Seafang serials quandry

[SteveJM]

Evening all.

 

So, after a rather nasty bout of labyrinthitis (a horrible inner-ear inflammation for those that don't know), which left me bed-bound and off work until I was able to stand up without falling back down and throwing up, I've finally managed to get back to the bench and almost complete the Trumpeter Seafang I started weeks ago. I'm attempting to build VB895 and I know the supplied decals are incorrect in both detail and colour so they're being discarded. I've located appropriate Xtradecal sheets for the  fuselage serial numbers, roundels and fin flashes but still have a couple of things that need answering if possible.

 

1) What size serials would have been painted on the underside of the wings, and can anyone recommend decals to fit?

 

2) I've not yet found a pic of VB895 which shows the upper wing roundel. What type and size would most likely have been carried?

 

As always, all help is very appreciated.

 

Cheers,

Steve

 

PS. Just realised I accidentally posted this originally in the WIP forum - it's been a long day at work!

[72modeler]

I'm thinking @Troy Smith might be the one to answer this question, but I'll take a shot at it until he responds. I have attached a link to some good detail photos of VB895, but none of them show the upper wing roundels, which I am guessing are probably type 1A of 56" diameter. The underwing serials appear to be 30" in height. I'm pretty sure there is a Modeldecal or Xtradecal or Ventura decal sheet that would have the letters/numbers you need- the underwing serials look to be the same size and font as those used on Canberras, so you might try looking at those sheets. Hope this helps, at least until our resident experts ring in!

Mike

 

https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/vickers-supermarine----seafang

 

[Troy Smith]

27 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

I'm thinking @Troy Smith might be the one to answer this question, but I'll take a shot at it until he responds. I have attached a link to some good detail photos of VB895, but none of them show the upper wing roundels, which I am guessing are probably type 1A of 56" diameter.

too kind Mike, But its only an area I have a passing knowledge of

But, the upperwing are not Spitfire sized,  which are 56"

 

 

 

and looking at the fuselage roundel, which is 36 A1 type, I'd say 32 inch upperwings....

@gingerbob may know more?

HTH

 

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

too kind Mike, But its only an area I have a passing knowledge of

But, the upperwing are not Spitfire sized,  which are 56"

 

 

 

and looking at the fuselage roundel, which is 36 A1 type, I'd say 32 inch upperwings....

@gingerbob may know more?

HTH

 

Troy,

 

Couldn't find any photos that showed the upperwing roundels like the ones you posted, so I just guessed that since the Seafire XV had that size and style of roundel in '46-47, then so did the Seafang, since they were similar in size. (That sucking sound you hear is me taking my foot out of my mouth!) I just now noticed that the humped cockpit section of the Seafang was a lot like the Sea Fury's- reckon for better visibility around the carrier.

Mike

[gingerbob]

I can try to come up with an answer in a few days, if still needed- too busy just now.

 

Yes, the hump does share a common origin, but it comes from the RAF desire for proper (gunsight) viewing angle over the nose, which had been a requirement in design specs before the war, but had slipped with such aircraft as the Hurricane, Spitfire (especially), Typhoon... rather bad timing!

[Graham Boak]

True for the Spitfire, but the Hurricane had a comparatively raised cockpit precisely to maintain a good viewing angle over the nose.  The penalty is increased drag and hence lower performance.  Looking at all the other successful fighters of WW2 - It is tempting (if not entirely justifiable) to say all the other fighters of WW2 -  it would seem that this was not only an acceptable compromise with the requirements but an eminently successful one.

[SteveJM]

Thanks for the info gents. The pics of VC471 are particularly useful Troy. So, without definitive upper wing photos of VB895 coming to light, I'm going to follow 471's marking scheme with regard to roundels and will go with the 30" underwing serials. Shame I can't find a pic of VB895 wearing the prototype P marking, I think it'd look rather good against Ocean Grey.

 

Cheers,

Steve

[Graham Boak]

This is a Seafang not a Spiteful.  You meant to type Extra Dark Sea Grey.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Graham Boak

[Seahawk]

I reckon you are safe with a 30" Type C  roundel on the upper surfaces.  On pp.118-9 of Spitfire At War 2 there is a photo of VB895, "the sole Seafang FR.32", from almost head on.  Wings are folded so no chance of directly comparing underwing roundel with underwing serial but 30" serial size looks about right to me.  {Edit: error - see below.]  However NB that the underwing serials are quite clearly in the later rounded style rather than the more rectangular style I would have been expecting.  The serials are in black with the outboard tip of the "V" touching the wingfold in both cases.  The whole serial fits into the space between wing fold and undercarriage well (ie no part of the serial on the gear doors).  Can't see whether she's wearing Prototype Ps or not.

 

Beautifully clear 1/4 front view of VB895 on p.560 of Sturtivant's FAA Fixed Wing Aircraft Since 1946, which shows beyond shadow of doubt that the serials are smaller than the underwing roundel, for which 30" Type C is still a good call.  The serials (black, rounded style) are aligned, or all but aligned, with the blue forward edge of the roundel and extend back as far as the outer edge of the white on the rear half of the roundel.  In gentleman's scale that's 8.5mm, which converts to 24".  That might be correct or it might be 22" which I think was used on late Spitfires (could be wrong there though).  Definitely no Prototype Ps.  4" ROYAL NAVY title, 8" fuselage serial.  Extra Dark Sea Grey spinner.

 

Also nice clear side view of Seafang F.31 VG471 on p.561 of same book.  Differs from VB895 in having a Seafire-style arrestor wire deflector ahead of tailwheel and a Sky spinner.  Prototype Ps, no ROYAL NAVY titles, serial in about 4" size but in a non-standard thick stroke.  Has a properly painted rudder, not the one visible in Troy's photo in post 3 above.  

 

Both aircraft very clean and glossy.

 

HTH.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Seahawk

[SteveJM]

Morning All,

 

Just found a photo of VB895 that I've never seen before and it's raised a couple of thoughts in my mind.

 

Seafang - view 1

 

Now, I don't know whether it's just me but is that spinner painted red in this shot?! Also, the Royal Navy fuselage title is clearly offset from the serial number here whereas in the photo below they're obviously justified. So, did she have a repaint in her short life and, if so, why? Presentation purposes maybe?

 

Seafang - view 2

 

I love the way this hobby brings up so much historical research. And the wife just calls it 'building toy planes'. 🙄

 

Cheers,

Steve

[Graham Boak]

As for the spinner, I think it is just the light reflecting differently from a more tightly curved surface.  It  looks different from the red in the underwing roundel.  The cowling however looks fresher and darker than the rest of the airframe which may be contributing to the apparent contrast with the spinner.

 

Is the ROYAL NAVY the same height in both photos?  I don't know why they bothered to repaint it, given that the serial stayed the same.  Perhaps the aircraft has been tidied up for the in-flight photographs, given that it looks newer.  In the static view the variation between the cowling and the fuselage suggests a  more worn airframe.  But I don't know the dates for the photos.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Graham Boak

[SteveJM]

I've just noticed too that, despite all new aircraft entering service in the period '43 - '48 having their Mark number set out in Arabic numerals, whoever made the display sign in front of 895 in the folded-wing photo has referred to her as a 'Seafang XXXII.'