Jump to content

Cannon bulge on the Spit Mk lXc wing


Spitfires Forever

Recommended Posts

Hello

I have a question about the type of cannon bulge/ wing panel that were used on the Spit Mk XIc. Were the panel covering over the cannons on the Mk IXc the large blister/bulge type used on the Mk Vc or the smaller diameter bulge used on the later model Vc and Seafire Mk IIc ?  Were the large blister panels ever used on the Mk IXc ? How about the early version ? Any help on this subject would be appreciated.

Cheers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been looking through various sources, it seems as though the slim bulge was only seen on very late Mk.Vc.  The wide bulge was also seen on early Mk.VIIIs together with the standardised tropical filter.

 

It may be worth repeating here that the F.Mk.IX had a larger carburettor intake than the Mk,V.  I presume that this was also true of early LF Mk.IXs.  This is much shorter than the standardised version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Having been looking through various sources, it seems as though the slim bulge was only seen on very late Mk.Vc.  The wide bulge was also seen on early Mk.VIIIs together with the standardised tropical filter.

 

It may be worth repeating here that the F.Mk.IX had a larger carburettor intake than the Mk,V.  I presume that this was also true of early LF Mk.IXs.  This is much shorter than the standardised version.

That "long" Mk-IX carb. intake contains a dust filter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Indeed: it is longer and wider than the initial (temperate) intake for the Mk.IX, which in turn was larger than the intake on the Mk.V.

... and as I mentioned above, the Hasegawa kit doesn't provide it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to know about the carburator intake for the early Mk IX. Eduard makes an early Mk IX but to convert the Hasegawa kit to the proper standard I will have to go through my parts box and see what I can find. Was Johnny Johnson's unit one of the first units to receive the early Mk IX? I know some went to American units in the Middle East prior to getting the Mk VlIi but the aircraft I wish to model would be based out of GB. One other question; was there such thing as a Mk IX b? I've been plowing through my Alfred Price books in search of that information but I have some Accuscale decals for 3 B versions of the Mk IX and Mk VII, one of them being JEJ's early Mk IX. Any further info would be great. I sure we all miss the late, great Edgar Brooks when it comes to Spits. That man was a virtual encyclopedia when it came to the Spitfire but at least we have a few "experten" on the subject here on this forum of which I am grateful for. Thank you all gentlemen.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Spitfires Forever said:

One other question; was there such thing as a Mk IX b? I've been plowing through my Alfred Price books in search of that information but I have some Accuscale decals for 3 B versions of the Mk IX and Mk VII, one of them being JEJ's early Mk IX. Any further info would be great.

As in a Mk.IX with a B wing.  No.   Why fit an inferior wing to the Mk.IX?  

 

There was an unofficial IXA/IXB,  seen in ORB, referring to the type of engine fitted.   

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html

 

"Semi-officially, however, other suffix letters have also been used to describe these aircraft. The use of the “c” suffix is fairly established today to distinguish aircraft with the universal wing and the standard armament of two belt-fed cannon and four .303-calibre guns – typically carried by series production Mk. IXs, although the intended “c” type was four cannon and no machine guns.

More rarely seen are the suffixes A and B. These have caused some confusion, as these letters in earlier Spitfire marks define eight-gun and two drum-fed cannon and four machine gun armament configurations, respectively. It would seem that the designations IXA / IXB were used ad-hoc by the RAF units during the early part of the Mk. IX’s operational career, to distinguish the low-altitude-optimized Merlin 66-equipped LF IX (called Mk. IX B  )from the initial Merlin 61/63/63a-equipped F IX (called Mk. IX A). These designations are sometimes seen in pilot’s log books, squadron Operational Record Books, etc."

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might also be worth bearing in mind that the Mk IX started out with the short mass balance elevators of the earlier variants.

 

ff910f414700cd5f5ba9e6d176d6bf1f.jpg

 

Photo found in this BM thread.

 

Edited by Alex Gordon
Replace Village Photos URL.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex Gordon said:

It might also be worth bearing in mind that the Mk IX started out with the short mass balance elevators of the earlier variants.

