1:144 Spitfires by Mark1 and Eduard - which version to convert to Seafire?

[bootneck]

I would like to build one or two of my Mark1 or Eduard 1:144 Spitfires as Seafires but I'm not sure which version could be used for this.  I would be grateful for any advice on which kit would best suit the conversion.  Apart from the addition of the tailhook assembly, is there anything else that would need to be added or taken away?

 

cheers,

 

Mike

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello Mike

A quick browse through the web showed that Mark 1 kit is a Spitfire Mk.XIV, so it would be suitable for conversion into post-war Seafire Mk.XVII. Eduard's kit is Spitfire Mk.IX and unfortunately no Seafire had been powered by two-stage compressor Merlins. However, if you do not mind your model is about 2 mm too long (noticeable in 1/144) or are you planning to shorten it anyway than Edauard kit is certainly better basis for conversion into Seafire Mk.III, as it already has separate exhausts and four bladed propeller. You would have to scratch-build or simulate fuselage reinforcing strips, though. Cheers

Jure

P.S.: Early Spitfire radiators, of course, thanks MikeR. Also, Seafire Mk.III had folding wings, If you want to dispense with that, you may try to build your kit as late production Seafire L or LR Mk.IIc. These had clipped C-wings, separated exhausts and four bladed propellers, but were without fuselage reinforcing strips and could not fold their wings.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Jure Miljevic
P.S. added

[MikeR]

Another thing to remember is to remove the starboard underwing radiator on the Mk IX as the Seafire I, II, and III only had the one on the port side.

 

Mark IXc on the left, Mk Vb (similar to Seafire III) on the right:

 

Mike.

[bootneck]

Hello Jure and Mike,

 

thank you for those helpful comments, I shall print them off and read them again.  I don't know anything about Spitfires and so will need to familiarise myself with some of that terminology.   I wasn't aware that the fuselage is 2mm too long, just to clarify, which kit is too long?  Any ideas where I would need to make the cut?   I don't mind hacking and slashing at kits, as long as I know where to do the work.

I also have a Minicraft (LS/Crown/Arii mould?) Spitfire Vb so perhaps that would be better to make a Seafire?   I have looked on Wikipaedia and I see that the Seafire was active in wartime and Korea postwar so I would like to have a go at making both types.

 

Thanks again,

 

Mike

[Vlad]

The kits represent Spitfires with different engines: Mark1 - Griffon engine; Eduard - Merlin engine. There are Seafire variants with both engine types. However, both kit noses would be too long for the respective Seafire variants you could convert them to. The extra length is just forward of the firewall in both cases. The reason is that the Spitfires the kits represent had larger two-stage superchargers and this meant their respective engines were mounted further forward. The roughly (very roughly) equivalent Seafire variants had single-stage superchargers.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Vlad

[bootneck]

Thanks Vlad.  So, a clean cut just in front of the front screen to remove 2mm.  That sounds achievable, even for me.

 

Mike

[Graham Boak]

Korean war Seafires were Mk.47, which were considerably different to all three 1/144 versions.  Nose, wing, tail, and canopy.  For starters.

The cut is forward of the fuel tank not the windscreen, you could probably use the leading edge of the wing for ease.

I think that all Seafires had the fuselage strengthening plates, not just the Mk.IIIs.  Not sure that you can't get away without them in this scale.

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, bootneck said:

I wasn't aware that the fuselage is 2mm too long, just to clarify, which kit is too long?  Any ideas where I would need to make the cut?   I don't mind hacking and slashing at kits, as long as I know where to do the work.

Hi Mike

just for clairity, the Spitfire XIV is also longer than the early Griffon Seafires, the XV and XVII,  which both use the single stage Griffon, so that would need a similar length reduction,  not sure exactly off hand.   The front part of the Griffon versions is the same though.

You would need a 4 blade prop as well, but ca use the XIV spinner.

 

1 hour ago, bootneck said:

I also have a Minicraft (LS/Crown/Arii mould?) Spitfire Vb so perhaps that would be better to make a Seafire? 

That could be use for a Seafire IB, as they bothe have the B wing,  the Seafire II and III have the C wing,  so modifying a IX is a better starting point.

The Seafire III maybe easier, as many use a 4 blade prop and have six stub exhausts.

2 mm sounds a lot, IIRC the difference is engine bays is 9 inch on the real thing, so 1 ft = 1/12th inch, hmm, so 9 inch is 1/16th,  which a quick look at a converter is 1.5875, or 1.6mm for sanity!

 

I'd need to recheck the length difference to be sure,  but I'm sure @gingerbob  will know.  

Not got oodles of time to add more detail at the mo, but happy to answer questions later.

