Here we go again, Spitfire PR.X this time.

[dad's lad]

References that I have found state that the PR.X was developed AFTER the PR.XI but utilised the same wing. Now I know that the PR.XI had those little blisters just forwards of the landing gear but the only picture of a PR.X that I can find where the underside of the wings is visible doesn't show them.

Is the picture showing a non production PR.X or did they really not have the blisters? 

Thanks in advance.

 

Clive.

[72modeler]

 Regarding your question about the fuel booster pump fairings under the wings; from what I have read and from the photos I examined, I did not find any  mention of the PR X being fitted with them, nor did I see any evidence of them in the dozen or more period photos I examined, but they were mentioned as being fitted to PR XI's as well as very visible in PR XI photos. IIRC, only sixteen PR X's were built. I looked up the PR X in my copy of the Morgan/Shacklady Spitfire  The History reference, and on page 387 there was a statement that 15 of the 16 built were converted from Mk IX airframes by No. 1 PRU at Benson, but that wing tanks were not fitted, as sealing was a major skilled operation, so plans were made to transfer them to Heston, but before that was accomplished, Supermarine agreed to convert them and subsequent PR variants at the factory. It doesn't appear that this was done, because I could not find a photo of a PR X that showed either the fuel pump blisters or the vents associated with them that were fitted on the uppersurface out by the wing tips, as seen on PR XI's. I may well be wrong, but somebody who has more PR Spit references than I can confirm or correct me. This should at least get you started. (To further confuse you, the colors/marking  and sprue diagram for the 1/72 MPM PR X shows the underwing blisters!) Like Troy says, "Never trust a profile without a photo!" I have also seen some photos captioned as being PR X's that were actually PR XI's, so be careful! I have posted links to two photos of the LH side of  the PR X you posted; serial was evidently SR396. Best I can do from my references!

Mike

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire2/spitfire-pr-x-sr396/

 

https://allspitfirepilots.org/aircraft/SR396

 

There is also the possibility that the few extant photos of PR X's that show no fuel pump blisters might have been taken before the airframes were transferred to Heston for sealing and installation of the boost pumps, but it doesn't look to me like that happened. That being said, I'm not betting the farm that I'm right! Easy way out- build a Benson PR XI with invasion stripes- they don't come much prettier than that! 

Edited June 8, 2021 by 72modeler
added text, corrected spelling

[dad's lad]

7 hours ago, 72modeler said:

 Regarding your question about the fuel booster pump fairings under the wings; from what I have read and from the photos I examined, I did not find any  mention of the PR X being fitted with them, nor did I see any evidence of them in the dozen or more period photos I examined, but they were mentioned as being fitted to PR XI's as well as very visible in PR XI photos. IIRC, only sixteen PR X's were built. I looked up the PR X in my copy of the Morgan/Shacklady Spitfire  The History reference, and on page 387 there was a statement that 15 of the 16 built were converted from Mk IX airframes by No. 1 PRU at Benson, but that wing tanks were not fitted, as sealing was a major skilled operation, so plans were made to transfer them to Heston, but before that was accomplished, Supermarine agreed to convert them and subsequent PR variants at the factory. It doesn't appear that this was done, because I could not find a photo of a PR X that showed either the fuel pump blisters or the vents associated with them that were fitted on the uppersurface out by the wing tips, as seen on PR XI's. I may well be wrong, but somebody who has more PR Spit references than I can confirm or correct me. This should at least get you started. (To further confuse you, the colors/marking  and sprue diagram for the 1/72 MPM PR X shows the underwing blisters!) Like Troy says, "Never trust a profile without a photo!" I have also seen some photos captioned as being PR X's that were actually PR XI's, so be careful! I have posted links to two photos of the LH side of  the PR X you posted; serial was evidently SR396. Best I can do from my references!

Mike

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire2/spitfire-pr-x-sr396/

 

https://allspitfirepilots.org/aircraft/SR396

 

There is also the possibility that the few extant photos of PR X's that show no fuel pump blisters might have been taken before the airframes were transferred to Heston for sealing and installation of the boost pumps, but it doesn't look to me like that happened. That being said, I'm not betting the farm that I'm right! Easy way out- build a Benson PR XI with invasion stripes- they don't come much prettier than that! 

Wow thanks for the comprehensive reply, I'll remove the blisters when I do my conversion. With further regard to the MPM kit, I know that common consensus is that the colour call out is wrong and that they should be PRU blue and not pink but I'm trying to find whether one if the marking options is correct, the one with the red/blue fin flash as I think this looks rather cool compared to the more common red/white/blue.  I do know that the given serial is genuine for a PR.X (MD194).

 

Oh, and as per your suggestion, I plan both a PR.X and PR.XI so invasion stripes are definitely a possibility. 

 

Clive.

Edited June 9, 2021 by dad's lad

[gingerbob]

10 hours ago, 72modeler said:

 I looked up the PR X in my copy of the Morgan/Shacklady Spitfire  The History reference, and on page 387 there was a statement that 15 of the 16 built were converted from Mk IX airframes by No. 1 PRU at Benson, but that wing tanks were not fitted, as sealing was a major skilled operation, so plans were made to transfer them to Heston, but before that was accomplished, Supermarine agreed to convert them and subsequent PR variants at the factory. It doesn't appear that this was done, because I could not find a photo of a PR X that showed either the fuel pump blisters or the vents associated with them that were fitted on the uppersurface out by the wing tips, as seen on PR XI's. I may well be wrong, but somebody who has more PR Spit references than I can confirm or correct me.

 

I think that this "explanation" in Spitfire the History is a jumble of various PR Spitfire "facts".  In particular, the part about wing tanks makes me think that they're really talking- at least in that case- about the handful of "PR.IX" conversions, which were at one time intended to be more numerous.

 

PR.Xs were built as such, though always intended as a special-case limited batch, and the fuselage was based on the pressurised (F) Mk.VII.

 

The question of fuel pump blisters is an interesting one.  On the PR.XI, these came with the higher altitude rated Merlin 70.  Spit the Hist (p.392) says "By March 1944 only four Mk.XIs with Merlin 60 series engines were awaiting delivery and the first of the Merlin 70 series was about to be delivered."  [And it was indeed March that full transition to Merlin 70 was made for the PR.XI, per Vickers' production data.] The PR.Xs were delivered in April/May, and p.395 says that the PR.X had the Merlin 64, which was the type used by the Mk.VII, though some late ones may have had Merlin 71s (the equivalent to Merlin 70 but with drive for cabin pressure pump).

 

bob

 

p.s. The PR.X had the same "clear bits" as the F.VII, so if you're not sure if the photo you're looking at is a PR.X or XI, that's a strong indicator.

 

 

[Wulfman]

Thanks for the beautiful photo !

 

Wulfman