AZ Models Spitfire HF/LF Mk 9 Kit

[fishplanebeer]

Dear All,

 

Recently bought the fairly recent release from AZ, model number AZ 7633, that variously has it marked as an HF or LF Mk 9 (?) on the box so obviously some confusion here with AZ, plus myself.

 

Based upon the parts the kit is actually for an LF Mk 9c with tear drop canopy and clipped wings but not sure Supermarine ever produced such a beast as I've never seen any photos of a Spit in this configuration. Plus upon checking the Shacklady bible the serial number of TE215 provided with the kit relates to a standard Mk 9 supplied to the South African Air Force. The next down the line, TE216, is shown as an HF Mk 9e with tear drop canopy so now utterly confused and wonder if this kit is a bit wrong!

 

Any advice welcome as the kit itself looks OK to build, but did it ever exist?

 

Kind Regards

Colin.

[Giorgio N]

The nomenclature HF or LF are not related to the presence of clipped wingtips but to the engine variant (66 or 70), Since the wingtips could be replaced easily, whatever configuration the aircraft had from the factory nothing could prevent the user to apply the wingtips of choice.

Now attaching clipped wingtips to a machine with an HF rated engine may not sound ideal, but it's a fact that this happened. TE213 for example was another HF IX and ended with clipped wingtips while in South Africa. So could TE215 have had clipped wings ? She could and she likely did in South Africa.

At the same time I have two pictures of this machine while with 130 Sqn RAF (that's when she carried the AP-A codes) and both show standard wingtips ! One of these pictures is likely the inspiration for the cover of the AZ kit as they look veery similar, AZ depicted the aircraft with clipped wingtips, in the picture it's not easy to see their shape but the navigation light position and shape hints at standard tips... and the second picture clearly show these. As the kit includes standard wingtips, you can use these if you want to represent this aircraft while in RAF service.

Keep in mind that none of these machines was a Mk.IXc, as they all had the E wing. Checking AZ instruction sheet they correctly show this kind of wing and the right armament configuration.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Giorgio N

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

 

Based upon the parts the kit is actually for an LF Mk 9c with tear drop canopy and clipped wings but not sure Supermarine ever produced such a beast as I've never seen any photos of a Spit in this configuration. Plus upon checking the Shacklady bible the serial number of TE215 provided with the kit relates to a standard Mk 9 supplied to the South African Air Force. The next down the line, TE216, is shown as an HF Mk 9e with tear drop canopy so now utterly confused and wonder if this kit is a bit wrong!

Briefly,  low back IX's are rare. but they exist,  the low back is more associated with the XVI,  but the only difference between them is the engine  fitted, IX have a Rolls Royce Merlin, the XVI is a Packard Merlin, both went over to the low back 

Quote

SAAF Spitfire HF.IXe, Waterkloof, 1950.

a One Sqn. Spitfire looking resplendent in it's new scheme of semi-gloss Extra Dark Sea Grey and Medium Sea Grey,most probably at Zwartkop or Waterkloof Air Base in 1950. The D-type roundels were replaced with the orange centred Springbok version later that year.

Photo; George Wiehahn via Conrad Wiehahn.

SAAF Spitfire HF.IXe, Waterkloof, 1950. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

HTH

[fishplanebeer]

Many thanks for the replies.

 

My remaining concern is that the wing in the kit is definitely a 'c' wing with twin .303 machine guns in each instead of the single .5 browning even though the kit instructions do indeed refer to it having the 'e' version. The two access panels for the .303's are finely engraved on the upper wing surfaces and AZ just suggest that you fill the lower cartridge exhaust slots to try and turn it into an 'e' wing, but no indication as to where the .5 should be located or the panel lines.

 

This all means some very careful sanding and re-scribing to turn it into an 'e' version which is a pity as much of the fine detail will be lost and some (myself included) may be put off by having to do this on such a modern kit and will settle for it being a 'c' instead even if such a beast was never actually produced.

 

Kind Regards

Colin.

[gingerbob]

Fear not, the panels for the (now absent) .303s were still there.  The .50 goes in the inner cannon bay (the one occupied by the cannon on early Mk.IXs, etc).

