Jump to content

The very last Heritage Aviation 1/24 Spitfire IX Conversion


Recommended Posts

On 12/07/2021 at 14:10, Troy Smith said:

Maybe a bit late, but this can be dangerous,  I noted a couple of lines that looked shifted in the two plans overlaid,  by this I mean that from an actual engineering point if view, certain aspect of the wing structure didn't change,  position of spars, wheel well, aileron, the changes being in the bay sections. 

The old PSL book Classic Aircraft and how to model them, had 1/24th planes for the B and C wing....  I did convert a B to c wing back in 1981 in 1/48th, but taking measurement from this and halving them!   I'd not discovered photocopiers and their possibilities back them!

 

One other point,  rivets.   I think the Mk.IX had flush riveted fuselage, @gingerbob is good on these details.   

 

The wing did, the plans doe by Peter Cooke in Scale models in 1978,  which are among the best, had an observation on the wings, the leading edge 'D' box was flush riveted, but as was thicker guage metal, these were filled and rubbed down, and thus are almost invisible 1/1, while the rest of the wing was thinner gauge, and while flush rivets, they tend to dish the skin.  Since you have done a lot of work on the wing,  a lot will have gone. 

Peter Cooke converted the Airfix Mk.I into a Mk.XIX in the mid 70's, and then went to to scratch build in 1/24th if you have not run across his work.

 

For the leg position, and from what I remember of the kit, following the full size example in the discussion I linked, a small wedge on the mounting would move the leg forward. 

 

A suggestion, the 1/48 Eduard Spitfire Merlin 60 family are very highly regarded accuracy wise, you may  want to have a look at how they tackle the wheel well as a 3-d guide may make it a little easier. 

 

one final point, depending on what plane you intend to model, later Mk.IX swapped from 5 spoke wheel hubs (as in the kit) to 4 spoke hubs.  AFAIK Spitfires and Hurricane used the same wheel hubs, and the Airfix Hurricane has 4 spoke hubs.  

 

HTH

 

 

 

Thank you Troy!

 

A few replies to your very helpful comments:

  1. I doubt if any plans are perfect and, certainly, I found that some of what I would call fixed features (e.g. the demarcation betweem the leading edge skinning and the underwing) didn't match between the drawing and the model.  Meanwhile, there is no doubt that scanning and grpahics packages to open -up a pile of possibilities that were not even dreampt-of forty years ago!
  2. Riverts are a whole world of pain and, gradually, I am starting to appreciate the detailed dfferences between marks.  I THINK the Mk.VIII might have been the lead version for flush riveting although, of course, the Mk.IX was a derivative of the ealrier Mk.V.  I think I am going to have to plump for a specific airframe (hopefully well-photographed) and then try to reproduce it to the best of my abilities.
  3. I suspect I am going to have to perform some pretty drastc surgery on the undercarriage legs and see that there is a wealth of resourceon this one subject.  Also thank yo for the suggestion regarding the different wheel types.  One things is for certain: I won't be using the kit parts!
  4. It's interesting you mention usig the Eduard model as a reference model, I didn't have one to hand but did use Airfix's XIVe as a bit of a guide.  Not perfect but certainly helpful.

Cheers,

 

Neil

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2021 at 14:38, Graham Boak said:

Rob K.  The position of the raised blister was further forward on the C wing rather than the B, with no exceptions.  It was the kind of engineering change that went deep.

 

Troy:  The smooth-rivetted fuselage appeared first on the Mk.XII and then on the Mk.VII/VIII.  Early Spitfire Mk.IXs were built on the Mk.V production line and so will have had conventionally rivetted fuselages.  Presumably at some stage smooth riveting will have been introduced, but this is only a guess and it may not have happened because of the inevitable loss in production during the change-over.

 

Thanks Graham,

 

As I understand it, 50 Mk. XIIs were based on Mk. V fuselages and 50 were based on Mk.VIIIs.  Certainly the latter would have been flush-rivetted and, slowly, I am starting to understand why the Mk.VIII took so long to come into production.

 

Thanks,

 

Neil

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An old myth.  All the Mk.XIIs were based on Mk.XII fuselages.  50 of them had tail sections from the end of the Mk.V line, and the other 50 had tail sections with a retractable tailwheel, based on the Mk.III.  The Mk.VIII followed the Mk.XII into production, despite the mark number difference.  The first Mk.VII was one month ahead of the Mk.XII, the Mk.VII followed a couple of months later,

 

So did the smooth rivetted fuselage appear first on the Mk.VII?  Not something I've seen mentioned, but the Mk.XII fuselage has been referred to as different to that of earlier Spitfires.  Possibly the Mk.VII is being overlooked?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to every body who has given me support.  This week, progress has been glacial as I concentrated on, first prototyping the starboard wing cannon bay and then drawing something to work against and with a bit of trial and error I achieved a result.

 

This drawing is crude, done in PowerPoint and mixes imperial and metic units.  I'll never make a draughtsman!  The metric measurements were taken after fitting the ammunition tray assembly as it was only with a great deal of filing and trial fitting that I was able to achieve a result.

 

51316915505_85ef6cf7ba_b.jpg

Here is the part-finished result.  I have manufactured the gun 'tray', the ammunition tray and the wing covers.  The big challenge I face is to create the teardrop blister and I think I am ging to have to learn to do vacuforming!

