Jump to content

Spitfire prototype - engine info sought


wellsprop

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

I am well aware that K5054 was a prewar aircraft, however, I know that this is where the Spitfire guys hang out! I'm after information and photos about K5054's engine, I have searched but I can find very little. I know it was a Merlin C, I assume it was mounted as on the Mk I Spitfire with the same oil coolers etc?

Ben

Edited by wellsprop
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help on the engine, but Hannants have those decals on one of their Spitfire sheets.

Can't remember which until I get home.

Haven't you already built one with those?

Rick.

EDIT:

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/X72075

Or maybe you're asking just for those off the full sheet?

That'll explain the request.

Sorry, I used mine!

I'm a little slow today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checked information on the engine: not a Merlin C, but a Merlin E. However both are Merlins (after that name was adopted). If, e.g., Edgar does not have any special informrtion it is a good guess that the arrangement was very much like a Mk.I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there,

I am well aware that K5054 was a prewar aircraft, however, I know that this is where the Spitfire guys hang out! I'm after information and photos about K5054's engine, I have searched but I can find very little. I know it was a Merlin C, I assume it was mounted as on the Mk I Spitfire with the same oil coolers etc?

Ben

However, given that there are many, many K5054 threads in the inter-war section, populated by the same Spitfire people as are found on here, it seems a bit of a pity to start one in the wrong place. Nevertheless...

The engine itself is immaterial in 1/72 as long as you are starting with a Mark I. The engine-related bits and pieces that need consideration are, as you probably know from the other threads, the prop, the exhausts, the oil cooler and the radiator, all of which changed at various times in the life of the prototype, as did the colours. Some believe that the upper cowling was also different at the outset but I can't say definitively whether that remained unchanged before the airframe was destroyed, and John Adams things it was probably the same as a Mark I cowling anyway so that may be worth leaving alone

So if you want to know what oil cooler and radiator to model, you first have to decide the date at which you want to represent the prototype. Same goes for the markings.

I assume you are familiar with the other differences from the other discussion threads, but a refresher may help: these are some of the more discursive and informative ones --

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234935599-k-5054-from-the-new-airfix-mki/

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234935724-spitfire-prototype-cockpit-information-please/

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/80761-k5054/

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/70067-k5054-in-172-decisions-decisions/

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/59535-the-spitfire-prototype-definitive-thread

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234970058-spitfire-prototype-and-triple-ejector-exhausts/

Some of the threads relating to the Alley Cat resin kit are worth a look too, especially Mike's review thread:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234950816-spitfire-k5054-148-alleycat/

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to try and save myself buying a whole decal sheet which I wouldn't use :/ As it is, I'll probably buy it anyway :P

@Work In Progress, you're right, I shoulda posted it over there *oops*!

Ben

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to try and save myself buying a whole decal sheet which I wouldn't use :/ As it is, I'll probably buy it anyway :P

@Work In Progress, you're right, I shoulda posted it over there *oops*!

Ben

maybe there should just be a Spitfire section--not only this chaotic 'all the silly questions' blogs . :pig:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I know it was a Merlin C, I assume it was mounted as on the Mk I Spitfire with the same oil coolers etc?

The prototype cowling was "made to fit," and was more rounded, on top, than production types. In photos, it's possible to see lines, on the side pieces, where odd parts were assembled. One original fairly major difference was also the carburettor intake, which was smaller, and didn't protrude like later versions.

The prototype and Mk.I used the same series of engineering drawings, numbered 300XX, so it's fairly safe to assume that the engine mounts would have been the same; frame 5 (the main bulkhead) would not have had any armour fitted, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that your assumption is valid, Edgar. The "Type 300" covered both the prototype and the first production form. Changes could have simply been addressed with a new sheet number or the like. After all, the wings are quite different between the two, but the Mk.I's is still in the 300 series.

bob

p.s. I don't have useful answers to the questions!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers guys.

I would suggest that Occam's razor points towards the engine mounts being largely similar to the Mk I (particularly in 1/72 scale). Once again, my assumption could be VERY wrong, but I'm going to suggest (for the sake of a 1/72 model) that K5054 has largely the same engine mounts etc to the production Mk I (unless documents/pictures turn up that prove otherwise).

No doubt I will make my model as per my assumptions then, once it is finished, a photo will surface somewhere proving me wrong!

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anybody knows this, and would it be of any help?

Rolls-Royce Merlin Manual: An Insight Into the Design, Construction and Use of the Rolls-Royce Merlin Engine (Owners Workshop Manual) Paperback – 5 Mar 2015
by Ian Craighead (Author)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by the rather small illustration in the RR Heritage Trust publication 'The Merlin in Perspective', it appears that the Merlin I (and therefore presumably earlier versions) had a different style of rocker cover to the Merlin II and later marks. The Merlin I and earlier had the ramp head cylinder, so perhaps this is the reason.

Regards,

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The valves are in a different position: it was called the pagoda head. That's why the prototypes of both the Spitfire and Hurricane had a rounder section to the top of the cowling, and slightly narrower at the top. The ancillaries would also be different, lacking the power offtakes for variable prop controller and vacuum pump.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was called the pagoda head.

Only referred to as a "ramp head" in the ref cited above. Also described as having a semi-penthouse combustion chamber.

Regards,

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No contradiction intended Jason, but it was also known as the pagoda head because the cross-section had a flat top and sloping sides, like a typical pagoda roof. (or at least, as they were thought of.)

The Merlin III was intended to have two power offtakes at the front. low down, approximately 4 and 8 o'clock positions. Early production engines didn't have these, so the first Hurricanes had a smooth nose but then had to grow two bulges in these positions. The Spitfire production was later, so missed these early engines. It has a larger nose diameter to take the Rotol constant-speed propeller although this was not initially available, and this is wide enough to include these ancillaries. Hawker's trials Hurricane also had a wider nose, but this was not adopted for production. Quite possibly the Spitfire prototype would also have had a tighter cowling in this area - it isn't something I've seen explored but seems likely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

plenty of merlin nerdy stuff here

http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Rolls-Royce/RHM/RHM.shtml

cheers

jerry

Useful link! The cross section in Figure 18 nicely shows the different rocker cover orientation. Note how they're almost horizontal (also well illustrated by the head on view of the Auckland engine). Compare these to the angle of the covers on later marks.

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a jolly interesting article, thanks for posting it.

I would love to see one of those 200 bhp, 2.25 litre single-cylinder test engines in action. It would make a highly amusing "what-if" 1930s motorcycle for some record-breaking purpose.

Link to comment
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...