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

My remaining concern is that the wing in the kit is definitely a 'c' wing with twin .303 machine guns in each instead of the single .5 browning even though the kit instructions do indeed refer to it having the 'e' version. The two access panels for the .303's are finely engraved on the upper wing surfaces and AZ just suggest that you fill the lower cartridge exhaust slots to try and turn it into an 'e' wing, but no indication as to where the .5 should be located or the panel lines.

 

AZ provide separate cannon blister,  these mount in the outer side of the cannon bay,

 

from http://www.grubbyfingersshop.com/walkaround_galleries/Spitfire_MkXVI_Walkaround_VH-XVI_Temora_2014/Spitfire_MkXVI_Walkaround_VH-XVI_Temora_2014.html

which has many more images

 

as stated  by bob, the 0.5 mg was mounted in the inner cannon bay.

The only wing that eliminated the outer 0,303 bays was the Mk.XVIII/18 wing.

3 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

 

This all means some very careful sanding and re-scribing to turn it into an 'e' version which is a pity as much of the fine detail will be lost and some (myself included) may be put off by having to do this on such a modern kit and will settle for it being a 'c' instead even if such a beast was never actually produced.

 

see here

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html

 

 

this is the underside of the e wing 

 

the outer 0.303 bays had flat plates fitted,  no ejector slots or little bulges.  

as seen here

again from 

http://www.grubbyfingersshop.com/walkaround_galleries/Spitfire_MkXVI_Walkaround_VH-XVI_Temora_2014/Spitfire_MkXVI_Walkaround_VH-XVI_Temora_2014.html

 

a really excellent set of detail pics,  the above for 'fair use' as illustrating specific details

 

also worth a read

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html

 

 

[Max Headroom]

I built this kit a few years ago and had to add the various lumps and bumps manually. There are choices. For mine, I needed the narrow bulges. I used the wide blisters on my Airfix I to Vc conversion a little while later.

 

Trevor

[fishplanebeer]

Many thanks for the amazing and detailed feedback on this.

 

I've been 'interested' in the Spit for the past 55 years and always thought the 'e' wing had the .5 mg located outboard of the cannon bays, roughly where the 1st .303 mg was in the 'c' wing. Not sure why but certainly never realised it was housed in the inner cannon bay until now, so I've definitely learned something new after all these years.

 

Old dog and new tricks although I still can't understand why an HF version with the 70 series Merlin would then have its wings clipped which would  reduce its altitude performance/lift , albeit the reduced drag and weight would have made it slightly faster and improve its rate of roll.

 

Kind Regards

Colin.

[fishplanebeer]

So, going back to my original post, I think what we have from AZ is either an LF or HF Mk9e Spit depending upon how you wish to model it and based upon photos of actual examples. But presumably it could also be an LF Mk16e as well as there were no external differences between the two and I will probably go this route as actual examples are more plentiful.

 

It seems the Mk9 in low back configuration was not very common but at least I now know that it existed and I also now know the correct configuration of the 'e' wing, so this has been a real learning curve for me.

 

Many, many thanks again for the wonderful and illuminating feedback.

 

Kind Regards

Colin.

[Giorgio N]

I believe that one of the problems with the low back Mk.IX is that they saw relatively limited service in the RAF and were quickly handed over to foreign air forces at the end of the war. The ones used in South Africa are the best known but of course Denmark had a number, like the one shown in the AZ box.

This was not due to any deficiency of the type but apparently Britain preferred to sell RR engined Spitfire IXs abroad while keeping the Packard engined Mk.XVI in RAF service because this was better from a financial point of view.

A Spitfire XVI would be identical so you can build one of these from your box if you prefer. Now the XVI introduced a slightly different upper engine cowling, however this same cowling was also applied to late Mk.IXs so your kit is most likely fine from this point of view too.

[Max Headroom]

Good point @Giorgio N about exporting RR engines Spits whilst keeping the Packard ones at home, but maybe another reason could have been the terms on getting the Packard engines in the first place. Maybe we couldn’t export them to a third party without ‘paperwork’?

 

Trevor

[alt-92]

Also, can we get a shout for AZ to actually bring a kit onto the market that allows this?

2 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Maybe we couldn’t export them to a third party without ‘paperwork’?

Lend-lease related? Could be...

