The Silver Spitfire G-IRTY

[corsaircorp]

Hello Rob !!

Good idea !! When I saw her first time on the web ...

But you beat me on this one...

Then I still have 3 Spitfires on the go !!

I'll follow, Will stay quiet at the bar !!

Nice start man !!

Sincerely.

CC

[rob Lyttle]

9 minutes ago, corsaircorp said:

I still have 3 Spitfires on the go !!

None in shining bare metal...?? 😎

[corsaircorp]

3 minutes ago, rob Lyttle said:

None in shining bare metal...?? 😎

No, not on these 3...

I'll start some Mk V and Then !!

it will be the Caldwell's one !! 

CC

[Biggles87]

2 hours ago, rob Lyttle said:

Yea I was looking at those, trying to figure them out. 

Reinforcement panels?? 

They don't exist in ordinary Mk IX wings, do they? 

I'm in 1.48 here by the way, no way I'm going to tackle these items in 72! 

They were introduced on post war aircraft ( I think ) and appear on lots of 'warbird' rebuilds. Their purpose was to add more depth to the wheel well for wider tyres.

 

 

John

[Graham Boak]

Not quite, they were to allow for different axle mounting angles for operation from hard surfaces.  This meant a slightly different angle as the tyre sat in the well.  IIRC Edgar Brooks found the modification details.  Some of the in-service spitfires had cutouts in the wing and patches added.

[StevenBills]

So I was looking at photos again, and are these not cannon blisters?

 

[Tim T]

I am delighted to see someone building G-IRTY!  

 

There was an interview on the Dermot O'Leary BBC Radio 2 programme a few weeks ago.  It might still be on iPlayer.  One thing I do recall is that there was an additional fuel tank from one of the PR Spitfires that was fitted behind the cockpit.  The history is fascinating and I can only wish these guys the best of luck.

[Biggles87]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Not quite, they were to allow for different axle mounting angles for operation from hard surfaces.  This meant a slightly different angle as the tyre sat in the well.  IIRC Edgar Brooks found the modification details.  Some of the in-service spitfires had cutouts in the wing and patches added.

I knew I’d get it wrong! I thought the change in geometry came with the Mk V. Just ignore anything else I say.

 

John

[rob Lyttle]

1 hour ago, Tim T said:

an additional fuel tank from one of the PR Spitfires

A-Ha! That's given us a clue, Tim 

Did the PR version get filled up in this style, through the side window? 

I'm still researching the wings for definitive info. 

Starting to think there's a fair bit of photoshop and image-conjuring going on 

[corsaircorp]

6 hours ago, StevenBills said:

So I was looking at photos again, and are these not cannon blisters?

 

To me these are blisters for the guns...

The other blisters are the same than the one found on some Seafire XVII and Spirfire XVI..

And it has been said that it was for the bigger wheels the 3 spoked one ..

I got to see !!

and Here I'm back see post #5 and the following explanations from Miggers !

I think that it will be easier to have a Mk XVI, now I can look in my numerous ICM parts if I have the right panel for you Rob

I mean the long and thin blisters, the one for the wheels, I'm sure that there are not !

Sincerely.

CC

[Hamden]

 

 

Don't know if you've seen this article but there are a lot of maintenance pictures shown 

 

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/silver-spitfire-at-vintage-wings-of-canada.html?fbclid=IwAR3IWxnPEyIdkbsmGVaCiwnF-VSqkuqeQgbQ3Y6EJB2zALuNR2

 

   Roger

[rob Lyttle]

The rear fuselage tank can be seen here, along with some other items of interest. 

Wing tanks in the gun bays, and the wheel well modification, but is there a skinny blister on top of the wing tank?? 

Too many reflections going on 

[Biggles87]

I would say no, but as you say it’s difficult to be really sure with all the reflections.

 

John

 

 

[StevenBills]

But then there's this... Almost looks like a 3d rendering though.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by StevenBills

[Biggles87]

Aargh!! Wrong again ( possibly ) 

[rob Lyttle]

16 minutes ago, Biggles87 said:

( possibly ) 

Hold on there John 

 

That does look a bit photoshop @StevenBillsdoesn't it?

Certainly not shiny enough for current aircraft. Black walkways? 

 

Later.... OK black walkways, yes 🤭

Edited August 21, 2019 by rob Lyttle
Addition

[StevenBills]

This is from their Instagram from this morning. I can see black walkways. I apologize, I don't mean to muddy the waters here. All of this research is helping out my build tremendously!

 

 

SB

[malpaso]

I wonder if they changed it quite a bit after doling out a massive load of publicity photos.  It doesn’t look like the cannon bulges are there in the photo over the Statue of Liberty.  But sort of seem to maybe possibly be showing in the Vintage Wings of Canada photos???Also the normal fuel filler cap is obvious and silver in that photo, not visible in the vertical photo, the whip aeriel seems to have changed from red to silver too!  I think you need to pick a day in the flight when it’s photographed a lot and model that condition!

Edited August 21, 2019 by malpaso

[Hamden]

 

Looking at the pictures of G-IRTY in the link I posted above in a least two of the pictures I am certain I can see the cannon blisters.

 

  Roger

[Hewy]

Fair play rob you've  picked a pearler of a subject here ,plenty of reference too

[rob Lyttle]

Thanks for all the feedback on this, guys. 

Pleased to say I now have a pair of wings with the wheel well blisters, and they have the skinny gun bumps.... Made to suit the  .50cal.machinegun option?? 

So I just got to decide between those or None..... 🤔

She'll look cool either way! 

What I have here is a fuel tank from the Boeing 247 that was Roscoe Turner's 1934 race plane, modified with strips of white poly to widen. 

Something to work with. 

[StevenBills]

Here's another shot of G-IRTY before she was polished. Maybe they removed the cannon blisters afterwards? Sorry to muddy the waters again.

 

[Thom216]

Since there are pics with and without, I'd say it doesn't matter, except for personal choice.

 

Although, if you make those panels interchangeable... Cut them out, have two sets of panels, one set with bulges and one set without, and set them in with magnets. Presto/change-o!

[rob Lyttle]

2 hours ago, StevenBills said:

another shot of G-IRTY

That's nice and clear, with the narrow bumps, but that's the wrong rudder and zoom on the reg letters.... It can't be "I" after the hyphen. 

So, looks like we've got 2 airframes involved in the Boultbee Project!! 

1 hour ago, Thom216 said:

I'd say it doesn't matter, except for personal choice.

I'm coming to this conclusion Thom. 

I like the second thought as well, but it leaves some scope for things to go wrong! 

I'm going to pick a good photo - maybe that workshop one, above, - and stick with it. 

 

 

 

 

[rob Lyttle]

A quick look back here shows that I've chosen the wrong frame at the seatback position - it's closed in at the top. 

Probably armour. 

Rather than wreck everything by pulling the assembly apart, I drilled and cut the plate out so it looked like the piece I should have used. part no.5. 

A bit more assembly, accommodation for the extra tank which required moving those two bottles (I believe they are compressed air for the pneumatic system) out of the way. 

 

They're back on now, a bit further to the rear. 

The tank will get a filler tube later, up to the window, when I get an idea of the relative positions. Once this lot is installed I can put the fuselage halves together. 

And instead of the gun sight, I need to make a little GPS gadget for the top of the dashboard.