 

2cf15731-4509-49d0-8482-fd7ecb0ff5ad.jpg

 

Photo found in this BM thread.

Ahh, good point. The iCM kit has both elevators but the carburator may be the sticking point. I may have to just go with the panels that comes with the kit. Also the bulge over wheel. I understand those were not on original Mk IX Spits. Oh well, "the best laid plans" etc. etc.

Cheers

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

As in a Mk.IX with a B wing.  No.   Why fit an inferior wing to the Mk.IX?  

 

There was an unofficial IXA/IXB,  seen in ORB, referring to the type of engine fitted.   

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html

 

"Semi-officially, however, other suffix letters have also been used to describe these aircraft. The use of the “c” suffix is fairly established today to distinguish aircraft with the universal wing and the standard armament of two belt-fed cannon and four .303-calibre guns – typically carried by series production Mk. IXs, although the intended “c” type was four cannon and no machine guns.

More rarely seen are the suffixes A and B. These have caused some confusion, as these letters in earlier Spitfire marks define eight-gun and two drum-fed cannon and four machine gun armament configurations, respectively. It would seem that the designations IXA / IXB were used ad-hoc by the RAF units during the early part of the Mk. IX’s operational career, to distinguish the low-altitude-optimized Merlin 66-equipped LF IX (called Mk. IX B  )from the initial Merlin 61/63/63a-equipped F IX (called Mk. IX A). These designations are sometimes seen in pilot’s log books, squadron Operational Record Books, etc."

 

 

 

Thanks Troy, I can always count on you and Graham as well as others of the "old guard" who have been with Britmodeller since the beginning.

Cheers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't think that any model provides it, unless it is in Eduard's early Mk.IX kit. 

In 72nd it's on the common sprue, just to the right of the UC legs,  will be marked as 'not for use'  in most kits though. 

70121_04.jpg

2 hours ago, Spitfires Forever said:

Good to know about the carburator intake for the early Mk IX.

Certainty in 1/48th the Eduard kit come with both types of carb intake, and two lower cowlings, what they do is limit options by wing bulges supplied, 

small carb intake to left of wheel hubs

8281_07.jpg

 

Two lower cowlings, one for short intake in one piece, the larger later type is split. 

8281_05.jpg

 

16 minutes ago, Spitfires Forever said:

Also the bulge over wheel. I understand those were not on original Mk IX Spits

easy to sand flat. 

16 minutes ago, Spitfires Forever said:

Thanks Troy, I can always count on you and Graham as well as others of the "old guard" who have been with Britmodeller since the beginning.

Thanks, I've been here since 2010,  BM started in 2007 ....  

 

Buy the right Eduard Spitfie V boxing, and it will have a spare fuselage,  with 'some modelling skill'  you could perhaps do one on the very early Spit IX converted from the VC with a modified V nose, and corrrect the underscale Hase rear fuselage at the same time..... Just a thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't think that any model provides it, unless it is in Eduard's early Mk.IX kit.  I don't know of any model of any true F.Mk.IX.

The parts for the small carb intake are actually in all the Eduard Mk. IX boxings (two pieces, split in the middle), but only the early Mk. IX kit provides the wing part to receive it. In fact, the early kit provides two complete wings for either early or late configuration of both the carb intake and the cannon bulges. One thing the early kit doesn't provide are the early propeller blades, which I believe were metal with rounded tips. It's not to hard to get a decent approximation with a bit of filing/sanding.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a writeup from the 'Spitfire site' on Johnson's EN398, early Spit IXc.

 

Johnnie Johnson’s Spitfire Revisited
“I found the engineer officer and together we had a look at her, gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.
...
By Martin Waligorski | Posted on 2010-04-16 | Comments (16) | Category: Camouflage & Markings | Tags: 1943, Spitfire Mk.
IX
“I found the engineer officer and together we had a look at her, gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.
Later I took her up for a few aerobatics to get the feel of her, for this was the first time I had flown a Mk IX. She seemed very fast,
the engine was sweet and she responded to the controls as only a thoroughbred can. I decided that she should be mine, and I
never had occasion to regret that choice.”

