Confusion - Spitfire wheel bulges?

[Chuck1945]

I am in the midst of building Airfix's 1/72 Spitfire IX and also have an Airfix Spitfire I ready for paint.

However, before I continue, I need to sort out what, if any. bulges should be present on the upper wing surface above the main wheel bays. The Spitfire I kit has a relatively small shallow kidney shaped bulge, that also appears in at least one photo of a wartime Spitfire I so I am thinking that one is ok. The Spitfire XI kit has a much wider bulge along with a very narrow one just outboard of the wheel bulge, but too far inboard to be related to the cannon bulges, (also present but that is another issue). If I am reading the various postings correctly, this Spitfire IX bulge is a post-war addition and would be present on a WWII Spitfire circa mid 1944? What about the narrow one?

[Severus]

I am in the midst of building Airfix's 1/72 Spitfire IX and also have an Airfix Spitfire I ready for paint.

However, before I continue, I need to sort out what, if any. bulges should be present on the upper wing surface above the main wheel bays. The Spitfire I kit has a relatively small shallow kidney shaped bulge, that also appears in at least one photo of a wartime Spitfire I so I am thinking that one is ok. The Spitfire XI kit has a much wider bulge along with a very narrow one just outboard of the wheel bulge, but too far inboard to be related to the cannon bulges, (also present but that is another issue). If I am reading the various postings correctly, this Spitfire IX bulge is a post-war addition and would be present on a WWII Spitfire circa mid 1944? What about the narrow one?

Try to use google. Took exactly 30 secs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/imagearchive/I...Image=FA_18402s

and

http://www.flightglobal.com/imagearchive/I...Image=FA_18389s

You have to put effort into research.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Severus

[IainA]

Severus

No offence mate but sorry, I'm going to bite, why, exactly, can't Chuck come in here and ask? "You have to put effort into research" - it's pithy comments like that that made me walk away from certain sites.

[Chuck1945]

Severus,

Sure research works, but this is also a question that has been asked before and, if you know the answer, which some here do, is yes or no. I do thank you for linking the photos, now I know the answer is no, the bulges should not be there.

For your edification, I actually had attempted to use Google but did not phrase any of the attempts in a way that yielded meaningful results.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Chuck1945

[Edgar]

I think that the small(ish) bulge, on the Mark I wells, came about when the stance of the legs was splayed slightly more than that of the prototype K5054; look at photos of the first flight, and the legs are parallel, while later examples are wider apart, at the wheels.

The bulge was lost when the Vc adopted the raked-forward u/c of the Mk.III, and the leg was allowed to hang lower in the well, being covered by a curved cover; if you look at a Mk.I or II, the covers were flat, but later versions were curved.

Throughout its wartime use, the Spitfire's u/c was set with "toe-in" to the wheels, since this assisted operations on grass airfields. When paved runways became more prevalent, the toe-in caused the tyres to scrub, and wear very quickly, so the wheels were altered to run straight fore-and-aft, but this led to the wheel hitting the upper surface of the well, so a teardrop-shaped bulge was introduced. The leaflets, for the mod, were issued in June/July 1945, but there is evidence that some might have had the bulges before the end of the war (mods did, at times, play "catch-up" with what was being done in the field.)

I haven't, yet, found out what the "mini-bulge," between the cannon bay and wheel well was for, but it might have had something to do with the re-arrangement of wiring/pipework, when the "E" wing collected the oxygen & compressed-air bottles, displaced from the fuselage by the extra fuel tanks; however, that's a total guess, so don't quote me.

Edgar

[jenko]

Try to use google. Took exactly 30 secs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/imagearchive/I...Image=FA_18402s

and

http://www.flightglobal.com/imagearchive/I...Image=FA_18389s

You have to put effort into research.

This is not in keeping with the ethos of Britmodeller.

These are friendly forums. Lets keep it that way please.

Edited February 1, 2011 by jenko

[gingerbob]

I think that the small(ish) bulge, on the Mark I wells, came about when the stance of the legs was splayed slightly more than that of the prototype K5054; look at photos of the first flight, and the legs are parallel, while later examples are wider apart, at the wheels.

I haven't, yet, found out what the "mini-bulge," between the cannon bay and wheel well was for...

Edgar

Hi Edgar,

Interesting idea about the "original" bulge. For the general audience I wish to point out that this bulge is VERY subtle, and often cannot be seen at all when you expect to. When you have the right light angle then it shows up.

The narrow bulge on the late mod is, I believe, covering an external reinforcement which replaces a section of channel that had to be cut away on the roof of the wheel bay.

bob

[davidelvy]

These are friendly forums. Lets keep it that way please.

Obviously a very well chosen avatar.

[Edgar]

Perhaps I should underline that it's just an idea, regarding the small bulge, and it might tie-in with a mod (no.263) "Modify chassis pintle forging so that it may be suitable for use on Spitfire III a/c."

This mod was applicable to the I & II, and was dated from 28-2-40, so might have affected the position of the wheel inside the well enough to necessitate the slight bulge. If there are photos of Mk.Is, prior to 1940, with the bulge, then that's my theory out of the window (like so many.)

