Early Spitfire fuselage roundels (K9797)

[lasermonkey]

Hi,

I was just about to start decalling an Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk I which I'm doing as K9797 from No 19 Sqn, Duxford and I noticed that the Model Alliance sheet provides 35" type A1 roundels for the fuselage. The On-Target book also describes them as 35". I'm not convinced. I'm sure they should be bigger and located further forward. One source lists them as 37.8", a figure which seems vaguely familiar. I'm sure I have some references which concur with this, but I'll be darned if I can find them!

Anyway, after hunting through my decal bank, I can't find anything close enough, the nearest being 35" or 42", neither of which I think are acceptable. With markings, I think that even a couple of scale inches can spoil the look of a model, even in 1/72!

So, does anyone know of a source of 37.8" type A1 roundels, or am I just being wildly optimistic? Having to use those 35" roundels is really going to bug me........

Thanks in advance,

Mark.

[lasermonkey]

Looks like the Xtradecal sheet for the "19 Sqn 1938 hawk" (which also has a '38 Spit on it) is the only source. Shame I'm going to have to spend over six quid to get the right size roundels I should have got in the first place!

[Edgar]

Be convinced; the laid-down size, from February to May 1940, was 35" blue circle, 21" white, and 7" red. When yellow was added, they grew to 49". Notice the multiples of 7". I don't know about "further forward," but the centre of the roundel was supposed to be 53" aft of the forward end of the rear (non-sliding) part of the canopy. I can't find any reference to 37.8" (for any roundel) anywhere.

Edgar

Edited August 27, 2009 by Edgar

[Colin S-K]

If your struggling for roundels, I might be able to help.....

Email me at,

decalbank@googlemail.com

Colin

[lasermonkey]

Sorry Edgar, I should have clarified: It's a 1938 scheme I'm doing. This is the reference I found: link

and an abstract from that site: 1938-November 1939: The first production batches of Spitfires (K9787-K9814) were built with 37.8 inches (96 cm) roundels on the fuselage sides-these were centred 39 inches aft of the rear edge of the cockpit door. 56 inches (140 cm) type A1s were on the upper wings. From K9815 the fuselage roundels were moved back, to be centred 53 in aft of the cockpit door and 6 in above the main longeron, and reduced in diameter to 35 type A1. This position for the fuselage roundel was subsequently standard on all Supermarine and Westland built Spitfires and Seafires. The first 180 or so built (K9787-K9960) also had factory applied 50 in type A roundels under the wings. After K9960 there were no factory applied under-wing roundels until December 1940. With the change to type B roundels Spitfires built with type A1 roundels had were repainted by the squadrons creating a plethora of sizes and proportions.

and a picture to illustrate:

Although I still can't find it, I remember an online discussion on this a few years ago and I'm as sure as I can be that the rather odd roundel size is correct (or at least closer than the supplied 35".

Cheers,

Mark.

Be convinced; the laid-down size, from February to May 1940, was 35" blue circle, 21" white, and 7" red. When yellow was added, they grew to 49". Notice the multiples of 7". I don't know about "further forward," but the centre of the roundel was supposed to be 53" aft of the forward end of the rear (non-sliding) part of the canopy. I can't find any reference to 37.8" (for any roundel) anywhere.

Edgar

[Edgar]

That roundel was still supposed to be 35", with the increments in multiples of 5". Red 5", white 15", blue 25", yellow 35". This was a follow-on to the between-wars size of 25" for the R/W/B roundel; add a 5" circle, and you get 35". The upper wing roundels were multiples of 8"; red 8", white 24", blue 40", yellow 56". For that fuselage roundel to have equal increments, the sizes would have to be 5.4", 16.2", 27", 37.8"; is someone, seriously, saying that Supermarine were going to play around with 10ths of an inch, with a war looming? The positioning of the camouflage lines was given in fractions (quarters, halves, three-quarters)of an inch, yet the roundels went to tenths of an inch? Some roundels had an erroneous 7" red centre, instead of 5"; I suspect that someone's been influenced by that.

Edgar

P.S. I've just checked that site, and, if I get myself logged on, it appears that I can alter the entry, as and when I please, and there's at least one item which is very doubtful, namely that it says that the dull red/blue colours, in the roundels, were in use from the start of the war. This is completely at variance with research by Dick Ward, James Goulding, and the RAF Museum, who all found that the change was mid-war (and what little research that I've done bears that out,) and that leads me to question whether that entry can be trusted at all.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Edgar

[AnonymousA667]

The Airfix kit decals scale out at approx. 40" and comparing with the above photo they are clearly too large. In Camouflage and Markings No 1, Goulding refers to them as 35" and also provides a dimensioned illustration 'based on SUP. DRG. 30064 SHT. 17G'.

peebeep

[Seahawk]

That roundel was still supposed to be 35", with the increments in multiples of 5". Red 5", white 15", blue 25", yellow 35". This was a follow-on to the between-wars size of 25" for the R/W/B roundel; add a 5" circle, and you get 35". The upper wing roundels were multiples of 8"; red 8", white 24", blue 40", yellow 56". For that fuselage roundel to have equal increments, the sizes would have to be 5.4", 16.2", 27", 37.8"; is someone, seriously, saying that Supermarine were going to play around with 10ths of an inch, with a war looming? The positioning of the camouflage lines was given in fractions (quarters, halves, three-quarters)of an inch, yet the roundels went to tenths of an inch? Some roundels had an erroneous 7" red centre, instead of 5"; I suspect that someone's been influenced by that.

