Jump to content

Spitfire VIII Questions


dfqweofekwpeweiop4

Recommended Posts

I've been looking at the book that comes with Eduard's (1/72) Aussie 8 set and towards the end of the war, some RAAF Mk VIII's had an extra cannons fitted to try and increase effectiveness at ground attack mission. One such aircraft was Caldwell's, of which you get markings for in Eduard's sets. In the text, it explains the early wider cannon bulges were fitted but the kit only has the upper wings with the smaller bulges. So this has me wondering, would it be accurate to use the upper wings with the wider bulge from the Eduard Mk IXc (early) kit, in place of the upper wings in the VIII kit and can you cross kit the wings without having to modify them to fit?

 

thanks

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant answer about the appropriate bulges, but the wing parts are interchangeable across the Eduard family of Spitfire IXs, but the VIII wings are molded to accommodate the shorter ailerons featured in the VIII. You would have to fill in space if you used a IX upper part. Other than the aileron size, the various kit wings are interchangeable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen at least one photo of an Aussie Mk.VIII with four cannon, although in the caption this was linked to intercepting Dinahs - ground attack may make more sense.  Do you know who wrote the Eduard book?  (hopefully Peter Malone?)  It would be necessary to fit the wider cannon bulges and these would have been the same shape as those on the early Mk.IX.  Using an actual Mk.IX wing means you'll have to modify the ailerons, and possibly (I don't know the details) the inboard leading edge because of the extra fuel tanks there.  If they didn't otherwise fit I'd be very surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Wooksta! said:

Sand the thin blisters off and use the larger ones spare in the AZ mk IX kit.

 

I don't have and won't get one. All my Mk IX's are the Eduard kits, which I really should get on and build. Otherwise that would have been a possibility.

 

1 minute ago, Graham Boak said:

Maybe it'll be an option in one of the other releases.  I suspect a number of the DAF Mk.VIII schemes would be more suitable for the wider bulges - maybe the USAAF schemes too.

 

We'll have to wait and see, I still think the Mk VIII Profipack (and maybe the weekend edition) will have the same markings as the 1/48 kits. I've spotted something in the Rumourmonger thread that suggests the Weekend edition will be available in either June or July but doesn't mention the Profipack, which I would have thought would have been out first but again, we'll see.

 

thanks

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mikemx said:

 

I don't have and won't get one. All my Mk IX's are the Eduard kits, which I really should get on and build. Otherwise that would have been a possibility.

thanks

Mike

Hey Mike, you can get the AZ or KP mk.IX from MJW Models!

 

Now running for cover

Cheers 

Will

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Probably the best way to go is to sand off the narrow bulges and replace them with wide bulges, (as suggested by The Wooksta).. This allows you to retain the short ailerons and the under-wing detail, including fairings and shell and link ejection chutes which are different on the MK.VIII to those on the MK.IX. The Mk.VIII had all the 'cut outs' and fittings needed for the installation of two cannon in each wing - the Mk.IX did not. You will, however, probably need to open up the outer ejection chutes which are probably moulded closed on the kit. (I haven't seen the kit so that is guesswork on my part). That's the way I did it in 1/48.

Cheers,

Peter M

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, the February issue of Info Eduard says this about Caldwell's four cannon VIII:

 

Because we do not, and will not, have the specific wing for this particular aircraft, we are offering the option of the required likely conversion to this type that covers first and foremost the upper wing surfaces. A step by step instruction can be found on our Facebook page and will later be available on the product page at www.eduard.cz.

 

I guess we'll just t have to keep an eye out. That being said, sanding off the old fairings and adding new ones shouldn't be too difficult - mainly have to figure out a way to protect the surface detail while doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that the Mk.VIII lower surface has the additional fairings etc appropriate for the Mk.VIII or not?  In view of Eduard's comment, I think it is worth repeating that there were more than just a small handful of RAAF aircraft with the wider bulge: this was the initial production standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎31‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 11:19 PM, The Wooksta! said:

You at 'uddersfield next week?  Sure I can find a spare set of the larger blisters you can have.  I think there's a set of Airwaves ones about three feet away from me!