Chuck, you keep on asking questions, matey; some of us don't mind going over old ground, if it helps a fellow modeller.

Edgar

[Darius at Home]

Try to use google. Took exactly 30 secs.

But with BM you get Edgar - and he has a better avatar!!!

Darius

[Severus]

Severus

No offence mate but sorry, I'm going to bite, why, exactly, can't Chuck come in here and ask? "You have to put effort into research" - it's pithy comments like that that made me walk away from certain sites.

I said no inpolite word against Chuck. I simply wrote what's been obvious.

[Severus]

Severus,

Sure research works, but this is also a question that has been asked before and, if you know the answer, which some here do, is yes or no. I do thank you for linking the photos, now I know the answer is no, the bulges should not be there.

For your edification, I actually had attempted to use Google but did not phrase any of the attempts in a way that yielded meaningful results.

What about simple google photos search? Honestly said - I had seen many stupid answers concerning various birds, that I would rather lookup visual prove, than simply stating "yes" or "no".

[Miggers]

Ok Chuck,here's my bit.

(And yes Severus,I've answered this question with what I'm going to say more than once,

because I've done loads of research on this subject strangely enough)

Are you looking at wartime photographs,do you want to model a wartime machine or a "modern" Spit?.

What Edgar and gingerbob tell you is absolutely correct for wartime aircraft or "modern" aircraft sporting

the original style five spoke(Mks I,II,V and early IX)or the fourspoke wheels(all other marks upto the F.21),

and fitted with any of the wing(a,b,c,e or bowser)variations.

Now,check out any of the F.21 and later marks(22,24 and Seafire 46-47)they have three spoke wheels

and if you look at a lot of "modern" Spits,you'll see that they also have three spoke wheels fitted.

There is,right above the undercart bay,a large flattened teardrop fairing.

The three spoke wheels are wider than the original five and four spoke wheels(10" on the 4&5 spoke,12" on the 3 spoke),

so these coupled with the pintle mod(no.263)meant that there was even less room in the undercartbay,hence the bigger wing bulge.

"What has this got to do with "modern" Spits?" you ask.

Very simple.The Buccaneer's nosewheel just happened to be designed with the same width,diameter and section

as those late mark Spit/Seafire three spokers,so the Bucc's nosewheel was fitted with Spit/Seafire tyres!!!

Dunlop's had stopped making the original 10" tyres,but Bucc nosewheel tyres were in plentiful supply,so the easy answer was

that if your "modern" Spit needed new tyres,you fitted three spoke wheels,bigger wing bulges and off you went,your Spit

was still flyable.

You may have noticed that these past few years,more and more "modern" Spits are reverting back to their original

five and four spoke wheels to keep historical correctness.

Due to popular demand,Dunlop's have dug out that old mould for those famous 10" tyres and begun production

again.

So there you go.

The answer to the question and the reasons for those different sized wing bulges.

Mark

[Severus]

Ok Chuck,here's my bit.

(And yes Severus,I've answered this question with what I'm going to say more than once,

because I've done loads of research on this subject strangely enough)

Are you looking at wartime photographs,do you want to model a wartime machine or a "modern" Spit?.

What Edgar and gingerbob tell you is absolutely correct for wartime aircraft or "modern" aircraft sporting

the original style five spoke(Mks I,II,V and early IX)or the fourspoke wheels(all other marks upto the F.21),

and fitted with any of the wing(a,b,c,e or bowser)variations.

Now,check out any of the F.21 and later marks(22,24 and Seafire 46-47)they have three spoke wheels

and if you look at a lot of "modern" Spits,you'll see that they also have three spoke wheels fitted.

There is,right above the undercart bay,a large flattened teardrop fairing.

The three spoke wheels are wider than the original five and four spoke wheels(10" on the 4&5 spoke,12" on the 3 spoke),

so these coupled with the pintle mod(no.263)meant that there was even less room in the undercartbay,hence the bigger wing bulge.

"What has this got to do with "modern" Spits?" you ask.

Very simple.The Buccaneer's nosewheel just happened to be designed with the same width,diameter and section

as those late mark Spit/Seafire three spokers,so the Bucc's nosewheel was fitted with Spit/Seafire tyres!!!

Dunlop's had stopped making the original 10" tyres,but Bucc nosewheel tyres were in plentiful supply,so the easy answer was

that if your "modern" Spit needed new tyres,you fitted three spoke wheels,bigger wing bulges and off you went,your Spit

was still flyable.

You may have noticed that these past few years,more and more "modern" Spits are reverting back to their original

five and four spoke wheels to keep historical correctness.

Due to popular demand,Dunlop's have dug out that old mould for those famous 10" tyres and begun production

again.

So there you go.

The answer to the question and the reasons for those different sized wing bulges.

