Jump to content

1/48 - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.1 to Mk.V by Eduard - Mk.I/Ia & IIa released


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Just answered my own question on this one.

 

 I have discovered a better description of the silver tank as seen in some images of the Mk I. The Germans, in their analysis of a captured aircraft, describe it as the landing gear tank. My guess it is an oil header tank related to the hand pump operation and could be good indicator for a manual operation undercarriage pump system.  The knowledge is available already because restored P9394 and N3200 have manual gear operation. Someone should have the definitive answer.

 

SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_13

 

I don't have a definite answer, but the same tank is in an interior photo of the restored/ reconstructed Spitfire P9374 in the eponymous book on the aircraft.  I am sorry it does not have a page number as the book omits page numbers.  On the reconstruction the tank is grey/ silver and has stencilled HYDRAULIC OIL DTD 585.  I hope this helps.  

 

On the gear lever front, another B/W picture of P9374 when it was dragged out if the sand shows the manual lever was in the original aircraft,  so that gives a ballpark of P series having manual levers, P9374 being delivered to an initial MU in March 40.

 

The RAF Hendon Spitfire has a hydraulic selector  and is in the X series (X5490). People could argue that it was refit, but I think it is the a/c original.

 

It would be interesting if there are any cockpit photos of the IWM Spitfire Ia and the Science Museum Spitfire Ia showing their gear selectors.  Being hung from the rafters does not help!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After a number of discussions both here and in the WW2 section I am now convinced (always happy to be convinced otherwise) that the presence of the hydraulic tank on the starboard side wall behind the pilot indicates the hand pumped undercarriage control is fitted. 

 

Maybe Eduard got it right - most BoB Mk. I's are hand pump. Can you find a clear picture of a Battle of Britain Mk I without the tank showing?

 

For example, the often used photo of X4474, a mid September 1940 delivered aircraft. Is that the silver/grey tank just peaking over the top? I don't think it's the skyline. 

 

SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_15

 

 

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites

A still from the well known 609 Sqn Training / Spitfire maintenance film;

 

TR9 Radio Control

 

the Spitfire Mk.1 is R6693 of 609 Sqn, June 1940. We know from the film that this aircraft had the later hydraulic u/c control, no tank to be seen.

 

I actually captured the frame to get a better look at the TR9 controller. The red arrow is (obviously) mine, and I have enhanced - brightened and contrast stretched - the image.

 

21 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

most BoB Mk. I's are hand pump

I'm not sure that 'most' would be a correct assumption just yet Ray, maybe more of a mix than was previously thought? Interesting that a Spitfire with an R s/n prefix has the later u/c control while one with an X s/n may have had the older hand pumped type. This was a difficult time for Spitfire production (to put it mildly) and they may have used what was available?

 

For modellers who are worried about such things , finding photographic evidence maybe necessary until someone unearths more definitive guidance.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Johnson said:

the Spitfire Mk.1 is R6693 of 609 Sqn, June 1940.

Records say R6693 went to 610 Sq,  but R6690, R6691, R6692 all went to 609 Sq

as I posted here

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235066007-148-supermarine-spitfire-mk1-to-mkv-by-eduard-1st-mki-boxing-the-few-released/&do=findComment&comment=3796740

Assuming that this is a unit level mess up, note these serials, and the first 3 all going to 609

 

R6690 Ia 744 EA MIIIFF 2-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 'PR-A' 7-6-40 shot down by Bf110 over S London P/O Daunt killed 15-9-40 SOC 18-9-40

R6691 Ia 745 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 C2 ops 25-9-40 AST 616S 10-11-40 602S 2-5-41 58OTU 12-6-41 air collision with AR246 Letham Moor Stirling CE 18-3-43 SOC 31-3-43 FH672.10

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

R6693 Ia 747 EA MIII FF 4-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 610S 'DW-A' 7-6-40 Stalled on approach and dived into ground Hawkinge Sgt Smith killed 25-7-40

 

Anyway,  this maybe of use

 

P9306 in Chicago

 

P9306 Ia 6S 30508 EA MIIIFF 19-1-40 24MU 24-1-40 74S 6-7-40 shot down by Bf109E damaged Bf109E and 2 Bf110s P/O PCF Stevenson 54MU 17-7-41 131S 7-41 52OTU 10-41 61OTU CB WA 4-5-43 Extant Chicago Museum of Science and Industry USA

 

 

IMG_1147.jpg&key=839fa1f913ce35f0618c902

 

more images here

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/59537-the-definitive-spitfire-mk1-thread/&do=findComment&comment=2604888

 

Unrestored, and in Training Command colours. 

 

HTH

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Smith I think the 609 film Spitfire may be R6692? The last digit of the small stencilled s/n on the tail seems to have a strong horizontal bottom bar.

 

 

Tail and serial no

 

Interesting that the large s/n on the fuselage side appears to have been painted out. Wind the film back a bit and you can see it as the rigger walks past.