Edgar

P.S. I've just checked that site, and, if I get myself logged on, it appears that I can alter the entry, as and when I please, and there's at least one item which is very doubtful, namely that it says that the dull red/blue colours, in the roundels, were in use from the start of the war. This is completely at variance with research by Dick Ward, James Goulding, and the RAF Museum, who all found that the change was mid-war (and what little research that I've done bears that out,) and that leads me to question whether that entry can be trusted at all.

For what it's worth, I'm right with you - and James Goulding. I'm also suspicious of a site that gives marking dimensions that are to whole centimetres but decimals of Imperial units

PS Errm, I've just spotted that the drawings PeeBeep cites do actually quote the red area of the 56" upper wing roundel to a decimal of an Imperial unit (22.4"). The exception that proves the rule!

Nick

[AnonymousA667]

PS Errm, I've just spotted that the drawings PeeBeep cites do actually quote the red area of the 56" upper wing roundel to a decimal of an Imperial unit (22.4"). The exception that proves the rule!

Personally I'd doubt that it appears like that on the Supermarine drawings. I would guess it reads 223/8, but it's a whole lot easier to use 22.4 on a drawing - well it was in the days I had to use a stencil! More to the point the Type A1 fuselage roundels are shown as 35".

peebeep

[ben_m]

Wikipedia have no paid staff that add content to it. They have no income from advertising either. And yet it is probably the most useful reference on the internet.

If anyone thinks entries are wrong, it doesn't take much time to edit them. And they encourage the citing of sources rather than unsupported statements.

[Seahawk]

Wikipedia ... And yet it is probably the most useful reference on the internet.

If anyone thinks entries are wrong, it doesn't take much time to edit them. And they encourage the citing of sources rather than unsupported statements.

Ooh, opening up a big discussion there. In my experience, Wikipedia is the ideal resource for people who are content with an answer that's approximately right. Entries will be 90+% accurate. The problem is that, unless you know the subject (in which case you wouldn't need to consult it in the first place), you don't know which 10% is wrong, and by how much (on a scale between "not quite right" and "utter cobblers"). Case in point: I came across an entry on Leander-class frigates a couple of years back and it said the class was built in 3 subclasses (Exocet, Ikara and gun-armed). Not quite: it was initially built as a fairly uniform class of 26 ships and only subsequently were ships converted into subclasses. So approximately right but not a reliable historical statement. As a social phenomenon, it may evolve to a higher standard of accuracy. Until then I feel it's quite pernicious because already a generation is growing up who think it's the fount of all wisdom. It also raises deeper philosophical issues on whether truth is an objective reality or what the majority of people think it to be.

Yes, we could edit entries but life's too short. And, even if we limited wiki to the Britmodellers community, what would it say about sky grey?

Nick

[Edgar]

PS Errm, I've just spotted that the drawings PeeBeep cites do actually quote the red area of the 56" upper wing roundel to a decimal of an Imperial unit (22.4"). The exception that proves the rule!

Not quite; it's 2/5 of 56", and the laid-down method, for the upper-wing roundels, was to measure out, from the a/c centre-line, 1/3 of the a/c's span, and that would be the centre of the roundel. The diameter of the roundel would be dictated by the available space, without encroaching on the aileron, and that's why virtually every a/c type had a different-sized roundel. There is a belief that, on the advent of the yellow l/e stripe, the roundel was reduced to 55", due to less room, but there's no documentary evidence. Of course 2/5 of 55" (for the red centre) would have been a darned sight simpler.........

Edgar

[lasermonkey]

Thanks for the input everyone. I shall try some 35" roundels and if they look right, I'll stick with them.

I have just dug out my old copy of the November '82 Scale Aircraft Modelling which has an article on Spitfire camouflage and markings from 1938-1940. There's a side view of K9795 and the caption states that the fuselage roundel was 37.8". That's probably where I remember it from! The article is compiled by Ted Hooton and probably the source of the Wilkipedia entry.

Interestingly, the side-view show the top of the roundel being level with the top of the access panel. The photograph I posted shows that the roundel doesn't reach up that far. However, the yellow and white rings looks to be slightly out of proportion to the blue ring and red centre, something I hadn't noticed before. The wing roundels look to be perfectly in proportion.

It's certainly been an interesting build so far!

[lasermonkey]

Ok, I tried the 35" fuselage roundels in the "forward" location (centred on the radio access hatch) and it looks spot-on to me (even if the ring ratios aren't quite right).

35 inches it is!

I have to say though, the MA decals are very disappointing. It looks as if the white on the roundels doesn't go right to the edge, meaning the yellow surround looks "washed out" at the extreme outer circumference. It's ok from 2 or 3 feet away, but doesn't stand close scrutiny. Just as well most of my models are "three footers"! Worse than that, the 19 numeral for the fin is way too big- it just won't fit! Also, the white backing is out of register, giving it a white "drop shadow".Luckily, I have the Kits At War set which also includes K9797 and their 19 numeral is the correct size and well-printed.

Should you decide that you would like to do K9795 or K9797, get the Kits At War set, but use either Modeldecal or Xtradecal for the roundels, as the KIW roundels are rather poor as well.