HTH

T

[Graham Boak]

I recall some time spend on Flypast's Historic board, trying to get an answer to the difference in length  between the Mk.V and the Mk.IX, but the best I could get was about 8 inches.  Which in this scale makes no effective difference.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Graham, you are correct, earlier Seafires also had reinforcing strip. Troy, length of Merlin Seafires varies from 9,12 m to 9,32 m, depending on source, and length of short chord rudder Spitfire IX is usually given somewhere between 9,46 m and 9,54 m. I always assumed Mk.V with long spinner measures about 9,2 m and early rudder Mk.IX measures around 9,5 m, hence I suggested 2 mm fuselage shortening. I thought I had early Spitfire station diagram somewhere but I could not find it. Could you clear up this mess and dig out correct dimensions? Cheers

Jure

P.S.: To paraphrase MPFC, this is no fun any more. We are not talking about some obscure type with a production run of dozen or so machines. I never thought there is no consensus on principal dimensions of such a well know aircraft as Spitfire.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Jure Miljevic
P.S. added

[Graham Boak]

I agree that it would be nice to be certain, but the variations in spinners and rudders confuses matters, as does the matter of inflight attitude or on ground attitude.  For the Mk.IX we have Monforton as a guide, or rather I used to have.  I would suggest that a measurement of 9.54m indicated a wide rudder, but this is from memory.

 

I was hoping to settle the matter of the longer nose on the latest Airfix Mk.I, compared to their earlier issues (and that of most other manufacturers).  Sadly I could not find the incremental length of the Merlin 60 series, to work backwards from Monforton.  Obviously there are people/sources who do have a precise measurement from engineering sources, but they do not appear to post on the sites I visit.

[bootneck]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I recall some time spend on Flypast's Historic board, trying to get an answer to the difference in length  between the Mk.V and the Mk.IX, but the best I could get was about 8 inches.  Which in this scale makes no effective difference.

8 inches?  That should work out at 1.41mm.   A simple saw through, sand to clean up the edges and re-glue should suffice methinks.

 

Years ago, I thought it was only model railway enthusiasts who went at you with a micrometer!

 

Mike

[Graham Boak]

It isn't the difference overall that matters, I think  that would indeed be negligible because it wouldn't be noticeable.   What matters is the difference over the much shorter distance of the nose.  Mk.IXs are longer there than Mk.Vs and look it.  So should models of the two types.

 

I meant that the difference between Bob's 9 inches for this measurement and my 8 inches was negligible, not that the extra length itself was.

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

It isn't the difference overall that matters, I think  that would indeed be negligible because it wouldn't be noticeable.   What matters is the difference over the much shorter distance of the nose.  Mk.IXs are longer there than Mk.Vs and look it.  So should models of the two types.

Mk V

Well-worn Spitfire V,        1945. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

RCAF Spitfire Mk. V, 1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

Mi IX

Spitfire Mk.IXC      1945 by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

Note how the lower cowling panle lines is different.  Should be easier to do in 1/144

AFAIK the front end is basically the same.

 

the Merlin 60 has a two stage supercharger, and is thus longer at the back of the engine, which is why the extension is in front of the firewall,  with longer engine bearers.

(Also the same reason the Hurricane II is longer than a Hurricane I, as the Merlin XX is longer at the back.)

 

V

 

 

Spitfire LF Mk. IXe ,  1946. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

HTH

[Work In Progress]

46 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

 

the merlin 60 has a two stage superchager, and is thus longer at the back of the engine, same reason the Hurricane II is longer than a Hurricane I

 

errr...... 

you want to take another swing at that?

[Troy Smith]

24 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

errr...... 

you want to take another swing at that?

OK, had a go.  Better?   I was mostly trying to find some helpful photos, and the Hurricane comment was an aside.  

[Work In Progress]

👍

[bootneck]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

.......... I was mostly trying to find some helpful photos,

Very helpful indeed Troy.  I wasn't aware of those spinner size differences and those photo's will be a great reference.

 

cheers

 

Mike

[Troy Smith]

21 minutes ago, bootneck said:

Very helpful indeed Troy.  I wasn't aware of those spinner size differences and those photo's will be a great reference.

 

cheers

 

Mike

Hi Mike

the whole subject as you are becoming aware is 'devil in the detail' 

Re spinners, again, a tricky one, as there are different possible types.....  the ones visible on the Mk.V's above a de Havilland units, butsome Seafire have the Rotol unit.

Also, the firsty Spitfire is a Vb, the trop one is a Vc, note the change in UC leg rake.

May I suggest a reverse approach,  find the subjects you wish to model, and pin down the detail for those subjects,  you might find some easier than others to do.