 

I'm afraid not, I'm a bit too skint, the next show for me in one way or another will be the Northern Model show.

 

15 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

Mike,

Probably the best way to go is to sand off the narrow bulges and replace them with wide bulges, (as suggested by The Wooksta).. This allows you to retain the short ailerons and the under-wing detail, including fairings and shell and link ejection chutes which are different on the MK.VIII to those on the MK.IX. The Mk.VIII had all the 'cut outs' and fittings needed for the installation of two cannon in each wing - the Mk.IX did not. You will, however, probably need to open up the outer ejection chutes which are probably moulded closed on the kit. (I haven't seen the kit so that is guesswork on my part). That's the way I did it in 1/48.

Cheers,

Peter M

 

I think I need to compare the kits a bit more but I'll wait and see what Eduard say about it and decide then.

 

5 hours ago, Cookenbacher said:

Mike, the February issue of Info Eduard says this about Caldwell's four cannon VIII:

 

Because we do not, and will not, have the specific wing for this particular aircraft, we are offering the option of the required likely conversion to this type that covers first and foremost the upper wing surfaces. A step by step instruction can be found on our Facebook page and will later be available on the product page at www.eduard.cz.

 

I guess we'll just t have to keep an eye out. That being said, sanding off the old fairings and adding new ones shouldn't be too difficult - mainly have to figure out a way to protect the surface detail while doing so.

 

I've looked at their facebook page but can't see anything about it as yet. I try to avoid converting and sanding as much as possible and I would be concerned about damaging the surface on the upper wings too. Have you found the article on their facebook page at all?

 

5 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Does this mean that the Mk.VIII lower surface has the additional fairings etc appropriate for the Mk.VIII or not?  In view of Eduard's comment, I think it is worth repeating that there were more than just a small handful of RAAF aircraft with the wider bulge: this was the initial production standard.

 

According to the book, the fitters swapped the bulges over when the added the extra cannons on that specific aircraft. Again I'll have to dig out the Mk IX kits and compare, there's still plenty of options in the Aussie 8 set, so it's not a massive issue for me if I don't model the 4 cannon aircraft.

 

thanks

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Does this mean that the Mk.VIII lower surface has the additional fairings etc appropriate for the Mk.VIII or not?  In view of Eduard's comment, I think it is worth repeating that there were more than just a small handful of RAAF aircraft with the wider bulge: this was the initial production standard.

 

Hi Graham,

 

From the sprue shots of the 1/72 Mk.VIII that I have seen, the wing under surfaces are correct for the MK.VIII, and incorporate the two raised fairings and the chutes under the cannon bay that were standard on production A/C. However, the chutes for the outer cannon bay are moulded closed and will need to be opened up if doing a version fitted with four cannon. The alternate wing upper surfaces, with the wide fairings, that Eduard mention in their mag would be good for the very early production aircraft, without need to open the outer chutes.

 

For the record, attached are extracts from the m/s I gave to Eduard. I assume that they used this with little change.

Cheers,

Peter M

 

"The wing on the Spitfire MK.VIII is often called a ‘C’ or universal wing. This is not strictly correct. The Mk. VIII wing was structurally different to the ‘C’ wing fitted to Spitfire VC and IX aircraft, and also incorporated fuel tanks in the leading edge. Supermarine had always intended that the Spitfire VIII would be a four-cannon aircraft. To better accommodate the extra cannon, the wings were strengthened and, all fittings, including mountings, fairings, link and shell ejection chutes were fitted to production aircraft.

