Cannon bulge on the Spit Mk lXc wing

[Spitfires Forever]

I have read several articles on the use of surgery on the Hasegawa Mk IX but I am not motivated enough to correct the problem. I have the Barracuda update set for the old Eduard Tempest kit and have yet to get brave enough to "operate" on my Tempest and lengthen the fuselage. What makes it hard is the investment in these older kits especially when the new and much more expensive Eduard kits are so much better but thanks for the advice. Hopefully the MkIX will look pretty close to the real thing when I'm through with it.

Cheers

[Seawinder]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

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.

Yes, it's the small Mk. IX intake -- more bulbous than the Mk. V type. As for the fuel cooler intake, is that a small hole at the port wing root? All the Eduard Mk. VIII, IX and XVI kits provide two sets of parts for the forward wing roots. Both port-side pieces have a small rectangular panel scribed near the front. One set of the parts feature small, ovoid bulges in the surface creases; the starboard one is a bit longer than the port one. None of the pieces have holes, but the instructions in some kits call for drilling a 1 mm hole in one side or the other. I assume the starboard one is for the gun camera? For me, not being familiar with those details, it begs the question as to which marques had the gun camera and which had the fuel cooler intake. I wonder if Eduard got it right: they only call for a port-side hole for the Mk. VIII and a starboard-side hole for the late Mk. IX.

[Rabbit Leader]

@Spitfires Forever, I’m sure your Hasegawa IX will turn out just fine and you just have to please yourself to succeed in this hobby. Having said that, the Eduard Weekender kits aren’t really that expensive and do provide plenty of useful spares. 
Cheers.. Dave 

[Tbolt]

5 hours ago, Tail-Dragon said:

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)

 

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

 

 

 

Though the Hasegawa fuselage is under scale not just short, so as Troy has previously pointed out to get it looking right it needs a bit more work to increase the height, though not difficult, otherwise you just end up with a skinny looking Spit instead of a stubby one.

[Spitfires Forever]

Well, I figure I will build it anyway in order to practice painting D-Day stripes then invest in a Eduard Spitfire kit. The Hasegawa Mk V also seems enemic compared to the Tamiya or Airfix version. I will be using the Tamiya Mk V trop for the basis of a Seafire Mk Ib instead of the Hasegawa version. The Hasegawa Mk IX doesn't look bad until you put it next to an ICM Spit where the difference in length stands out. Oh well, I shall press on and see what happens. I do wish Airfix would make a high back Mk XIV, I really would love to make one of those. I have the Daco improvement kit but have been waiting for some company to make one that is much better dimensionally than the Academy or Hobby Craft offerings. Let's hope Airfix is listening because they are the most logical candidate for a nice Mk XIV.

Cheers

[Graham Boak]

4 hours ago, Seawinder said:

Yes, it's the small Mk. IX intake -- more bulbous than the Mk. V type. As for the fuel cooler intake, is that a small hole at the port wing root? All the Eduard Mk. VIII, IX and XVI kits provide two sets of parts for the forward wing roots. Both port-side pieces have a small rectangular panel scribed near the front. One set of the parts feature small, ovoid bulges in the surface creases; the starboard one is a bit longer than the port one. None of the pieces have holes, but the instructions in some kits call for drilling a 1 mm hole in one side or the other. I assume the starboard one is for the gun camera? For me, not being familiar with those details, it begs the question as to which marques had the gun camera and which had the fuel cooler intake. I wonder if Eduard got it right: they only call for a port-side hole for the Mk. VIII and a starboard-side hole for the late Mk. IX.

The F Mk.IX had the hole for a fuel cooler in the port wing.  Because of the lack of a gun camera, this was added later to the starboard wing - I think this is a slight bulge.  For the LF Mk.IX and subsequent the fuel cooler was not necessary.  I don't remember reading what happened to the gun camera.  (Time to dig out the AE article.  I've not seen the same discussion for the F. Mk.VIII.  This, I suspect,  will depend upon whether the engine cooling system change came in on the Merlin 63 or 66.  Similarly the Mk.VII - except no Merlin 66 option.

[Tail-Dragon]

6 hours ago, Spitfires Forever said:

I do wish Airfix would make a high back Mk XIV, I really would love to make one of those. I have the Daco improvement kit but have been waiting for some company to make one that is much better dimensionally than the Academy or Hobby Craft offerings. Let's hope Airfix is listening because they are the most logical candidate for a nice Mk XIV.