Edited April 8, 2020 by alt-92

[Troy Smith]

17 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Good point @Giorgio N about exporting RR engines Spits whilst keeping the Packard ones at home, but maybe another reason could have been the terms on getting the Packard engines in the first place. Maybe we couldn’t export them to a third party without ‘paperwork’?

 

Trevor

The Packard set up predates Lend Lease,  I suspect more so that it meant RR would be supplying spares and tools, as opposed to Packard?

 

Not sure how long after the war Packard continued manufacture either (can't be faffed to  go down that rabbit hole right now)

 

IIRC, in one of the Lancaster At War books they talk about how much superior quality the Packard supplied tools were tool kits were to the RR ones.

Note Lanc I Rolls Royce, Lanc III - Packard,  as the engine parts and tool were not interchangeable,  though I believe it was possible to fit both engines types in the same airframe.I think this was discussed in relation to Canadian built B.X Lancs (which had Packard engines)  in one of the books as well. 

 

maybe worth a thread of it's own in the WW2 section.

[gingerbob]

19 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

I believe that one of the problems with the low back Mk.IX is that they saw relatively limited service in the RAF and were quickly handed over to foreign air forces at the end of the war.

 

A Spitfire XVI would be identical so you can build one of these from your box if you prefer. Now the XVI introduced a slightly different upper engine cowling, however this same cowling was also applied to late Mk.IXs so your kit is most likely fine from this point of view too.

 

Good point, Giorgio, but from the data-gathering that I've done it also appears that the XVI had a head-start, so there were probably more low-back XVIs than IXs.  My theory is: Since the XVI was pretty-much dedicated to 2TAF, and that's where the primary interest (and most ready access) was, as low-back fuselages began to come down the line they were finished as XVIs.  As the supply of low-back vs. high-back fuselages grew, then some were finished as IXs, too (something like two months after XVIs had begun to have them?)  I'm not sure that it was ever a complete change-over to low-back before production of IXs ended- for example, the aircraft sent back home with the Czech squadrons were "brand new" IXs, but were all or nearly all high-backs.  I'd like to know whether any of the (many) IXs that were going to Russia were low-backs.  Can anyone answer that?

 

(Edit:) Oh, one other bit of speculation.  We've come to associate the low-back with the XVI, so it is also possible that low-back IXs are "hiding in plain sight", in that when we see a low-back Merlin Spitfire we think that it must be a XVI.

 

The cowl issue would have been settled when they were still high-backs, so should not be a concern here.  One note, though: the XVI had a slightly different location for an access hatch on the top cowl, because of the way the intercooler was mounted.  Is it worth worrying about?  Not my department!

Edited April 9, 2020 by gingerbob

[Smithy]

Purely asking out of curiosity, how many bubble canopy IXs were made, does anyone know the actual number?

[gingerbob]

No, I don't think anyone does know.  I never saw any distinction made when looking at production records, and my deductions have been based on tracking individuals that I can identify from photographic or other evidence.  I confess, however, that I haven't done a very diligent search of late-serial high backs, so it is an imperfect statistical population!

[Giorgio N]

Bob, what you say makes sense, the XVI seems to have been introduced in low-back form earlier and checking serials it also looks that all XVIs after a certain point had this.

The low-back IXs I've seen seem to be in the TE2xx-TE3xx range but then later serial numbers were high back, for example the Czech ones you mentioned that were in the TE5xx range. Of course I know that serial numbers are not necessarily followed in order when it comes to construction, I should also check which factory is associated with the various serial number ranges

[Graham Boak]

The other point about Mk.XVIs is that the generally had the lower back tank fitted - I believe that clearing this was the reason why so many Mk.XVIs accumulated in MUs before squadrons were actually allocated any.  The main reason for having this was the inability of a bomb-loaded Mk.XVI to carry a centre-line tank.  Although some Mk.IXs did get these tanks I would not assume that they were always present on all period production IXs - or XVIs for that matter.  High back aircraft could have two aft tanks, but this was unpopular.  I have seen a photo showing how access to this tank was visible behind the pilot.  Others can say more.  Postwar the aft tanks were removed, and I very much doubt that any were exported - which could be another reason for that.  However I have seen at least a Greek aircraft described as a Mk.XVI, at a time when the caption writer should have known not to make simple assumptions.  But maybe not.

