Spitfire mkiii 1/72???

[Adam Poultney]

Are there any conversion sets out there for a spitfire mkiii in 1/72?

[Troy Smith]

No. 

It also depends on when you want to represent the Mk.III, as it was developed progressively.  And, it has some of these have some unique features.

there have been at least two threads on the subject, have a search, if no luck I'll dig them out later.

HTH

[Jonny]

I’ve never come across one.  The Mk. III wasn’t preceded with because the engine (Merlin XX) was allocated to, among others, Hurricanes.  However, the prototype was designed to accept the C wing, which was cropped, the windscreen armour was inside the winscreen, both of these mods appeared later in the Spifire Mk. V.  A retractable tailwheel was fitted, as it was on the MkS. VII and VIII.  

 

SO ... you could use a Mk. Vc as the basis of a model, with cropped wings, and cannon deleted,, or use a Mk. II, with. My. V canopy / windscreen and kitbash either using the tailwheel assembly from a VII or VIII.  The Mk. III prototype’s serial was N3297.  I read somewhere that some Merlin XX powered Spitfires were built and used in the ASR role, but I don’t think they were classified as Mk. III.

 

Hope this helps a little.  Try a Google search, there are some photos and details there which should help.

 

Jonny

 

[gingerbob]

As Troy said, seek out earlier threads!  But to summarize:

 

N3297 had a clipped (not just wingtips removed) 'a' wing, experimental radiator, oil cooler like Mk.V, experimental windscreen replaced by what later became standard, gear covers with "wheel cover f'lap" aka daisy cutters, retractable tailwheel, various props/spinners.  Went on to become Merlin 61 prototype.

 

W3237 (2nd prototype) had first 'c' wing (probably with shortened aileron), experimental radiator again, retractable tailwheel, probably different gear legs (they at least had the rake of Vc and later, but whether they "look" different I'm not certain), otherwise similar to later Vc with late Rotol ("steak knife" blades).

 

I imagine you are thinking of the first one.  For both, cowling extends 4" farther forward (stretch at firewall end) compared to I/II/V etc.  The carb air intake will be slightly different and in a slightly different position.

 

Hmm, crowbar in the door?  Never thought to look!

 

bob

[Graham Boak]

The Merlin XX required a fuselage stretch, as Bob points out.  Therefore there were no ASR Spitfires with Merlin XXs.  The changes to place the Mk.III into production would have meant a severe disruption in overall production and a fall in the numbers produced.

 

Whilst the high demand for the Merlin XX may have been a factor, it was also available in large numbers as it was the productionised Merlin that was being poured out by Ford.  It was the creation of the Merlin 45 that killed the Mk.III.  It could be put into the current production airframe with a minimum of changes and offered much the same engine performance with a lighter engine and airframe.  Win all round.

 

The key problem with the original Spitfire concept seems to have been that Supermarine were looking to higher speed at the expense of altitude, whereas the RAF were looking for altitude gains.  

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Graham Boak
I did not type Supermarket. Damn text predicting.

[Graham Boak]

PS. The nose of the Italeri Mk.IX was too short, but is about the right length for the  Mk.III.  Given the amount of chopping required anyway, it can make a reasonable starting point for the second airframe.  Which admittedly is the less interesting one.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Graham Boak

[gingerbob]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Whilst the high demand for the Merlin XX may have been a factor, it was also available in large numbers as it was the productionised Merlin that was being poured out by Ford.  It was the creation of the Merlin 45 that killed the Mk.III.  It could be put into the current production airframe with a minimum of changes and offered much the same engine performance with a lighter engine and airframe.  Win all round.

 

Oh good, another chance to be pedantic!  While I agree with the second part, I think you're melding two time periods in the first part:

• High demand for Merlin XX: in anticipation (mostly) during 1940, and in reality early 1941, where there was a sense of urgency to be ready for "Battle of Britain Round 2" come spring.
• Available in large numbers: I probably have some production data buried somewhere, but I think [danger!] Ford didn't really start pouring until somewhat later (see sense of urgency above).

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The key problem with the original Spitfire concept seems to have been that Supermarket were looking to higher speed at the expense of altitude, whereas the RAF were looking for altitude gains.

 

Again I think you're comparing "1939 apples" to "late 1940" apples.  Supermarine was trying to give the customer what they wanted, but (as customers have done time immemorial), they went and changed their idea of what they wanted, or needed.  Interestingly enough, the cut-down wing of the first Mk.III prototype was recycled and put on the first pressurised protype, now with not only standard span restored, but new extended wingtips! 

 

The alterations in both directions could perhaps be considered over-reaction, but I suppose it was worth trying?

 

Edit: While it doesn't really provide data, here's a little article about Ford Merlins, with a photo of what is apparently the last one they built!  And another letter, both indicating that the FIRST Ford Merlin didn't come out until June '41.  (The Merlin XX family were built elsewhere, too, of course.)