Cheers

Well, here's an option for you to consider. Graft the aft, upper fuselage spine from one of the flawed kits (Hasegawa, Hobbycraft, Academy etc) to the fuselage of the Airfix bubbletop Mk XIV!  Good way to practice minor surgery and learn new skills!

I've seen at least 4 different approaches to get to a Mk XIV highback, all turned out great, but this one seems the simplest. (many articles here on BritModeller)

[Spitfires Forever]

3 hours ago, Tail-Dragon said:

Well, here's an option for you to consider. Graft the aft, upper fuselage spine from one of the flawed kits (Hasegawa, Hobbycraft, Academy etc) to the fuselage of the Airfix bubbletop Mk XIV!  Good way to practice minor surgery and learn new skills!

I've seen at least 4 different approaches to get to a Mk XIV highback, all turned out great, but this one seems the simplest. (many articles here on BritModeller)

I have seen various "Frankenstein" builds and some look amazing. I guess I should just give it a whack and see what happens. I have over 20 Spitfire kits of different makes and can afford to wreck a few in an attempt to expand my modeling skills. If I am successful in my attempt I will post a pic on the site, otherwise I may lose my modeling licence for malpractice!

Cheers

[Tail-Dragon]

5 hours ago, Spitfires Forever said:

I have seen various "Frankenstein" builds and some look amazing. I guess I should just give it a whack and see what happens. I have over 20 Spitfire kits of different makes and can afford to wreck a few in an attempt to expand my modeling skills. If I am successful in my attempt I will post a pic on the site, otherwise I may lose my modeling licence for malpractice!

Cheers

Hey, you never know what you can do, unless you try!

I did a conversion of the Airfix Spit XIX that turned out OK, but it was probably the hardest way to go. If I build another, I'm just going to take the rear spine from an old Otaki Spit IX and add it to the Airfix FR XIV. 

I've always loved the look of a Mk XIVe

 

 

Link to build ...

 

1/48 Spitfire XIVe from the Airfix PR XIX

Edited October 8, 2021 by Tail-Dragon

[Spitfires Forever]

1 minute ago, Tail-Dragon said:

Hey, you never know what you can do, unless you try!

I did a conversion of the Airfix Spit XIX that turned out OK, but it was probably the hardest way to go. If I build another, I'm just going to take the rear spine from an old Otaki Spit IX and add it to the Airfix FR XIV. 

I've always loved the look of a Mk XIVe

 

 

Nice work mate! That's what I am aiming for. Don't think mine will look as nice but let's see what happens.

Cheers

Cheers

[Troy Smith]

13 hours ago, Spitfires Forever said:

I have the Daco improvement kit but have been waiting for some company to make one that is much better dimensionally than the Academy or Hobby Craft offerings.

 

Dimensionally the Hobbycraft is very good.   It's just like a 72nd kit enlarged to 48th,  and some have engraved rear fuselages, and some don't.   

Good candidate for being done up  with Eduard leftovers, and 'as is' makes a well shaped shelf model.

 

The Academy is one of the most vilfied kits,  and the Daco set is pretty useless as "a fix"  as it's a new nose, which then needs to be blended in,  and doesn't fix any of the other problems.

 

But, the Academy is a good candidate for fixing,  as it's problems are mostly being oversize, but the main dimensions, as in length and wing span are correct,    so it's really a question of removing material.   Note, The Airfix Spitfire XII and Seafire XVII share most of the same major faults as the Academy XIV,  but  as they don't get the nose ring size wrong, they don't get the same reputation.

 

Anyway, Academy  problems,

Most famous, nose.

 

Comparison shot with an Aeroclub fuselage, light grey

50620904 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

Lower left, unmodified Academy, upper right, modified.  Note lines on cutting mat.   Parts aligned on grid.

Exhaust are too low,  note plastic strip to raise, and the Academy rocker cover needs work.

 

The nose is modified like this, 

Spit academy nose mod DSCF0709_zpssziaklh8 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

The saw cut allow the nose ring to be pulled in, the cut raise the lower fuselage line, note, wing is too thick, by about 1mm, but when thinned, matches new lower line.  Wing is not as yet thinned. 