 

(EN398 before Johnson acquired it)

spacer.png


W/Cdr James Edgar “Johnnie” Johnson about his first encounter with EN398
The recent article about RAF leading fighter ace Johnnie Johnson and his aircraft prompted me to do some further research into
the look of his Spitfire, the work which resulted in the two colour profiles and a few findings presented below.
As is widely known, Johnson scored the bulk of his victories flying two Spitfires Mk. IX. The first one was EN398, JE-J, the
subject of this article, in which he shot down 12 aircraft and shared five plus six damaged while commanding the Kenley Wing.
His second mount, MK392, was an LF Mk. IX, in which his tally increased by another 12 aircraft plus one shared destroyed on the
ground. His last victory of the war in September 1944 was scored in the latter aircraft. He ended the war flying yet another
Spitfire, Mk XIVe, MV268. As a Wing Leader Johnson was entitled to personal code letters and his aircraft were always marked
JE-J.

 

spacer.png


Spitfire Mk. IX EN398
EN398 was part of batch EN112 to EN759 built by Vickers Armstrong between November 1942 and August 1943. This lot was
originally ordered as Spitfires Mk. VC but as new marks of the fighter reached the production-ready status, it became a mixture of
Mks. VII, IX, XI and XII.
EN398 was representative of the early production Mk. IX. The following features are distinctive of this aircraft:
• “C” type wing with two cannon but broad cannon blisters,
• Small teardrop blister at starboard engine cowling housing the cabin blower driveshaft
• “Small” carburettor intake
• Single-angled horn-balanced elevator
The Merlin 63 engine was equipped with fuel cooler featuring a prominent circular intake in the port wing root. All these features
are further described in the article Spitfire Mk. IX, XI and XVI – Variants Much Varied also available at this site.
The aircraft was first issued to No. 402 Squadron RCAF on 18th February 1943. In service with this unit it initially received code
letters AE-I. In March, as it became the regular aircraft of F/Lt Ian Keltie, it was recoded AE-B and the ground crew added a nose
art of Popeye on the port cowling side. On 22 March 1943 EN398 was transferred to No. 416 Squadron RCAF remaining on
charge until the end of the month when it was listed as part of the Kenley Station HQ Flight. In the meantime, Johnson took
command of the wing on 16 March. Presumably this was when Johnson adopted it as his own.
The Camouflage
Spitfire Mk. IX, serial no. EN398, JE-J
Personal aircraft of W/Cdr Johnnie Johnson, commanding officer of the Kenley Wing
Summer 1943
Click to enlarge image
Although the aircraft was still only two months old, it would seem that it was repainted before transfer to the HQ flight. Johnson
recalled receiving it “gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.”. The two published photographs of EN398
taken about July 1943 indeed show a rather shiny semi-gloss finish.
Johnson claimed his first kill on this aircraft on 3 April 1943. Soon EN398 was soon sent to Air Service Training, Hamble to
undergo some modifications, returning to Kenley on 16 April. Most probably, the modification was mounting a gun camera in the
starboard wing root. AST Hamble did this routinely on many initial production Mk. IXs, on which the gun camera was omitted to
leave room for the fuel cooler intake in the port wing.
Even if the aircraft was repainted, its camouflage pattern followed pretty closely the factory finish that can be seen on many early
Mk. IXs, characterised by gently curved demarcation lines with a notable “S” on the port side below the cockpit and, presumably,
another “S” curve on top of the cowling.
Fuselage roundels in standard position, with JE-J lettering applied as shown – the forward “J” being placed higher than the rear
letters. Serial number EN398 was applied in small serif-style lettering on top of the fuselage band. These were probably handpainted
or, alternatively, applied by stencils and touched-up to remove the stencil marks. Note that the number is painted at a
slight angle to the fuselage datum.
A peculiarity visible on the photos of EN398 is the patch of fresh paint between the roundel and the forward “J”, apparently a sign
of some repainting. It could have been a fresh application of Ocean Grey – as shown here – or some other colour, perhaps greygreen
primer.
A Canadian Maple leaf on a white circular background was carried on both sides of the fuselage under the windscreen. Its colour
has been a matter of some controversy. In his memories, Johnson stated that the the leaf on his aircraft was green. However, all
the Canadian squadrons of the Kenley wing had this national symbol painted in red. Was green the conscious decision on the part
of Johnnie to underline his British origin, or did the memory fail him on this rather small detail? Perhaps we will never know. I
have chosen red for my profiles.
It is known that “Johnnie” customised his aircraft. Like many other aces, he ordered EN398’s guns to be harmonized according to
his personal preference. Judging from the photos it would also seem that the circular rear view mirror was attached to a modified,
taller mount.