Edited December 16, 2018 by gingerbob

[Graham Boak]

OK, change "available" to "known to be coming available".  I don't think it changes the point significantly.

 

The customer changing his mind before the results of his original wishes can reach production is a truism of all modern military production, especially nowadays when development time is so long.  (Maybe Rameses complained about his chariots being obsolete, but we don't know that.)  The manufacturer is then blamed by the user in the front line.  We also tend to think of "the RAF" or The Air Ministry" as unchanging monolithic blocs, and therefore somehow remiss in a lack of consistency: but the responsible individuals were forever changing, and with new faces comes different ideas.  Which is partly the whole point.   I still feel that Supermarine could/should have realised a little sooner that trimming the wingspan would have significant deleterious effects.  Perhaps the design teams were just too small in those days?

 

I don't see the problem with adding extended wingtips to pressurised prototypes: they are at least both headed in the same directions.  (Upwards?)

[Greenshirt]

I started with the Airfix Mk Va kit. 

 

Link to my build.

 

the most difficult bit was inserting the plug to push the engine forward. The radiator was an interesting exercise in scratchbuilding due to the few poor photos available. Otherwise a fairly fun build. 

 

Tim

[Troy Smith]

15 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

there have been at least two threads on the subject, have a search, if no luck I'll dig them out later.

 

 

this is a new photo for me,  and has some details clearer than other shots

 

the additional UC doors, deeper radiator with splitter plate and straight  lower edge windshield.

Note also the aluminum paint under  nose, so assume under rear fuselage.

@Greenshirt

I noted on you model that you used the standard position for the upperwing roundels,  I'm wondering f they would have been in the correct calculated position,  as in 1/3rd  of span in from tip

OK, this answers that question, as they can just be seen here

 

 

This is an interesting shot that I have not seen before.  2nd form

 looks to have a different prop, and canopy,  but otherwise is the same as the initial form,  possibly yellow undersides here, looks  same tone underneath and same as prop tips, also, what is that on the fin, which I now notice on the above photos. Also has fin stripes? 

Also a good view of the deeper radiator

also, OK, this is as above, so new prop and windscreen,  and yellow undersides, compare to roundel

 

this is then 3rd  version, note longer wing, changed windscreen and prop, and yellow undersides?  No fin attachment 

Note lack of fairing on starboard radiator.

 

this is the 4th  form, with the Merlin 60, twin rads, standard A wing armament and no little UC doors. From the tone, yellow undersides?

 

 

 

this is handy

http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Arts/Art9143.htm

 

Quote

Quote

 

MARCH 1940. N3297 was originally given the standard factory finish as applied to Spitfire Mk Is between late February and mid-May 1940. The underside was painted Aluminium, with the port wing in Night and the starboard wing in White. The cowling was 4in (102mm) longer to accommodate the Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engine. The aircraft was fitted with a three-bladed propeller, various types of which were tested.

 

 

MAY 1940. The fin flash and the yellow outer ring of the roundel were applied in response to an Air Ministry directive of May 1, 1940. Yellow undersurfaces for non-operational aircraft had been introduced in late 1939, and instructions of late 1940 specifically included prototype aircraft. Various propellers and spinners were fitted to N3297, including RotoI three- and four-bladed props of 10ft 9in (3-28m) diameter and a Dural de Havilland propeller of 11ft (3-35m) diameter.

OCTOBER 1941. With the cancellation of the Mk III in April 1941, N3297 was sent to Rolls-Royce at Hucknall to become an engine testbed, first flying with a two-stage supercharged Merlin 60 on August 19, 1941. The following month it was fitted with a Merlin 61, these trials aiding the development of the Mk IX. Its markings by this time complied with instructions of August 1940 stipulating underwing roundels of 50in (1-27m) diameter and an instruction of December 1940 specifying 27in (685mm) fin flashes.

The most immediately noticeable modification introduced on the Spitfire Mk III was its shorter wing, based on that of the Mk I but “clipped" at rib 19, significantly reducing the type’s wingspan from 36ft 10in (11-2m) to 30ft 6in (9-3m). The new wingtip incorporated a streamlined cover for the navigation lamp. Test pilot Jeffrey Quill voiced concerns that the reduced wing area led to a longer landing run and would make the Spitfire harder to discern from the Messerschmitt Bf 109. A Mk I wing was fitted to N3297 in 1941.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well that's been an interesting bit of research...   doing all 4 version here would make for an interesting display.

[Black Knight]

afair some aeroplanes tried that guard on the fin where there was a rudder horn. It was to prevent the pilot's parachute catching on the horn balance if the parachute opened as soon as the pilot exited. Some pilots opened their parachutes and allowed themselves to be tugged off the wing, rather than dropping away, then opening the parachute

A [late] friend of mine exited by sitting on the door of his Spitfire, opening his parachute and getting tugged away. He said it was the only way in his circumstances

[gingerbob]

Good summary, Troy.  The "thing" on the fin is actually a guard for an anti-spin parachute, not a pilot's chute.  There was a little space on the top of the fuselage, just forward of the fin, where the chute could be housed, though I don't have any details of that installation.  The guard is frequently seen on experimental Spits, and also on very early production Mk.Is, if I remember right.