 

Unmodified fuselage at rear, edges coloured orange, not depth reduction on upper and lower rear, and at front, a little at upper front, and the 'pulled up' belly.   This is what the Daco nose does NOT do

50620907 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

reshaped wing, moved forward to correct position

50620908 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

One faff, is redoing the cowling fasteners,  but a beading tool, or metal tube of right diameter will do this.   redoing the rear angled fuel tank cover is tricky,  I'll try using the Airfix XIV as a guide, and draw it's line onto paper or thin sheet to use a scribing guide. 

I'd rate this as the hardest part.    Again, the Daco nose, well the one I have, is awful, with little or no panel fasterner detail, and making good the new nose wipes out much of the detail as well.  

 

wing shape, to broad in chord,  easy enough to fix, chop out ailerons, reshape wing, 

50620909 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

wing on right is reshaped.  wheel wells to shallow.

50620911 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

Why bother, well, by and large the panel lines are in the right place, and are petite,  tail is the right shape, and if you have the kit, you can  sell it, bin it,  use 'corrections' that don't fix it, or  take the opportunity to use 'some modelling skill'  as while there is a  load of work, none of it is difficult. 

Hint, and accurately shaped kit will help as a 3-D guide.    

 

You will need a new spinner, this can be sourced via AM, make sure you get the right one, best is likley to be the Barracudacals Spitfire 22/24, the one made for the Airfix XIX is too small

Though, if you built a Seafire 47, the spare spinner leftover is 'free AM'

 

Barracudacals rocker bulges maybe worth getting.   There is more, the rads need work, but these are the big problems.   

 

@Tail-Dragon may find this of interest, as a Spitfire stash-a-holic and dedicated kit basher,  as might @Alex Gordon,  

 

Finally, I saw an Academy XIV built OOB at a model club meeting, on it's own it doesn't actually scream 'wrong' at you......   but it does look wrong next to a correctly shaped kit....

 

I'll add in any edits if I remember them.....  

[Alex Gordon]

I used a PR XIX fuselage and Seafire XVII wing for my XIVc build

 

 

The Hasegawa IX looks well when built but I won't be putting mine in a line up.

 

 

The ICM IX benefits from a bit of work but it is worth it in the end.

 

 

The Airfix XII builds up well and doesn't look out of place alongside others.

 

 

Likewise the XVII which I thoroughly enjoyed building.

 

 

I've never had the Academy kit to compare it to others but,as Troy shows,it's not beyond possibility to sort it out and would be worth a go.

 

Edited February 23 by Alex Gordon
Replace Village Photos URL.

[Spitfires Forever]

4 minutes ago, Alex Gordon said:

I used a PR XIX fuselage and Seafire XVII wing for my XIVc build

 

 

The Hasegawa IX looks well when built but I won't be putting mine in a line up.

 

 

The ICM IX benefits from a bit of work but it is worth it in the end.

 

 

The Airfix XII builds up well and doesn't look out of place alongside others.

 

 

Likewise the XVII which I thoroughly enjoyed building.

 

 

I've never had the Academy kit to compare it to others but,as Troy shows,it's not beyond possibility to sort it out and would be worth a go.

 

I was thinking about cross kitting those two models but was unsure about how viable that was. It seems that would be the simplest solution. The Italeri/Occidental kits really need the resin spinner and prop blades. I did that to my XVI as well as sanded down the lower engine cover, added a resin seat, PE belts and resin wheels and it turned out pretty good. I have the decals for the pink PR Spit but would have to drill the camera port in the right place then make a window from the clear part glue that Testors makes. Trying to nail down the pink color is tricky though. From all accounts the pink was very light as apposed to the bright pink I have seen modelled. You seemed to have nailed yours though. Great photography by the way 

Cheers

[Alex Gordon]

I've linked to the build threads for the XIV and ICM jobs,they might give you a few pointers and foul ups to avoid.I had the Italeri IX in the stash for a little while,there's something awry with the wing chord and outline.Their XVI has the same problem.

I look forward to seeing your pink Spit,it's a satisfying uncomplicated conversion for a very striking result.

[Spitfires Forever]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

 

Dimensionally the Hobbycraft is very good.   It's just like a 72nd kit enlarged to 48th,  and some have engraved rear fuselages, and some don't.   

Good candidate for being done up  with Eduard leftovers, and 'as is' makes a well shaped shelf model.

 

The Academy is one of the most vilfied kits,  and the Daco set is pretty useless as "a fix"  as it's a new nose, which then needs to be blended in,  and doesn't fix any of the other problems.