In 1942, the RAF decided to fit all Spitfires with a standard armament of two 20 mm cannon and four 0.303-inch machine guns. Production of the Spitfire VIII, (and possibly the Seafire II), with four-cannon wings would introduce yet another production difficulty for Supermarine. The decision was taken to standardise production, and all Spitfire VIII aircraft would also be produced with two cannon and four machine guns.

Early production Spitfire VIII aircraft retained the wide two-cannon blister but, as production got under way, it was replaced with the narrow single-cannon blister. Hover, the fittings required for mounting the outer cannon were retained and the panels under the cannon bay remained configured for the four cannon fit.

---------------------------------------------------

The first Spitfire VIII to be fitted with four cannons was one for the Commanding Officer of No. 54 Squadron RAF, S/L Sidney Linnard. (It has been written elsewhere that the aircraft was for S/L Eric Gibbs, but he left the squadron before they started receiving the Spitfire VIII). This Spitfire was also  fitted with extended wingtips, and the role of the aircraft was quite clear – to intercept high-flying reconnaissance aircraft over Darwin. The aircraft’s ID is not known with certainty, but the author’s research leads him to believe that it was probably A58-355, which was delivered by No. 54 Sqn to No 7 RSU in August 1944 for incorporation of Modification DTS Inst/42, which covered the fitting of extended wingtips. This work was classified as a modification, as the end of the main spar had to be modified to allow the fitting of a larger diameter bolt to carry the higher loads imposed by the extended wingtip.

On the other hand, the adding of two 20 mm cannon was not regarded as a modification. The aircraft had been designed with the mountings and fittings required for the installation of the additional cannon. Other items, such as ammunition boxes and hatches incorporating the wide cannon blisters, were held in RAAF stores. The RSU described that work as “Four cannon installation fitted”, indicating that there was no specific modification work required.

The next aircraft to be fitted with four cannons were A58-431 and A58-482. No. 7 RSU carried out the work in December 1944. A58-431 was the aircraft held by No. 7 RSU for the use of No. 1 Fighter Wing’s Wing leader, Wing Commander R.C. Wilkinson. A58-482 was the aircraft of Squadron Leader R.A. Watts, CO of No. 548 Sqn. It is not known why these two were fitted with four cannon, or if any tests were done. It would appear that it was not long before they were restored to their original state.

The last known RAAF Spitfire VIII to be fitted with four cannon was Group Captain Clive Caldwell’s A58-484. Caldwell was interested in assessing the increased firepower for use against hardened Japanese ground targets in the forthcoming invasions of Borneo. No. 9 RSU at Morotai carried out the work in February 1945. Caldwell had little chance to fly it after the extra cannon were fitted, but he told the author that, although he believed the extra weight of fire would be useful, he believed that the degraded handling meant that the aircraft could prove to be dangerous to fly at low level in the hands of less experienced pilots. One other drawback of fitting the extra cannon was that the under-wing bomb racks could not be fitted, as the second cannon prevented the mounting of the bomb release which was partly inside the outer cannon bay."

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this: the key part from the modelling point of view would be the date of replacement of the upper fairing as the production standard.  I'd suggest this implies that the early ones in desert colours all had the wider bulge, with uncertain implications on the early SEAC ones delivered from ME stocks.  Early Mk.VIIIs also had the extended wingtips as standard: there could be thought to be an obvious but undescribed link to the fitting of the "high-rated" Merlin 63 to the earlier aircraft.  This engine was fairly soon replaced by the lower-rated Merlin 66 but any link to standard tips is nowhere described or even suggested in anything I've seen - strictly all of these should be LF Mk.VIIIs but this doesn't seem to have been widely observed.  Presumably at least some of the RAAF examples were delivered with this bulge or it would be unlikely to be in stock.  (Though it may have seen present in a standardised spares package even if not present on aircraft as delivered.)

 

Moving just into the history side, strictly the wing on the Mk.IX wasn't a universal wing because it only had the ability to carry the 2+4 armament and not the other options of the Mk.Vc wing.

