Spitfire wing, thickness at root measurement?

[Troy Smith]

does any on know what the maximum thickness of the Spitfire wing is at the root.

Taking mesurements of scale plans gives a rough idea, but someone here will have an actual figure I'm sure.

I know it's 13% of root chord, and measuring the Cooke plans, seems to be 13 inches, but an actual figure would great.

It's to work out how much to thin the 1/48 Academy XIV wing BTW.

Thank you

T

[JasonC]

I would think for modelling purposes you have the information you need, to sufficient accuracy for 1/48. The Spitfire root chord was 100 in inches, and as you say the NACA 2213 aerofoil had a t/c of 0.13. Giving your thickness of 13 inches, or 6.88mm. One might even get away with rounding to 7mm.

cheers,

Jason

[gingerbob]

That 100 inches is theoretical at the centerline, though it probably doesn't change a whole lot by the time you get to the root you can see.

Per Monforton, 12.62 approx. max thickness (just aft of main spar) AT "Station 3" (his term) which is just outboard of the dihedral break. As Jason says, figure 13% of the local chord length near the root end.

bob

[John Aero]

When using the Academy wing with my old 14/21 conversion I recommended thinning the wing to 7mm which to me was the best modelling solution.

John

[Fernando]

Hi, John,

When bashing your 21 conversion with an Academy wing, I was left under the impression that the wing mating surface molded in the fuselage was actually wider than the wing root (I seem to remember I had to spread just a little the leading edge). Is that so? Have you ever experienced that? Or was it possibly a matter of the wing riding a just a bit low in my build?

Fernando

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

All I remember is that old documentary with Douglas Bader from 1976 where I seem to recall him saying the wing was "about a foot thick" at its thickest. Allowing for tolerances in scaling, I'd be more than happy using 12.62" as the basis for 1/48

[riever49]

I am always amazed at the level of detail gone into by many modellers - aftermarket cockpit details, special etched brass kits and all the rest - who then go on and religiously emphasise panel lines. Panel lines are hardly visible on the prototype aircraft and are invisible on any aircraft sufficiently distant as to appear the size of a 1:48 or 1:72 scale model. The same goes for all the stencilling on the aircraft.

This is not to say I am not impressed by models finished in such a style, because I am, deeply impressed. But a model showing panel lines as dark lines on the surface is quite simply not realistic. They may win prizes at model shows, but they are caricatures, not accurate images.

[Graham Boak]

Ah, but that's modelling as "Art", Rather than as a miniature representation of reality. Each to their own, and all that.

I would disagree that panel lines are never visible - they are, particularly when thinking of the larger scales. Even on a smaller scale, there are differences that are worthy of note. Removable access panels for engines, ammunition etc have larger gaps around them than structural panels with butt joints. However, I do recall having a very similar argument about a dozen years ago, only to walk out of the (then) office and be faced with a Hercules parked on an adjacent disused runway. with visible panel lines. Faint, true, but visible.

This is not to excuse deep ditches and painting black noughts and crosses games on the surface. Hopefully it's a fashion that will run its course.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Graham Boak

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Model surface detail is impressionist, not realistic. If anyone filled in all surface detail on the basis that in 1/48 or 1/72 scale the detail was near-invisible and painted model afterwards, it would look like a toy.

The fact is that real aircraft have very uneven surfaces. Panels are seldom flush. Rivets distort skins creating a whole variety of effects which catch light in different ways. 3D computer modelling and advances in mould milling technologies may permit realistic surface detail in the future, but pre-shading and panel line highlighting on current generation kits is just a method to break up and add visual depth to what would otherwise be a lifeless and singularly unconvincing model.

[JasonC]

I am always amazed at the level of detail gone into by many modellers - aftermarket cockpit details, special etched brass kits and all the rest - who then go on and religiously emphasise panel lines. Panel lines are hardly visible on the prototype aircraft and are invisible on any aircraft sufficiently distant as to appear the size of a 1:48 or 1:72 scale model. The same goes for all the stencilling on the aircraft.

This is not to say I am not impressed by models finished in such a style, because I am, deeply impressed. But a model showing panel lines as dark lines on the surface is quite simply not realistic. They may win prizes at model shows, but they are caricatures, not accurate images.

All very interesting, but the relevance to the thread topic is...what exactly?

J.

[John Aero]

Hi, John,

When bashing your 21 conversion with an Academy wing, I was left under the impression that the wing mating surface molded in the fuselage was actually wider than the wing root (I seem to remember I had to spread just a little the leading edge). Is that so? Have you ever experienced that? Or was it possibly a matter of the wing riding a just a bit low in my build?

Fernando

The fuselage was the result of a conversation with Trevor Snowden (then at Airfix) when he suggested that I do a Mk.21 fuselage the use the 'spare' wing in the Seafire 47/46, so the fuselage was actually for that purpose. As the fuselages of the Mk.XIV and Mk.21 are the same, I also thought it could be used with the wing from the Academy kit suitably modified by a little reshaping (modelling) hence the suggested thinning of the wing.

I actually found some of these and the Hasgawa replacement IX fuselages the other week and took them up to Perth with me.

Cheers

John

[BS_w]

0..................................................100.00", thick..12.98%

Sta 2 , 27.70" of centerline, chord 99.09"........... 12.73%

Sta 3 , 35.00"................................ 98.81",...........12.59%

Sta 4 , 42.30".................................98.03"............12.45%

[Fernando]

Hi, John,

Thank you for answering! While I have your attention... Have you never thought of doing a "fuselage correction" (i.e. a completely new correct fuselage!) for the "short Merlin" Spits, just as you did with the Hasegawa's IX? With all those Tamiya and Special Hobby/CA/Eduard kits around, it would have sold pretty well.

FErnando

[John Aero]

Yes I did start it but never got any further. I think there was a rumoured kit which would make it redundant, so I had other things to do.

Cheers

John