 

But, the Academy is a good candidate for fixing,  as it's problems are mostly being oversize, but the main dimensions, as in length and wing span are correct,    so it's really a question of removing material.   Note, The Airfix Spitfire XII and Seafire XVII share most of the same major faults as the Academy XIV,  but  as they don't get the nose ring size wrong, they don't get the same reputation.

 

Anyway, Academy  problems,

Most famous, nose.

 

Comparison shot with an Aeroclub fuselage, light grey

50620904 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

Lower left, unmodified Academy, upper right, modified.  Note lines on cutting mat.   Parts aligned on grid.

Exhaust are too low,  note plastic strip to raise, and the Academy rocker cover needs work.

 

The nose is modified like this, 

Spit academy nose mod DSCF0709_zpssziaklh8 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

The saw cut allow the nose ring to be pulled in, the cut raise the lower fuselage line, note, wing is too thick, by about 1mm, but when thinned, matches new lower line.  Wing is not as yet thinned. 

 

Unmodified fuselage at rear, edges coloured orange, not depth reduction on upper and lower rear, and at front, a little at upper front, and the 'pulled up' belly.   This is what the Daco nose does NOT do

50620907 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

reshaped wing, moved forward to correct position

50620908 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

One faff, is redoing the cowling fasteners,  but a beading tool, or metal tube of right diameter will do this.   redoing the rear angled fuel tank cover is tricky,  I'll try using the Airfix XIV as a guide, and draw it's line onto paper or thin sheet to use a scribing guide. 

I'd rate this as the hardest part.    Again, the Daco nose, well the one I have, is awful, with little or no panel fasterner detail, and making good the new nose wipes out much of the detail as well.  

 

wing shape, to broad in chord,  easy enough to fix, chop out ailerons, reshape wing, 

50620909 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

wing on right is reshaped.  wheel wells to shallow.

50620911 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

Why bother, well, by and large the panel lines are in the right place, and are petite,  tail is the right shape, and if you have the kit, you can  sell it, bin it,  use 'corrections' that don't fix it, or  take the opportunity to use 'some modelling skill'  as while there is a  load of work, none of it is difficult. 

Hint, and accurately shaped kit will help as a 3-D guide.    

 

You will need a new spinner, this can be sourced via AM, make sure you get the right one, best is likley to be the Barracudacals Spitfire 22/24, the one made for the Airfix XIX is too small

Though, if you built a Seafire 47, the spare spinner leftover is 'free AM'

 

Barracudacals rocker bulges maybe worth getting.   There is more, the rads need work, but these are the big problems.   

 

@Tail-Dragon may find this of interest, as a Spitfire stash-a-holic and dedicated kit basher,  as might @Alex Gordon,  

 

Finally, I saw an Academy XIV built OOB at a model club meeting, on it's own it doesn't actually scream 'wrong' at you......   but it does look wrong next to a correctly shaped kit....

 

I'll add in any edits if I remember them.....  

I remember seeing Brett Green's XIV using the Daco kit and it does look better with it than the without it but you are right, the detail is very faint at best. The Hobby Craft kit looks better overall but the spine has a weird slope or hunchback before it meets the rear glazing but that could be corrected as well as adding a vacuu formed canopy which I think needs replacing. That should be more effective than trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear with the Academy kit, which unfortunately I have three of. What was so thinking? Information is power.

Cheers

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Spitfires Forever said:

I remember seeing Brett Green's XIV using the Daco kit and it does look better with it than the without it

it has the right size spinner/nose ring, which is the main visually wrong part of the Academy kit.   But, as I hope my post show, they don't 'fix it' 

If you have the set, the spinner and radiators are good.  

 

1 hour ago, Spitfires Forever said:

That should be more effective than trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear with the Academy kit, which unfortunately I have three of.

then you have plenty to chop up.   The hard part was working out what was wrong where, and how to fix these.  These are shown above.   the mods are not very difficult, just there is a load of them.    Your life will be made easier by using a accurate late Griffon as a shaping guide.   The Airfix loback XIV is really good shape wise, but you can also use the Airfix 22/24 as a nose reference.  