 

The reason I was doubtful about the "attacking Dinahs" version is that adding the extra weight is not compatible with improving the high altitude performance, whatever the benefit to the firepower.  Not that the Mk.VIII needed particular improvement at altitude, although it might be interesting to learn if the Merlin 63 was fitted in preference to the Merlin 66.  Caldwell's comment on the degradation in handling is particularly interesting when linked to similar comment, if at higher altitudes, from the pilots on Malta (eg Lucas) when they received the first Mk.Vc aircraft with the four cannon and promptly removed two.  Similarly, the FAA was not allowed their four cannon on the Seafire, desired to cope better with the Blohm&Voss shadowers.  Similar comments are passed about Bf109s fitted with underwing cannon, and Yakovlev was outspoken on his refusal to put guns in the wings of his designs.  As an ex-aerodynamicist, I feel these are early and unrecognised examples of inertia coupling: something not understood until postwar analysis of the failures of the He162 and F-100.  (Basically, don't place large weights away from the maneouvre axes of your aircraft and expect it to remain stable and controllable in strong manoeuvring!) 

 

PS just spotted the comment about the bomb release intruding into the cannon bay.  This was also noted on Malta, where the removal of one of the cannon - usually or at least often the inner one - permitted the fitting of a bomb carrier for offensive operations.  However the later E wing did allow for the fitting of wing bomb racks.

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

Delivery to Australia began with LF.VIIIs (Sept '43), and these were built just as the very last F.VIIIs were being delivered from Supermarine (the LF had begun in May (or very end Apr), last F.VIIIs delivered in Nov, but with hardly any after July).  Australian interest in higher altitude performance resulted in the HF.VIII (mid '44), which had not been part of the production plan prior to the Australian request. 

 

Daniel Cox had noted a report that seemed to indicate only one early LF.VIII being delivered with the extended wingtips, but I don't know offhand about the broader cannon bulge.  I would guess very few so fitted for Australia, but it certainly is possible that some had been provided as stores or as potential "conversion sets".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance if I missed this, but would the new Eduard Mk.VIII be suitable for conversion to a Mk.VII? or would there be a better choice amongst the new Eduard family of Spitfires?  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  You've got the HF tips as standard in the kit, all you'd need to add is the cabin blower and seal the entry hatch.  There's some work with canopy but others more enlightened than myself could tell you what exactly needs doing there.

 

However, I suspect Eduard may be doing one at some point anyway.  Daft of them not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new fuselage sprue with the VIII wing and the blower bits. Would also need a new clear sprue for thempressurized canopy and rear section. 

 

You could possibly source those bits from other kits, or scratch build the blower intake from half round rod and the vacform the rear clear section. Fill in any hint of the access door. That would get a very close VII. 

 

IMO Eduard could do a set of pressurized Spitfires based on their approach and format of this set: VI, VII, PR X and PR XIX. Shared sprues with differing fuselage/wing sprue for each variant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MK VI was based in the Mk V, so it's best not to use a Mk VIII as the starting point. The Mk VII however, as far as I can recall, is the same thing but with pressurisation as a Mk VIII, so that, as stated, should be an easy thing for Eduard to do.

 

thanks

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't suggesting the VI should be based on the VIII. Eduard typically provide sprues with common bits, then the fuselage/wing sprue unique to the variant. Since many detail bits would be common, only the wing and fuselage plus bits unique to the VI would be on the VI unique sprue. Same could hold for the VII, and X; admittedly there may be too many differences for the pressurized XIX (after reconsidering). 

 

Eduard could also apply their logic to the early Griffons: XIV, XVIII and XIX. 5 variants sharing lots of common bits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know enough to know if the current common sprues could work as they are, beyond the Mk VII/VIII/IX and XVI. Perhaps someone else could confirm that or not but it would be nice it they could be and hopefully we'll get a decent Mk VII and maybe a X/XI, that could be built accurately without crosskitting or converting.

 

thanks

Mike

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...