Edited by Johnson
Better photo added, thanks John224
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of photos of Spitfires of this period with the serial painted out and replaced, in smaller letters, on the fin.  However I don't think that last figure is a 2, unless it has been painted in reverse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnson said:

I'm not sure that 'most' would be a correct assumption just yet Ray, maybe more of a mix than was previously thought? Interesting that a Spitfire with an R s/n prefix has the later u/c control while one with an X s/n may have had the older hand pumped type. This was a difficult time for Spitfire production (to put it mildly) and they may have used what was available?

I think it is another case where it is really difficult to be criticised  on how you wish to portray such details unless there is good photographic evidence.  I now believe there was a mix of installations some manual pumped and some not. I'm not held to the magic 175 manual or Eduard's "high probability" all were manual. In either case, I am sure, evidence could be rolled out to support both cases. Best to try and find that elusive photo of your chosen subject or at least some from the same series. Failing this, accept what was supplied or make an informed guess and modify if inclined. I do not think Eduard can be criticised on their decision though they do leave themselves open with the choice of language "highly probable" without the evidence. 

 

Looking forward to getting into this build very much. What another Mk Ia? If my squadron of Mk I's was the primary evidence for future modellers they would be totally confused. I would ensure I drip feed the evidence. I think good for another 80 years of Spitfire discussion. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnson said:

@Troy Smith I think the 609 film Spitfire may be R6692?

 

 

The film on the IWM site is clearer than that on Youtube, and the fuselage serials can just be made out. It is definitely R6692.

Edited by john224
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, john224 said:

The film on the IWM site is clearer than that on Youtube

It is!

 

Many thanks John, I had to watch them all again - and much clearer.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, john224 said:

The film on the IWM site is clearer than that on Youtube, and the fuselage serials can just be made out. It is definitely R6692.

 

Yes, clearly seen though partly painted out.  

The films on the IWM site are here

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060020636

5 in total.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ray_W said:

 

 

For example, the often used photo of X4474, a mid September 1940 delivered aircraft. Is that the silver/grey tank just peaking over the top? I don't think it's the skyline. 

Ray, if you are referring to the area in the rear Perspex, then I think what can be seen is the curve of the blow-out panel in the Slid-back hood. There’s a higher resolution picture at the link. There doesn’t seem to be anything raised above the profile of the fuselage in the rear Perspex (not to my eyes anyway 😆)

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205126868

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steve 1602 said:

There doesn’t seem to be anything raised above the profile of the fuselage in the rear Perspex (not to my eyes anyway 😆)

Hi Steve,

 

Thanks for posting this image. I had checked it out previously and was not convinced either way. I'm still hunting for the elusive starboard side images that clearly show tank or no tank for Spitfire Mk I's. I'm hoping others might have it. Anyway, the presence of the hydraulic tank in the rear perspex is evidence of the manual pump.

 

There is a great series of photos of the restored aircraft N3200 (manual pump) and X4650 (motor driven pump) taken by Stu Norris at the following site that clearly illustrates what I am on about:

 

https://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/gcfgj/interesting/

 

The beautiful inflight photo of the pair of them shows the difference very well.

 

Ray 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

Yes, clearly seen though partly painted out.  

The films on the IWM site are here

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060020636

5 in total.  

I have never learned how to do links, must be my age!

 

Can't understand why somebody (I assume the censor) thought it necessary to do that to the serial number on an in-house RAF training film. 

Edited by john224
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, john224 said:

I have never learned how to do links, must be my age!

Usually I just copy the address bar and paste in. If it goes blue, it works.  

The forum software is designed to make it easy :) 

If that doesn't work,  there is a link icon,  between the Italic and quote, looks like a 8 on it's side. 

13 minutes ago, john224 said:

 

Can't understand why somebody (I assume the censor) thought it necessary to necessary to do that to the serial number on an in-house RAF training film. 

Serials were commonly painted out early on in the war for security,  the small one in the fin flash would only be readable up close.  So perhaps just still that squadron or bases policy. 

this is at an odd transitory stage for markings,  I found an old post where I noted that in one of the films some Spitfires in the line had switched to Sky undersides.  Didn't check for serials. (time to check again)

If so,  then that again helps with dating,  given 

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

 

was delivered to 609 Sq on 7th June,  and the switch to Sky was ordered on 6th June,  this film would have been made very shortly after delivery,  perhaps as to why only the PR has been painted, or even they left off the individual letter until the filming had finished.

 

cheers

T

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, john224 said:

Can't understand why somebody (I assume the censor) thought it necessary to necessary to do that to the serial number on an in-house RAF training film. 

Well, they know the other side will get a copy and will scrutinise it or at least they will assume so. If it was my decision, I would remove the serial number as per normal and expected so that no build numbers can be determined and then put a false one on the fin. 😉

Ray

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

https://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/gcfgj/interesting/

 

The beautiful inflight photo of the pair of them shows the difference very well.

 

Ray 

 

 

There are some superb photos there Ray - thanks for posting that link.
 