 

And, without being funny, if you are prepared to hack the nose of the Academy to fit the Daco nose, (which as I have, and have explained why it's not really much use) then you can at least TRY my nose fix before using that as you cut that bit off anyway.  Note, the saw cut to reduce the nose ring need to be superglued.

the Griffon nose ring is 28 inches,  0r 7/12th of an  inch in 1/48 

 

If you don't have them, mechanical metal verniers calipers and cheap beading tool are very handy additions to the tool kit, certainly in the UK these can be got cheap via ebay

 

1 hour ago, Alex Gordon said:

I had the Italeri IX in the stash for a little while,there's something awry with the wing chord and outline.Their XVI has the same problem.

 

1 hour ago, Spitfires Forever said:

The Italeri/Occidental kits really need the resin spinner and prop blades.

Wing has same problem as The Academy, and old Tool Tamiya Mk.I.   It's an easy fix,  simplest way is to use a accurate wing as cutting guide,  the ailerons are OK,  you remove those and then reshape wing.  

 

Nose has too low a thrust line,  Aeroclub did a whole new nose, but it can be fixed,  I have one part done, I made a virtue out of the too deep chin by using it to make a bulged PR cowling.   

 

The Occidental kit is again, fixable, with some modelling skill.  

 

Note, unless you like fixing up older kits, in the case of the Merlin 60 series Spitfires, the Eduard family have made all the others obsolete.  Even the next best Merlin 60, the ICM,  has a fair amount of issues, and as some are really into the realm of replacement parts, in particular, the prop blades and spinner,   not worth the bother.

The ICM blades are fixable as too big, the spinner is too small. 

Again, depends on what you, what you want to spend and what bugs you.   An ICM built straight from the box  with care will make a decent looking Spitfire,  but an Eduard weekend done is the same way makes into a model that would take a load more work to get the ICM kit too. 

ICM fault list, spinner too small, blades too big. front fuselage too narrow in plan,   wheel hubs poor,  wheel wells basic and the leg part are not boxed in, cannon blisters are too shallow, cockpit side walls flare out....  exhaust are poor..... 

Note, many of these can be fixed by using the optional leftover parts that come in every Eduard Merlin 60 kit though....  and deeper cannon blister can be made be simply cutting the blister out of one of the optional doors, but including the door thickness.  

 

 

I did spend a lot of time comparing and analysing 1/48th Spitfire kits,  and cross referencing,  and much of what is often posted is wrong, or just copied on from others without checking.    I ended up with pretty much every 1/48 the Spitfire kit and did recheck, compare and assess,  and as i had not 'got my model space sorted out'  mainly ended up doing this kind of comparative research and modification strategies,  as a opposed to building the damn things.

 

Weird observation, the earliest 1/48th Spitfire kits, specifically Monogram IX, old Tool Airfix Vb, Revell Spitfire II, Otaki VIII,  are overall very good in basic dimensions.  

Things go awry in the 90's.  The Tamiya I/V has quite a few problems, Academy got sent some bad drawings.   

Airfix seem to have at least used some of these on the XII and Seafire XVII kits.

Not sure what Occidental use for reference. 

Special Hobby get a really bad press,  and are often said to have 'copied Tamiya'  ...infact they seem to have copied the Hasegawa Vb, which is a little short, but otherwise looks decent.

Also, the first 1/48 Spitfire kit, possibly the first Spitfire kit to get the cockpit sides right, as in they do not flare out into the wing fillet as every previous kit has them.  

 

Funny thing is....I'm not really that interested in Spitfires, just to much time on here has led me astray......   

 

[Seawinder]

11 hours ago, Tail-Dragon said:

Well, here's an option for you to consider. Graft the aft, upper fuselage spine from one of the flawed kits (Hasegawa, Hobbycraft, Academy etc) to the fuselage of the Airfix bubbletop Mk XIV!  Good way to practice minor surgery and learn new skills!

I've seen at least 4 different approaches to get to a Mk XIV highback, all turned out great, but this one seems the simplest. (many articles here on BritModeller)

Hmm, what do you do if you want a C wing? I'm contemplating kitbashing an Airfix XIV and an Eduard VIII with all but the front and rear fuselage coming from the Eduard.

[WV908]

Back to the original header topic quickly - does anyone know if there are any surviving Mk.IX's with the original twin cannon bulge? 

 

Stupidly I've just picked up the Eduard 1/48 Early IX without thinking which wings it had. If there are no suitable IX's then I guess I can just pick up another HF.VIII and modify the early IX wings to use on that as a PR.XI conversion.

