on the wing under surface, was also changed. The long tear-shaped fairing at the rear of the outboard cannon position was not on those aircraft and the chute in front of it was sheeted over.  A quick, (but by no means definitive), check of Mk.IX photos shows the same applied to that mark.

 

Peter M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2020 at 8:23 AM, Magpie22 said:

As we say down in Oz, "no problem, mate". I may be demanding payback soon and contacting you re Hawker P.1127 details. :rolleyes:

 

Peter M


You will be welcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know already that I'm planning on a P.R.Pink Mk.IX. Now as the KP kit is not in at hannants yet, and my options fall to Eduard or Italeri in 1/72. Which Eduard kit early or late Mk.IX ? Oh yeah almost forgot ? Overall pink or is it pink over med. sea grey ? Ive seen models done both ways ?  

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Which Eduard kit early or late Mk.IX ?

C wing, narrow wing blisters.  The kits come with 3 types of wing, wide early C, narrow C, outer blister E.  You can check what is in what box at the Eduard site.

20 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Oh yeah almost forgot ? Overall pink

as in the FR.IX 

overall pale pink, but it's nearly white. 

3269411347_cb1aeac6a9_o.jpgSpitfire FR.IX by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

see 

specifically

  

On 09/03/2014 at 10:04, Edgar said:

Off-white; there's a sample in the National Archives, and, in order to see that it is pink, it was necessary to lay it on a sheet of white paper. I've had it matched, but it's pointless putting it on here, since you wouldn't see it.

Before anyone says that it will have faded, in all the ensuing years, in the same envelope (kept in a folder, in a file, in a darkened room,) there's a sample of P.R.U. blue, and it still matches the prescribed colour (tested by machine, not just eyesight.)

Edgar

 

but if you search "britmodeller pink spitfires"  you will find more

 

 

20 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

or is it pink over med. sea grey ? Ive seen models done both ways ?  

then the models are wrong....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Eduard Spitfire (a Mk.VIII) does not come with the wide cannon blister.  It should, for at least one set of the markings provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

My Eduard Spitfire (a Mk.VIII) does not come with the wide cannon blister.  It should, for at least one set of the markings provided.

 

The wide blister is only in the early C mk IX kit (which of course has the wide ailerons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me again, heard the new revell 1:72 vb kit has a number of problems, is there anything salvageable from it? Got to buy one for the decals wondering if it could be saved with spares or used as for a conversion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some discussion here. Basically it has the same problems as their slightly earlier IIa

also a good thread showing the upper wing blister problem here 

 

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks @work in progress, I don’t have a spare mkv prop, but I do have a spare 4 bladed one, I think I’ll convert it into a mkvi.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone some quick questions for the experten. Regarding the Pink Mk.IXc’s. Is they a way to tell which upper cowling to use ? There seem to be two types available in the Eduard kits. Im guessing one is for a RR Merlin the other for Packard Merlin’s ? Second question, exhausts are they fishtail or smooth pipes ? Last question did these particular Mk.IX’s have the deeper chin for the larger oil capacity ? I don't think so but would like confirmation. 
 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more bulbous top to the cowling was introduced by Castle Bromwich despite criticism from Supermarine test pilots who thought it destabilising.  It could be seen on Mk.IXs and Mk.XVIs.  I think that these pale pink aircraft were late production so the balloon cowling is more likely, but a check of the serials against the aircraft tested as possibly given in STH might make that clearer.

 

Similarly, at this stage of the war the tubular exhausts are more likely, but what do the photos show?  They have been posted here.

 

These aircraft were FR not PR , so being otherwise standard fighters with just the 75 gallon fuselage tank, there was no need for the larger oil tank under the nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

Me again, heard the new revell 1:72 vb kit has a number of problems, is there anything salvageable from it? Got to buy one for the decals wondering if it could be saved with spares or used as for a conversion?

It all depends on how fussy you are regarding details and accuracy. Personally I can see very little salvageable from this kit..

The general shapes are not bad, but the shape of all various details (bulges, radiators, canopies..) vary from bad to terrible. Parts like wheels, gear legs and so on are just average, detail in the cockpit is ok but the seat is a joke. Surface detail is nothing special.

It's also a kit that doesn't fit particularly well, I've been slowly building their Mk.II (same kit apart from the wings) and I'm not enjoying it at all. At least their older Vb was inaccurate but was a decent kit with good surface detail and a decent fit.

Really if it's only the decals you need, it may be better to check if anyone has built the kit with aftermarket decals and has a spare set to give you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The more bulbous top to the cowling was introduced by Castle Bromwich despite criticism from Supermarine test pilots who thought it destabilising.  It could be seen on Mk.IXs and Mk.XVIs.  I think that these pale pink aircraft were late production so the balloon cowling is more likely, but a check of the serials against the aircraft tested as possibly given in STH might make that clearer.