I may show those to my wife when she next asks “why are you so obsessed with Spitfires?” 😄

 

Steve

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I found an old post where I noted that in one of the films some Spitfires in the line had switched to Sky undersides.  Didn't check for serials. (time to check again)

If so,  then that again helps with dating,  given 

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

 

was delivered to 609 Sq on 7th June,  and the switch to Sky was ordered on 6th June,  this film would have been made very shortly after delivery,  perhaps as to why only the PR has been painted, or even they left off the individual letter until the filming had finished.

 

Reel 5

I assume this not R6692, but one the other new Spitfires R6690 or R6691,  why....

look at the undersides!  Just been repainted into "Sky" note the roundel 'grinning' through

EDIT also, watch 1.30-1.45, note that the wheel hubs and UC legs are still black and white.

50255159582_c8b0c9a315_b.jpgSpitfire Mk.I maintenance film Sky repaint reel 5 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

I think I can see a vague 1 later in the sequence, see 2.52 on reel 5

Be interesting to know how much clearer the high resolution version you can buy is? 

The sequence does flick back to a B/W underside Spitfire.   

 

Note also the '100' stencilled by the fuel filler on the cowling.   And the gun heating vent catching the light in the over painted roundel.

 

Probably worth thread on it's own.    Wonder if there is any records of the individual letter,  R6690 is listed as PR-A.

 

cheers

T

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Smith do you think this may have all been filmed at the MU and before squadron delivery hence the difference in undersurface finishes (it’s right on the cusp of the switch to sky, so seems logical to assume these would have come off the line in black/white) and also may explain the lack of individual letter - did Sqn codes get painted at MU with the Squadron allocating the individual letter perhaps? Really interesting images and films. Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steve 1602 said:

@Troy Smith do you think this may have all been filmed at the MU and before squadron delivery hence the difference in undersurface finishes (it’s right on the cusp of the switch to sky, so seems logical to assume these would have come off the line in black/white) and also may explain the lack of individual letter - did Sqn codes get painted at MU with the Squadron allocating the individual letter perhaps? Really interesting images and films. Steve

IWM says filmed at Northolt.

 

609 were at Northolt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._609_Squadron_RAF

" In May 1940, the squadron moved to RAF Northolt and flew over the Battle of Dunkirk during Operation Dynamo. Around this period, one third of the squadron's pilots were lost over a period of three days."

 

Codes were painted at Squadron level.    

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

Codes were painted at Squadron level

Thanks Troy - I wonder why some aircraft are seen without individual codes - you would assume they would all get done at the same time. Perhaps each Squadron had a pool of Battle casualty replacements that could be brought online to replace losses - just needing an individual code? In the 54 Sqn diary when they relocated from Caterick it recorded:

 

8 Aug 1940 - Hornchurch

1200 - The Squadron, returned from CATTERICK, is ready for any further developments with 22 pilots and an ample supply of machines.


The logistics of it all fascinate me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Steve 1602 said:

I wonder why some aircraft are seen without individual codes - you would assume they would all get done at the same time.

Good point.  My guess is that the 3  new planes were prepped, and the letters were due to be assigned.    I really don't know.  May even had something to do with the film?

Sadly it is only now we can easily find these kinds of detail and talk about them so easily,  while the people who could have answered question like this are no longer with us.  

Edgar on occasion mentioned talking to ground crew,  maybe there is more.   But then the routine is humdrum, and not paid much attention too, and as such not noted and then forgotten.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also a Hurricane in the background when the Spitfire was being pushed out of the hanger in that fifth film.   Very small squadron codes JX and regular size individual letter Z.  No.1 Squadron was stationed at Northholt from18-23 June 1940 - so maybe a very specific time frame for this clip?

 

regards,

Jack

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2020 at 5:23 PM, Troy Smith said:

 

R6690 Ia 744 EA MIIIFF 2-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 'PR-A' 7-6-40 shot down by Bf110 over S London P/O Daunt killed 15-9-40 SOC 18-9-40

R6691 Ia 745 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 C2 ops 25-9-40 AST 616S 10-11-40 602S 2-5-41 58OTU 12-6-41 air collision with AR246 Letham Moor Stirling CE 18-3-43 SOC 31-3-43 FH672.10

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

R6693 Ia 747 EA MIII FF 4-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 610S 'DW-A' 7-6-40 Stalled on approach and dived into ground Hawkinge Sgt Smith killed 25-7-40

Regarding the possible location, In the 609 Sqn ‘training’ film, made I assume from footage shot for the 5 maintenance films, the commentator says ‘this unique film was shot in early June 1940 at No.6 MU Brize Norton’, which agrees with the details @Troy Smith posted above.

 

These films which I’ve never seen before are amazing, a revelation for me with the details they provide. A wonderful glimpse into the past.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I think I can see a vague 1 later in the sequence, see 2.52 on reel 5

Do you think that this may be R6691 Troy? Would be great for me as this is the plane I'm modelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Homebee changed the title to 1/48 - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.1 to Mk.V by Eduard - Mk.I/Ia & IIa released

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...