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[Troy Smith]

11 hours ago, Seawinder said:

Hmm, what do you do if you want a C wing?

convert the E wing?  I mean, it's a new bulge and underwing slots... and if you can do the below, then how hard is changing a bulge? 

11 hours ago, Seawinder said:

I'm contemplating kitbashing an Airfix XIV and an Eduard VIII with all but the front and rear fuselage coming from the Eduard.

As per Paul Budzik, sure, great result and lost of bits leftover for spares.  You only need the rudder, and build up the fin leading edge, in fact, you only need to add the longer horn balance on a later tall rudder to get a standard XIV rudder.

But an expensive proposition, unless you wanted a loback ix/xvi from the leftovers...  

1 hour ago, WV908 said:

Back to the original header topic quickly - does anyone know if there are any surviving Mk.IX's with the original twin cannon bulge? 

Just for clarity, you want to do a survivor or warbird? 

1 hour ago, WV908 said:

 

Stupidly I've just picked up the Eduard 1/48 Early IX without thinking which wings it had. If there are no suitable IX's then I guess I can just pick up another HF.VIII and modify the early IX wings to use on that as a PR.XI conversion.

 

Again, if you can plan on doing a PR.XI, then how hard is to change a wing bulge.  

 

RE PR.XI,  probably the best starting point is the Airfix XIX with a new nose, radiators and cut back fin, plus some cockpit modifications, as it's less work than doing the bowser wing and cameras..... 

[Tail-Dragon]

If your looking for 'C' wings, Eduard's recent release 84175 (Spitfire F Mk. IX 1/48) has the early large bulge 'C' wing.

And the earlier release 8282 (Spitfire IXc early) had both the early large bulge, and the later small bulge wings!

 

 

 

sprue 8280-c

 

 

 

 

sprue 8280-b

Edited October 9, 2021 by Tail-Dragon
more details

[Tail-Dragon]

On 10/6/2021 at 6:49 PM, Spitfires Forever said:

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

 

I may have miss-read the original post. are you looking for the PR XI (un-armed, no canon bulges, and a deeper chin),or a Mk IXc ?  You mention both.

[WV908]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Just for clarity, you want to do a survivor or warbird? 

Again, if you can plan on doing a PR.XI, then how hard is to change a wing bulge.  

 

RE PR.XI,  probably the best starting point is the Airfix XIX with a new nose, radiators and cut back fin, plus some cockpit modifications, as it's less work than doing the bowser wing and cameras..... 

 

Hi Troy, preferably a warbird but I'd be happy with any survivor. 

 

Yeah with the PR.XI, I have all the conversion bits to do one from a VIII or IX already, so since the VIII has the wing I need for the IX build, I could just swap the wings and file off and fill the bits I don't want. 

 

I probably have other options looking at my spares, but it would be nice to know if any survivors still have them.

 

1 hour ago, Tail-Dragon said:

If your looking for 'C' wings, Eduard's recent release 84175 (Spitfire F Mk. IX 1/48) has the 'C' wing.

 

Yeah this is the boxing I've just bought 😊 I should have looked for one of the older boxings though. 

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[Spitfires Forever]

1 hour ago, Tail-Dragon said:

I may have miss-read the original post. are you looking for the PR XI (un-armed, no canon bulges, and a deeper chin),or a Mk IXc ?  You mention both.

Hello 

I was just musing on the cannon armed (Interesting for a recce aircraft since generally they were unarmed for greater speed and altitude) Spit Mk IX that Italeri released some years ago. A very rare kit but I have a set of decals for it and would like to build one, it would be a case of proper drilling including right drill bit size for the camera port then making the window. It would be interesting to find the unit history for this aircraft and for how long the pink Spits were used, along with Spitfire typed engaged. Regardless, it seems that the Pink Spit in question was a basic Mk IX. Obviously the mission was very specialized.

Cheers

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

The pale pink Spitfire Mk.IXs were 16 Sq, and not a high altitude PR aircraft but low altitude FR (Fighter reconnaissance), which were normally armed.  The side-ways looking camera wouldn't be much use at altitude.

[WV908]

Unless Troy or anyone else has any other examples they know of then it looks like the only surviving early Mk.IX with the small chin intake and large cannon bulge *C* wing is BR601, a beautifully turned out warbird living in the US that has quite an incredible history.

 

Cheers,

 WV908