There is a good collection of Spitfire and Seafire buffs on here who can easily supply that type of data,  and Spitfires a bit of a research rabbit hole for the novice... 

 

cheers

T

[Giorgio N]

IMHO building a few Seafires from the kits available is perfectly feasible, at least as long as you are happy to cut and paste parts of different kits...

Of course some variants are easier than others and some variants may be impossible without serious modifications. A lot would also depend on how accurate you want yout kits to be and how much you care for the finer details.

The easiest ones would be the Seafire Mk.IB, that is little more than a Vb with a hook: just use the Minicraft VB and add the A-frame hook (pretty easy to do).

The Seafire IIc is a bit more complicated... Personally I would chop the nose from the Minicraft kit and put it on the Eduard Mk.ix, than replace the square radiator under the port wing with the Mk.V style radiator. Depending on what subvariant of the IIb you build, the propeller and exhausts can come from either the Vb or the IX.  Again add the hook and the reinforcement plates... that however in 1/144 may not be the easiest thing to do...

Similar story for the Seafire Mk.III, that however also had folding wings. These need some new lines to be scribed, but also a differently shaped wheel well. Intake, propeller and tailplanes would come from the Mk.IX.

It is of course also possible to cut the nose of the IX, remove the extra length and glue back in place. In any case the Mk.V style radiator must be found somewhere.

 

Griffon engined variants can follow a similar path, at least for a Seafire XV... you can shorten the nose of the Mark 1 kit to build a short nose Griffon fuselage, then add the naval feature (folding wings and hook). I can't remember however if the radiators of the Seafire XV have the same depth of the XIV or are less deep.. in any case it's a simple modification. The hook is easy if you build an early XV, later aircraft had a different hook that required in a differently shaped rudder... but in any case you have to modify the tail and rudder anyway as the XV had a smaller tail than the XIV. You could again use a shortened XIV nose from the Mark 1 kit on the Eduard Mk.IX... The propeller would have to be modified from the XIV one, I would probably just fill the location holes in the spinner and use 4 of the original 5 blades of the Mk.XIV prop.

If you want to build a Seafire XVII things become harder, as this variant had a bubble canopy, and a unique one too.

 

Late variants, like the Mk.47 used in Korea, would be even more difficult... you could use the Mark 1 fuselage for a Seafire 45 but the wing would need reshaping. Not impossible, but still a major conversion job. The 46 and 47 would then need bubble canopies and the 47 a totally redesigned lower engine cowling, with contrarotating propeller...

[bootneck]

I do like asking a simple question and getting loads of really helpful and detailed responses.  This is a whole new learning game for me, on an aircraft which I thought hardly changed in its time-frame.  I knew about clipped wing variants and bubble canopies but this new, to me, information is really interesting.  Thank you for the explanations.   

 

For thirty-odd years, I built model ships, with the last ten moving on to postwar jets and transports.  This latest venture is to do a few aircraft of the late war/immediate postwar period, such the Firefly and Seafire.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

[gingerbob]

22 minutes ago, bootneck said:

...on an aircraft which I thought hardly changed in its time-frame.

 

There's enough discussion going on right now without me throwing my own confusing "help" in, but I'll keep an eye on this thread!  I know almost nothing about 1/144 kit/aftermarket/model options, though.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Graham, credible sources usually give wide rudder Spitfire length somewhere between 9,54 m and 9,65 m. There is an article in Scale Modeller about Spitfire VIII complete with Mk.VIII scale drawings. Length for this version is given as 31' 6'' (9,6 m). What is interesting in the article is a remark about the source: ˝Various smaller length dimensions had been published. The figure given was obtained by measurement & published in A.P. 1480 (June 1944).˝ Does anyone by any chance has this Air Publication?

Mike, my inner (over)pedantic modeller is raging as I am typing this, but the easiest way to build 1/144 Seafire would be to take Eduard Spitfire IX kit, saw off its nose between exhausts and fuel tank, take photos Troy posted as a guide and trim it until it looks right to you, scratch build hook assembly, oil radiator and fuselage reinforcing strip (by engraving, by masking surrounding areas and spraying filler on the top of it or just by simulating it with slightly lighter colour), here are Seafire III drawings which also show wing fold curves, and off you go. When you post photos of your model in RFI please let us know, as I have a feeling that by that time this discussion still will not be over. Cheers

Jure

[Graham Boak]

The length of the Mk.IX is in Monforton, but I no longer have it.  Perhaps I should buy the electronic version.

[Greenshirt]

326.64” from front where spinner meets fuselage to rudder post. 

 

Remember this thread?

 

Tim