 

Similarly, at this stage of the war the tubular exhausts are more likely, but what do the photos show?  They have been posted here.

 

These aircraft were FR not PR , so being otherwise standard fighters with just the 75 gallon fuselage tank, there was no need for the larger oil tank under the nose.

This is one of the contemporary photos

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=L0NxvNHM&id=E785E819C1F4DC951654C62E8726C7CBF3FAA4BD&thid=OIP.L0NxvNHMoqpRnXLwZQnENQHaE8&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fc2.staticflickr.com%2F4%2F3327%2F3269411347_7010b64e9e_z.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&exph=427&expw=640&q=16+squadron+pink+spitfire&simid=607995063254191047&selectedindex=0&adlt=demote&shtp=GetUrl&shid=3f5fbdf7-288c-4bae-bcd6-3801788322f8&shtk=U3BpdGZpcmUgRlIuSVggfCBSIEEgRiBubyAxNiBzcW4uIG9wZXJhdGVkIHBpbmsgcGhvdG8gLi4u&shdk=Rm91bmQgb24gQmluZyBmcm9tIHd3dy5mbGlja3IuY29t&shhk=Da1wqmNrgl9b9kBJ%2BpkLAXoUpBusu2ouKwAQCV%2FLiIg%3D&form=EX0023&shth=OSH.wmjPYeEX6jSVcwiFJduDBA

 

The nearest machine has fishtail exhausts and the machine on the left appears to have the smooth cowl.

 

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

It all depends on how fussy you are regarding details and accuracy. Personally I can see very little salvageable from this kit..

The general shapes are not bad, but the shape of all various details (bulges, radiators, canopies..) vary from bad to terrible. Parts like wheels, gear legs and so on are just average, detail in the cockpit is ok but the seat is a joke. Surface detail is nothing special.

It's also a kit that doesn't fit particularly well, I've been slowly building their Mk.II (same kit apart from the wings) and I'm not enjoying it at all. At least their older Vb was inaccurate but was a decent kit with good surface detail and a decent fit.

Really if it's only the decals you need, it may be better to check if anyone has built the kit with aftermarket decals and has a spare set to give you

Im not that fussy, if I can correct the most odious of faults by converting it to a mkvi I’ll be happy, better than waiting around to find someone who used AM decals on one rather than any of the better Vs out there. Not like the decals are also going on some wonderkit, In that case the Heller VB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, I'm building a Mk VIII any external visible difference if the aircraft is fitted with a Merlin 63, 66, or 70? Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any changes directly related to the engine.  However, those with the high altitude Merlin 61/633 were early production F.Mk.VIII aircraft, initially with extended wingtips and the wider cannon bulges.  After the first batches they became LF.Mk.VIIIs with the Merlin 66.  Holding that the changes to standard tips and the narrow cannon bulges happened at the same time is highly optimistic, but it would make sense and certainly happened around this time.  The Merlin 70 was also a high altitude engine so we might expect such aircraft to be recorded as HF Mk.VIII but I don't believe that they were so recorded.  We might also expect them to have the extended tips.

 

Bear in mind that like the four cannon, the tips and cannon bulges could be fitted/removed as required.

 

I think the key question is which Mk.VIII you intend to model.  Desert camouflaged ones are most likely to be F.Mk.VIIIs, SEAC or Aussie ones LFs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I think the key question is which Mk.VIII you intend to model.

Thanks Graham for the quick response. Intended aircraft is A58-303; an Aussie LF. It looks like narrow canon bulges and no wing tip extension.

 

Spitfire_XIII_Construction_1

 

Spitfire_VIII_Construction_3

 

 

Always a trick for me is if they modified prop, supercharger intake, oil and water cooler requirements to better match the selected engine at altitude. I have not seen any change in this respect with the Mk VIII but I am not an expert. I have read that this camo stripped aircraft was also used for oil cooler tests and Spitfire aficionados might spot something different in these pictures from a standard Mk VIII. I am using the Eduard 1/48 HF for this aircraft. I expect all parts for an LF are in the box. 

 

Thanks again,

Ray

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

Always a trick for me is if they modified prop, supercharger intake, oil and water cooler requirements to better match the selected engine at altitude.

No, I've not heard of any "tweaking" required for the different engines.  The position of the crankcase breather vent shifted from Merlin 61 to 66 (I don't remember precisely between which engines) but that hole is clearly visible on the starboard cowl in your photo.  (Under about the second exhaust stack.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

No, I've not heard of any "tweaking" required for the different engines.  The position of the crankcase breather vent shifted from Merlin 61 to 66 (I don't remember precisely between which engines) but that hole is clearly visible on the starboard cowl in your photo.  (Under about the second exhaust stack.)

Thank you for the clarification. If my understanding is correct then it looks like Eduard has got it right.

 

Spitfire_VIII_Construction_5

 

 

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...