The port side of Johnson’s JE-J has, to my knowledge, escaped the attention of photographers. The following profile is my
attempt an the reconstruction, using available information and the camouflage pattern which the aircraft carried while still in the
markings of AE-B.
The codes JE-J on this side of the fuselage would fit under the rear part of the canopy as shown. The rear “J” would occupy only
the portion of space between the fuselage roundel and the Sky band. Presumably the serial number was painted on the latter in
the similar position and style as on the opposite side.
Johnson ordered the red and blue pennant of a Wing Commander to be applied on his aircraft. Most commonly these pennants
were painted on the port side of the cowling below or in front of the windscreen. In the case of EN398 the most logical placement
would be in front of the Canadian Maple leaf badge.
The last point worth mentioning is the absence of the kill marks. It may seem odd that the one of the top RAF fighter aces with all
the fame and publicity which surrounded him would not have his double-figure victory tally reflected in the form of kill marks on
his aircraft. Well, maybe they were there, maybe not – there is no conclusive evidence either way. If you prefer to believe that they
were painted on his aircraft, you should know that JE-J finished his operational tour on EN398 with 25 confirmed victories, so
any number of black crosses between 13 and 25 would be appropriate.
During the six months of flying with EN398, Johnson had shot down 12 enemy aircraft, sharing the destruction of 5 more.
Remarkably, EN398 never caused him any technical trouble and never suffered any damage due to enemy action. After Johnson
finished his tour and moved on to No. 11 Group Headquarters, his aircraft went to No. 421 Squadron for a couple of weeks before
sustaining damage necessitating its return to Hamble for repairs. The aircraft never returned to operations, spending time in
store for the remainder of the war.

Edited by Tail-Dragon
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Spitfires Forever said:

Thanks Troy, I can always count on you and Graham as well as others of the "old guard" who have been with Britmodeller since the beginning.

Presumably the rest of us are chopped liver. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Seawinder said:

Presumably the rest of us are chopped liver. 😉

Of course not Seawinder, filet mignon at least! I have always appreciated your input over the past 10 years. As well as all the other unnamed  members of this august forum.

Cheers

Spitfire Addict

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tail-Dragon said:

Here's a writeup from the 'Spitfire site' on Johnson's EN398, early Spit IXc.

 

Johnnie Johnson’s Spitfire Revisited
“I found the engineer officer and together we had a look at her, gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.
...
By Martin Waligorski | Posted on 2010-04-16 | Comments (16) | Category: Camouflage & Markings | Tags: 1943, Spitfire Mk.
IX
“I found the engineer officer and together we had a look at her, gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.
Later I took her up for a few aerobatics to get the feel of her, for this was the first time I had flown a Mk IX. She seemed very fast,
the engine was sweet and she responded to the controls as only a thoroughbred can. I decided that she should be mine, and I
never had occasion to regret that choice.”

 

(EN398 before Johnson acquired it)

spacer.png


W/Cdr James Edgar “Johnnie” Johnson about his first encounter with EN398
The recent article about RAF leading fighter ace Johnnie Johnson and his aircraft prompted me to do some further research into
the look of his Spitfire, the work which resulted in the two colour profiles and a few findings presented below.
As is widely known, Johnson scored the bulk of his victories flying two Spitfires Mk. IX. The first one was EN398, JE-J, the
subject of this article, in which he shot down 12 aircraft and shared five plus six damaged while commanding the Kenley Wing.
His second mount, MK392, was an LF Mk. IX, in which his tally increased by another 12 aircraft plus one shared destroyed on the
ground. His last victory of the war in September 1944 was scored in the latter aircraft. He ended the war flying yet another
Spitfire, Mk XIVe, MV268. As a Wing Leader Johnson was entitled to personal code letters and his aircraft were always marked
JE-J.

