Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I present to you my now completed model of a Spitfire Mk 22, as flown by 603 Squadron "City of Edinburgh" in the post war Royal Auxiliary Airforce. 

 

Spitfire PK 428 was built in the Salisbury group pf Supermarine factories and was fitted with a RR Griffin 61 engine. It was most probably flown from High Post Airfield to 33MU on 6-9-45 

On 16-4-47 it went to RAF Chilbolton for modifications to cure elevator instability it was not posted to  603S until 5-5-48 where it stayed until 16-6-53.  The following year it was sold as scrap by the MoS on 26-5-54. 

A short life. 

 

The model is based on the ancient Frog kit, later re-issued by Revell. I used the GreyMatter "Correction Set", which included a new nose, propellor spinner, blades, radiators, carb intake, canon barrels, canopy and 3 spoke wheels.  Because of the weight of the nose resin casting I fitted Brassin U/C legs, which I later discovered are too short: the result is the Aircraft sits too close to the ground. 

 

The paint is Halfords Nissin Silver, the transfers are mostly from the later Revell kit, but with Squadron markings from the original kit. Although they looked aged, with a coat of liquid decal film they worked perfectly. 

 

The build is described here:

 

 

It has been a long journey! 

 

The result looks reasonably good, but still has issues, partly due to the inaccuracies in the kit and partly to my lack of experience. 

 

Let me know what you think, please: be honest...but not too unkind! 

 

1. Rear three-quater view. 

 

spacer.png

 

2. From the Front: a pugnacious looking thing!

 

Front-View.jpg

 

3. Now from above...

 

spacer.png

 

4.  Front quater view.

 

spacer.png

 

5. And finally, from Underneath. 

 

spacer.png

 

 

Edited by 224 Peter
Correction
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have done a good job Peter. She looks lovely in silver and, although there are inaccuracies, the completed model seems to have a 'presence'. Also it is still the only game in town in this scale.

A tricky kit to build especially with those separate wing roots! 

I have done an OOB version in camo a few years ago, I had to do it as this kit was the only one to ever 'beat me' as a young modeller and I never did complete my first attempt. Glad to say I was the victor in the re-match :boxing:

 

Atb, Steve. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great model Peter. I've been debating with myself to get a tamiya 1/32 spitfire and do something different with it and you have made my mide up. Especially after seeing them taking one around the world in bare metal. Thank you and again a superb build 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Herculean work (I did read your WiP trials and tribulations), resulting in a thoroughly impressive Mk 22! She really looks like a racer in that smart livery.

 

I didn't know that the standard Mk 22 had a fully feathering propeller – you always learn something…

 

Regardless, I think that you may have put the Rotol decals on the backside of the blades. The trailing edge is the one with the soft kink in it (pointing backwards on your model). In running config, on a blade in the 12 o'clock position, the trailing edge would point to stbd (since the Griffon ran in the opposite direction to the Merlin) and the marking, as applied, would then appear on the backside…

 

The Grey Matter kit has some issues. One of them concerns the radiators. They should have flat sides, not curved as G M would have them. The curved line shown on drawings is the outline of the fillet fairing in the radiator against the wing. Anyway, not obious with the machine standing on the ground!

 

Anyway, these are minor niggles. In fact, I had the Grey Matter kit in my stash, intending to convert a Hasegawa Spit Mk V to a PR Mk XIX. It's still far, far down the agenda list and will never be built. 😉

 

Congratulations to an enviable Mk 22!

 

Kind regards,

 

Joachim

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Chaotic Mike said:

Lovely job, but based on an ancient Matchbox, rather than Frog, kit? 

Correct, my mistake! 

The Frog 1/32nd scale kits were re-boxed Hasegawa mouldings and very fine, in comparison. I have the Spitfire V1 in my stash, and the ME 109E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sturmovik said:

Was the landing gear supposed to lean forward like that? I built my 22 with the landing gear like the earlier Spitfire Mks.

The landing gear is wrong...a combination of Matchbox errors and my own. 

According to Quill, in his book, the Mk 22 and 24 had a new U/C, wider track and longer legs. The idea was to improve directional stability on the ground and gibe more clearance for the propellor. 

The Brassin legs are for a Mk IXc, I compared them with the kit legs and they are the same length. 

After reading about the changes I compared the distance between the leg pivot points on a Mk IX kit and the Mk 22 and they were virtually the same. 

 

So, longer legs, wider spaced - it is too late to do anything, but it does niggle! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Spitfire31 said:

 

I didn't know that the standard Mk 22 had a fully feathering propeller – you always learn something…

 

Regardless, I think that you may have put the Rotol decals on the backside of the blades. The trailing edge is the one with the soft kink in it (pointing backwards on your model). In running config, on a blade in the 12 o'clock position, the trailing edge would point to stbd (since the Griffon ran in the opposite direction to the Merlin) and the marking, as applied, would then appear on the backside

 

Joachim

 

 

It is implied in Quill's book that the 5 blade props were feathering, so as to reduce drag in the event of engine failure, but I cannot find any other reference. BUT even so I messed up with the propellor, the intention was to have some pitch on them. But what is done is done and I'll move on to the next project. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the positive and helpful comments, much appreciated. 

I have, at least, done justice to the Mk22 and the kit, it could be better, but given the basics are almost 50 years old, it will do until someone else releases a new tool Mk22 in 1/32nd scale...!!

(I'm not holding my breath.) 

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...