[72modeler]

I found this, and it has some interesting information and history. Hope it will be useful. BTW Troy- those are some SERIOUS references on the Mk III; thanks for sharing them!

Mike

 

https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/supermarine-spitfire-mk-iii/

[Troy Smith]

Thread resurrection,  I ran across this image, (in a thread on blown hood Hellcats) posted by the late Edgar Brooks, some of his photobucket is still online,  with the vandalising logo....  now without...

rehosted this as they blur the image as well when a certain amount of bandwidth is used.

(I'm having visions of the 'proudly hosted by photobucket' logo being a good forehead tattoo for the executive who cam up with these 'ideas') 

Spitfire III with C wing 4 cannon by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

which  is the Spitfire III, note deeper radiator, UC doors and angled panel line on fuel tank,  but this is fitted with a C wing,  and in every other shot it's a A wing.  New too me, and not heard this mentioned in the usual places (I've not rechecked Spitfire the History) so though worth adding here.

I'll stick an @gingerbob  in here as he may know more.

cheers

T

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Troy Smith
changed pic

[Graham Boak]

The C wing is mentioned by gingerbob in post #2, on the second prototype.

[Troy Smith]

7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The C wing is mentioned by gingerbob in post #2, on the second prototype.

note self...re-read thread properly

Thanks Graham, 

On 16/12/2018 at 09:55, gingerbob said:

W3237 (2nd prototype) had first 'c' wing (probably with shortened aileron), experimental radiator again, retractable tailwheel, probably different gear legs (they at least had the rake of Vc and later, but whether they "look" different I'm not certain), otherwise similar to later Vc with late Rotol ("steak knife" blades).

Does show the fitting of the lower gear doors, hard to tell about the forward rake, but doesn't look like it.  

[Graham Boak]

Inclined to agree: bearing in mind that there is a view of one of these airframes with six cannon,  I would suspect dummies on an A wing and so possibly the first prototype.  That's a bit of a shame as I don't recall any photo of the second Mk.III as a Mk.III. 

 

Certainly an interesting modelling subject or three.

[Troy Smith]

30 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

bearing in mind that there is a view of one of these airframes with six cannon,

I though that was the Mk.IV, as in the initial Griffon prototype

which had a 6 cannon mock up

 

31 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I would suspect dummies on an A wing and so possibly the first prototype.

The wing in the photo above does look a lot like a proper C wing, with what look (possibly) like the ejection slots, not really clear, and the moved outboard by one bay 0.303 and bob's post suggest this was the 2nd Mk.III, W3237.

Anyway, certainly make for a different model.  

cheers

T

 

 

[Greenshirt]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

bob's post suggest this was the 2nd Mk.III, W3237.

Anyway, certainly make for a different model.  

Hmm, I read StH to indicate the 2nd Mk III looked a lot like a Mk VIII with a Merlin 60, but that could have been a later modification. 
 

After making a Mk III from the Airfix Va, this definitely has me thinking about a second one with those 4 cannon using the new (just rumored) Vc kit. 
 

Tim

[gingerbob]

Tim, the first prototype became the first 2-stage testbed, but still with an 'a' wing.

 

The photo above IS the second prototype.

[Troy Smith]

On 16/12/2018 at 16:59, Troy Smith said:

this is the 4th  form, with the Merlin 60, twin rads, standard A wing armament and no little UC doors. From the tone, yellow undersides?

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Greenshirt said:

I read StH to indicate the 2nd Mk III looked a lot like a Mk VIII with a Merlin 60, but that could have been a later modification. 

Both the Spitfire III ended up being test beds, so W3237, if fitted with a Merlin 60, like N3297 was above, and retained the C type wing, would look a lot like a Spitfire VIII, with the retractable tailwheel.

Odd that there are not more photos of W3237,  or if there are, shame they do not seem to be publicly available.  

 

There is another photo of N3297 in Price - Spitfire documentary History,  taken from the rear showing the wing BTW.

[Troy Smith]

On 04/01/2020 at 14:09, Troy Smith said:

 

There is another photo of N3297 in Price - Spitfire documentary History,  taken from the rear showing the wing BTW.

this one

50621079 by losethekibble, on Flickr

[Troy Smith]

On 16/12/2018 at 09:55, gingerbob said:

W3237 (2nd prototype) had first 'c' wing

50621081 by losethekibble, on Flickr

From Morgan and Shacklady

IF correctly captioned, this looks like B wing cannon bulge in shape and position.  It does seem to show the angled fuel tank line. Lack of canopy is interesting.

[gingerbob]

No, that is not correct.  That's either a Mk.VI or a prototype thereof.

[Bedders]

Very pointy prop blades for the incarnation with the Merlin 60. The Airfix 1/72 IX prop would work a treat here.

 

Justin