 

51319945756_db89ab1987_b.jpg

 

51319945651_5c1a805d45_b.jpg

 

Hopefully, things will move ahead this week!

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

An old myth.  All the Mk.XIIs were based on Mk.XII fuselages.  50 of them had tail sections from the end of the Mk.V line, and the other 50 had tail sections with a retractable tailwheel, based on the Mk.III.  The Mk.VIII followed the Mk.XII into production, despite the mark number difference.  The first Mk.VII was one month ahead of the Mk.XII, the Mk.VII followed a couple of months later,

 

So did the smooth rivetted fuselage appear first on the Mk.VII?  Not something I've seen mentioned, but the Mk.XII fuselage has been referred to as different to that of earlier Spitfires.  Possibly the Mk.VII is being overlooked?

 Interesting.  I know the XII was earlier than the VIII as it was yet anothe rush job and your tail section remerk would make sense to me.

 

My understanding was that the VII and VIII were basically the same aircraft only that one was pressurised, them both representing what I can only describe as 'next generation' spitfires designed to use the Merlin 60 series and incorporatng many refinements such as flush rivetting, retractable tailwheels etc.  However, they were taking a long time to tool-up and the Mk.IX, in true Spitfire style, became another interim mark that nudged the 'proper' versions out of the running.

 

Does that make sense to you?  This particular question has fascinated me for nearly fifty years!

 

Neil

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delays were presumably caused by additional changes to the Mk.VIII (and presumably the Mk.VII).   The wing had shorter ailerons and extra leading edge tanks, that I know about, and a larger fuselage fuel tank, plus, of course, the new radiator arrangement.  It probably is relevant here that the Mk.XII used wings from the Mk.V line, including the old radiator and oil cooler despite the more powerful engine.  Mk. VII, XIIs and a few MK.VIIIs also had the carburettor intake as on the Mk.IX rather than the Aerovee one familiar on the Mk.VIII and later Mk.IXs.

 

If you get a copy of Spitfire the History and carefully read all the text, there's a lot there that isn't normally mentioned elsewhere.  It's a shame that all this information wasn't more clearly presented in the book.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Delays were presumably caused by additional changes to the Mk.VIII (and presumably the Mk.VII).   The wing had shorter ailerons and extra leading edge tanks, that I know about, and a larger fuselage fuel tank, plus, of course, the new radiator arrangement.  It probably is relevant here that the Mk.XII used wings from the Mk.V line, including the old radiator and oil cooler despite the more powerful engine.  Mk. VII, XIIs and a few MK.VIIIs also had the carburettor intake as on the Mk.IX rather than the Aerovee one familiar on the Mk.VIII and later Mk.IXs.

 

If you get a copy of Spitfire the History and carefully read all the text, there's a lot there that isn't normally mentioned elsewhere.  It's a shame that all this information wasn't more clearly presented in the book.

Yes, I picked-up a copy for a fiver - best bargain ever - and I have read it in detail. The information has to be teased-out amongst a lot of filler concerning one-of trials that doesn’t really support the narrative.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun blisters - how to make them.

 

This had been weighing on my mind for a while: do I try and fabricate them with card and filleror try to get radical.  Eventually, I decided to try and mould them by taking a piece of dowel and shaping it to become a male mould and then take a piece of hardboard to create a female former.

 

Much to my surprise, it seems to have worked.

 

51323543820_4a79368cbc_b.jpg

 

51321809912_cccfa0f18a_b.jpg

 

51322748668_a636db7e70_b.jpg

 

Heat was provided with a hot air gun used for decorating and I managed to get the plastic to the right degree of softness through sheer luck.

 

I shall continue to assemble the panel and publish an image once complete.

 

Neil

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, neilfergylee said:

Gun blisters - how to make them.

 

This had been weighing on my mind for a while: do I try and fabricate them with card and filleror try to get radical.  Eventually, I decided to try and mould them by taking a piece of dowel and shaping it to become a male mould and then take a piece of hardboard to create a female former.

 

Much to my surprise, it seems to have worked.

 

This, Neil, is how plastic modelling was turned into the art of making scale replicas, mainly by Harry Woodman, who wrote this book. 

 

"My main aim is to liberate the plastic modeller from the kit, to show him what can be done and to assure him that the satisfaction he may get from his kit model is nothing compared to that he would experience from 'free' modelling."

 

1216.jpg

 

the book can be downloaded here

https://rclibrary.co.uk/title_details.asp?ID=1216

 

I don't think there is anything that is not available elsewhere online, and better illustrated, but it is all in one place.

I have some old Scale Models magazine from the early to mid 70's and his articles are still fascinating, the models are superb.   The biggest surprise was in a 1976 issue, where he talk abut making his own photo etch, and provides a illustration of small parts for biplanes for the reader to make their own.

 

The great things about this kind of modelling is it's cheap, and when it works, very satisfying, and encourages you to then try more techniques.    One detail point, I think the blister is still a bit deep, but now you know you can do this, yo0u can experiment further.

 

cheers

T

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

This, Neil, is how plastic modelling was turned into the art of making scale replicas, mainly by Harry Woodman, who wrote this book. 

 

Thank you.  That is the kindest compliment I have ever received with regard to modelling.

 

Neil

Edited by neilfergylee
  • Like 2
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...