 

spacer.png


Spitfire Mk. IX EN398
EN398 was part of batch EN112 to EN759 built by Vickers Armstrong between November 1942 and August 1943. This lot was
originally ordered as Spitfires Mk. VC but as new marks of the fighter reached the production-ready status, it became a mixture of
Mks. VII, IX, XI and XII.
EN398 was representative of the early production Mk. IX. The following features are distinctive of this aircraft:
• “C” type wing with two cannon but broad cannon blisters,
• Small teardrop blister at starboard engine cowling housing the cabin blower driveshaft
• “Small” carburettor intake
• Single-angled horn-balanced elevator
The Merlin 63 engine was equipped with fuel cooler featuring a prominent circular intake in the port wing root. All these features
are further described in the article Spitfire Mk. IX, XI and XVI – Variants Much Varied also available at this site.
The aircraft was first issued to No. 402 Squadron RCAF on 18th February 1943. In service with this unit it initially received code
letters AE-I. In March, as it became the regular aircraft of F/Lt Ian Keltie, it was recoded AE-B and the ground crew added a nose
art of Popeye on the port cowling side. On 22 March 1943 EN398 was transferred to No. 416 Squadron RCAF remaining on
charge until the end of the month when it was listed as part of the Kenley Station HQ Flight. In the meantime, Johnson took
command of the wing on 16 March. Presumably this was when Johnson adopted it as his own.
The Camouflage
Spitfire Mk. IX, serial no. EN398, JE-J
Personal aircraft of W/Cdr Johnnie Johnson, commanding officer of the Kenley Wing
Summer 1943
Click to enlarge image
Although the aircraft was still only two months old, it would seem that it was repainted before transfer to the HQ flight. Johnson
recalled receiving it “gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.”. The two published photographs of EN398
taken about July 1943 indeed show a rather shiny semi-gloss finish.
Johnson claimed his first kill on this aircraft on 3 April 1943. Soon EN398 was soon sent to Air Service Training, Hamble to
undergo some modifications, returning to Kenley on 16 April. Most probably, the modification was mounting a gun camera in the
starboard wing root. AST Hamble did this routinely on many initial production Mk. IXs, on which the gun camera was omitted to
leave room for the fuel cooler intake in the port wing.
Even if the aircraft was repainted, its camouflage pattern followed pretty closely the factory finish that can be seen on many early
Mk. IXs, characterised by gently curved demarcation lines with a notable “S” on the port side below the cockpit and, presumably,
another “S” curve on top of the cowling.
Fuselage roundels in standard position, with JE-J lettering applied as shown – the forward “J” being placed higher than the rear
letters. Serial number EN398 was applied in small serif-style lettering on top of the fuselage band. These were probably handpainted
or, alternatively, applied by stencils and touched-up to remove the stencil marks. Note that the number is painted at a
slight angle to the fuselage datum.
A peculiarity visible on the photos of EN398 is the patch of fresh paint between the roundel and the forward “J”, apparently a sign
of some repainting. It could have been a fresh application of Ocean Grey – as shown here – or some other colour, perhaps greygreen
primer.
A Canadian Maple leaf on a white circular background was carried on both sides of the fuselage under the windscreen. Its colour
has been a matter of some controversy. In his memories, Johnson stated that the the leaf on his aircraft was green. However, all
the Canadian squadrons of the Kenley wing had this national symbol painted in red. Was green the conscious decision on the part
of Johnnie to underline his British origin, or did the memory fail him on this rather small detail? Perhaps we will never know. I
have chosen red for my profiles.
It is known that “Johnnie” customised his aircraft. Like many other aces, he ordered EN398’s guns to be harmonized according to
his personal preference. Judging from the photos it would also seem that the circular rear view mirror was attached to a modified,
taller mount.