 

Just to clarify a little what Giorgio has said - I believe that high back Mk.XVIs with no tanks could be available in advance of those with the teardrop, but can't quote serials.  I also believe that all such aircraft were built by Castle Bromwich.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Graham Boak

[fishplanebeer]

A thread based upon the excellent Airfix Lancaster BIII would be good so happy to start as I have one in my stash.

 

Like the Spitfire it had Packard built equivalents which effectively turned a BI into a BIII but otherwise was identical to those with RR engines but came with much better tool kits plus some changes to the flight engineers panel . Packard apparently tweaked the carburettor arrangement to improve performance and this resulted in new dials/instruments to monitor in-flight performance but this is based purely upon comments in the books/comments by Garbett and Goulding in their 'Lancaster At War' series of books. I'm not 100% sure but I think the RR engine was the Merlin XX and the Packard Built version the Merlin 28 but stand to be corrected (I'm assuming the Canadian built BX would have had the latter).

 

A mid/late production BI would be identical to a BIII as all later airframe mods applied to both and indeed the Lancs used in Chastise in May 1943 were all BIII's with needle blade props so the Airfix kit can be built as either type I think. Of course the early BI's would have had the shallower bomb aimers blister, possibly a very matt paint finish and even lacking the mid-upper turret coving (very early examples) but otherwise one has to refer to an individual aircrafts serial number to establish its true identity.

 

Many myths have been written about the various differences between a BI and BIII, such as the presence or not of paddle blade props, Hs2 randome and the covering of the fuselage windows, but all these mods/upgrades were made on the production line irrespective of which engines would ultimately be fitted so as far as Avro were concerned they were still making the same aircraft, the same as Supermarine with the MK9 and MkXVI Spitfire.

 

Again I'm very happy to start a new thread and stand to be corrected and learn more.

 

Please let me know.

 

Kind Regards

Colin.

[fishplanebeer]

Sorry but just to add that the Revell kit has the flatter bomb aimers blister included in its parts so one could always contact them to obtain a spare on the basis of it being broken or missing. There will be a small fee involved of course but well worth it if you want to convert the Airfix Lanc into an early version, and as the Airfix kit has the mid-upper turret coving as a separate item then a very early version is also possible by simply leaving it off.

 

So perhaps Airfix should re-title the kit as a BI/BIII?

 

Kind Regards

Colin.

[fishplanebeer]

Sorry again but apparently the BI also had RR Merlin 22 or 24 engines whilst the BIII also had Merlin 38's and 224's.

 

Absolutely no idea about the differences between them as I'm no expert on Merlins but my source is the excellent Harleyford Press book on the Lanc that dates back to the 1960's (a real gem) so hopefully this means something to somebody out there.

 

Kind Regards

Colin.

[gingerbob]

It's your thread, and really none of my business, but personally I'd rather give the Lanc discussion its own thread.  Because, you know, there's NEVER any thread drift on Britmodeller...

Edited April 9, 2020 by gingerbob

[Smithy]

It's a shame that we don't know how many low back, bubble canopy IXs there were.

 

So next question do we have a rough figure of how many it could have been? One dozen? Two?

[DaveWilko]

One believes that there was also high back XVI.

Also one remembers speaking to an ex-Foden engine fitter(Foden's cast,machined and built their own engines)whom was an ex-RAF engine fitter. 

This gentleman also mentioned the Packard tool kits,reckoning the Packard Merlin a better toleranced and built  variant to it's locally produced relative that was good for producing more power

because of that fact.

 

[gingerbob]

 

On 4/9/2020 at 4:21 PM, Smithy said:

It's a shame that we don't know how many low back, bubble canopy IXs there were.

 

So next question do we have a rough figure of how many it could have been? One dozen? Two?

 

Quoting myself from 2013- I doubt my math has changed much since:

Quote

My analysis so far, which is not finished, makes it appear that as the RV fuselage began to replace the "high-back", these were initially built as XVIs.  Furthermore, from the start of '45 (the low-back began to appear approximately in February) to end of production, approximately 590 IXs were delivered, while about 730 XVIs were.  If the XVI got a head-start with the RV fuselage, then no surprise that we see more of them.