The port side of Johnson’s JE-J has, to my knowledge, escaped the attention of photographers. The following profile is my
attempt an the reconstruction, using available information and the camouflage pattern which the aircraft carried while still in the
markings of AE-B.
The codes JE-J on this side of the fuselage would fit under the rear part of the canopy as shown. The rear “J” would occupy only
the portion of space between the fuselage roundel and the Sky band. Presumably the serial number was painted on the latter in
the similar position and style as on the opposite side.
Johnson ordered the red and blue pennant of a Wing Commander to be applied on his aircraft. Most commonly these pennants
were painted on the port side of the cowling below or in front of the windscreen. In the case of EN398 the most logical placement
would be in front of the Canadian Maple leaf badge.
The last point worth mentioning is the absence of the kill marks. It may seem odd that the one of the top RAF fighter aces with all
the fame and publicity which surrounded him would not have his double-figure victory tally reflected in the form of kill marks on
his aircraft. Well, maybe they were there, maybe not – there is no conclusive evidence either way. If you prefer to believe that they
were painted on his aircraft, you should know that JE-J finished his operational tour on EN398 with 25 confirmed victories, so
any number of black crosses between 13 and 25 would be appropriate.
During the six months of flying with EN398, Johnson had shot down 12 enemy aircraft, sharing the destruction of 5 more.
Remarkably, EN398 never caused him any technical trouble and never suffered any damage due to enemy action. After Johnson
finished his tour and moved on to No. 11 Group Headquarters, his aircraft went to No. 421 Squadron for a couple of weeks before
sustaining damage necessitating its return to Hamble for repairs. The aircraft never returned to operations, spending time in
store for the remainder of the war.

Wow! That's service! Thanks for the time and info you put into this post. I read Johnny's book years ago when I was a young boy and remember little of it but was in love with WW II aviation and having a dad from Blackpool who brought home Airfix kits for me to build only reinforced my appreciation of the RAF and the men who flew in the war. Thanks again mate, members like you and all the others who chimed in on this subject are what make Britmodeller the best modeling site on the internet.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Seawinder said:

The parts for the small carb intake are actually in all the Eduard Mk. IX boxings (two pieces, split in the middle), but only the early Mk. IX kit provides the wing part to receive it. In fact, the early kit provides two complete wings for either early or late configuration of both the carb intake and the cannon bulges. One thing the early kit doesn't provide are the early propeller blades, which I believe were metal with rounded tips. It's not to hard to get a decent approximation with a bit of filing/sanding.

I presume this is the small Mk.IX intake not the earlier one, too late to check on my Mk.VIII tooling, if it is there.  You don't mention the fuel cooler intake, easy to add, but otherwise it does sound good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t read every post in this quite good thread, however the author mentions using the Hasegawa kit as a base model for his build. To my understanding, if the 1/48 kit is an enlarged clone of their 1/72nd Mk IX, then there’s a lot more to correct than just the finer details. Visually the nose and tail are woefully short and you only really notice this once the canopy is attached and it’s sitting on its legs. 
Anyway.. good luck. 
Cheers.. Dave 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rabbit Leader said:

I haven’t read every post in this quite good thread, however the author mentions using the Hasegawa kit as a base model for his build. To my understanding, if the 1/48 kit is an enlarged clone of their 1/72nd Mk IX, then there’s a lot more to correct than just the finer details. Visually the nose and tail are woefully short and you only really notice this once the canopy is attached and it’s sitting on its legs. 
Anyway.. good luck. 
Cheers.. Dave 

Stretching the fuselage length can be done without too much difficulty, you just need the correct final measurements, some plasticard, some leftover sprue and a saw!

Here's what I'm doing on a Classic Airframes/Special Hobby Spit with the same short fuselage problem (thanks again to Troy Smith for the help!) ...

(I made my cuts away from vertical panel lines, so that I could finish the repairs smoothly and not lose detail)

Special Hobby and new Airfix

 

 This is a drawing from Troy Smith that has the correct measurements for a Mk IX, if you want to try a stretch ...

 

Spitfire- fuslege section length dwg-2

 

Edited by Tail-Dragon
  • Like 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...