Mark

Interesting info concerning Buccaneer Spitfire relationship. Sillently I understood question on bulges as matter of wartime spits, not postwar or resurrected ones. BTW - I don't know anyone, who builds warbirds models... ;-)

[Miggers]

Interesting info concerning Buccaneer Spitfire relationship. Sillently I understood question on bulges as matter of wartime spits, not postwar or resurrected ones. BTW - I don't know anyone, who builds warbirds models... ;-)

I do!!!.

I have Kennet Aviation's Seafire XVII,SX336,Jim Smith's gorgeous Seafire FR.47,VP441,the BBMF's IX/XVIe highback,MK356,

Pete Teichmann's PR.XI,PL965/R-Robert,Robs Lamplough's clipped,cropped and clapped Vb,EP120 and I'm currently doing

Rolls-Royce's old Spit,XIVc highback,RM689/G-ALGT,to be done in the civvy scheme she wore during the 1960's before she starred

in the Battle of Britain film.

All the others are done as they're displayed on the airshow circuit with the exception of MK356.

She's done in her Canadian wartime colours as she was displayed in a few years ago,but she's fitted with the incorrect

for her wartime service,but correct for the last few years bigger VIII style broadchord rudder and clipped e wing.

MK currently sports an all over silver scheme and full tips to represent S/L Des Ibbotson's a/c,MJ250.

Mark

Edited February 1, 2011 by Miggers

[Chuck1945]

Thanks for all the replies. As I mentioned in my initial post, the Spitfire IX I am modeling was a Spitfire IX, circa July 1944 that had been converted with the addition of an oblique camera and used by 16 Sqd for TACR. The one photo I have seems to show the 5-spoke wheel and 'C' armament so I will remove the bulges. And yes, it will be a pink Spitfire

[Severus]

Thanks for all the replies. As I mentioned in my initial post, the Spitfire IX I am modeling was a Spitfire IX, circa July 1944 that had been converted with the addition of an oblique camera and used by 16 Sqd for TACR. The one photo I have seems to show the 5-spoke wheel and 'C' armament so I will remove the bulges. And yes, it will be a pink Spitfire

Red X or white V? ;-)

[Chuck1945]

Red X or white V? ;-)

I have both the Model Alliance Photo Recce sheet and the BarracudaCals Spitfire IX sheet. I think Roy's interpretation of 16 Sqd's pink is way too red (or pink), at least based on comments from a different thread here as well as the one photo of several of 16 Sqd's Spitfires.

I do wish that the photo also showed the camera fitting. I have seen, mostly on PR Spitfires, a camera port flush with the side of the fuselage, but also with a teardrop bulge. The teardrop bulge is shown in a drawing and photo in the Aviaeology sheet on RCAF TACR Spitfires and appears on a TACR Spitfire IX. As a result, I have added it to my model. Up to the point where decals are applied it can always be removed if it turns out to be an error.

[Edgar]

I think Roy's interpretation of 16 Sqd's pink is way too red (or pink), at least based on comments from a different thread here as well as the one photo of several of 16 Sqd's Spitfires.

It is, and he's not alone, since Xtracolor's pink is too intense, as well. When looking at a genuine colour chip, it's extremely difficult to see any colour, at all, unless it's placed onto a sheet of white paper, when the difference does show.

In the one clear photo, of the camera window, in "The Spitfire Story," there's no sign of a teardrop (or any other shape) bulge, just a flat piece of glass (perspex?) set fairly low in the door, on MK915 "V."

Edgar

P.S. If you want a colour chip, of the pink, let me know.

[Chuck1945]

...

In the one clear photo, of the camera window, in "The Spitfire Story," there's no sign of a teardrop (or any other shape) bulge, just a flat piece of glass (perspex?) set fairly low in the door, on MK915 "V."

Edgar

P.S. If you want a colour chip, of the pink, let me know.

Thanks for the info. I was proud of the way I figured out how to do the teardrop fairing, but I would rather be right, and I guess that means I will be doing MK915 'V' since you confirmed the absence of the fairing. The photo I found is the more general view showing the front ends of perhaps four of the Spitfires. Somehow I missed getting Price's book. PM also being sent

[Edgar]

I've now found out what the tiny(ish) bulge, beside the larger teardrop over the wheel well, is for. When the tracking changed, as well as fitting the teardrop, parts of the inner stiffeners, in the roof of the well were cut away, thus weakening them, but especially the outer one. The bulge is a solid block of aluminium, rivetted on top of the wing to the underlying stiffener, to reintroduce some strengthening.

From that, one can induce that no teardrop fairing = no mini-blister, but it doesn't seem to be thus on the XIV, since I've found an example with mini-blister, but without teardrop. During his researches, Peter Cooke found that the XIV 4-spoke wheel was slightly thinner than others, so it looks as though, when the tracking changed, Supermarine managed to get the new leg in, just by trimming the inner stiffeners, and adding a lump of aluminium on top.

Someone else (somewhere) was asking about the small bulge in the upper door over the no.4 .303" Browning. As long as there was a gun inside, the bulge was needed, but there was no single type. Some are shaped like a bar, the whole width of the door, others are a mini bulge over the outer half of the door, while others are a broader bulge, again over the whole widthe of the door, but only raised a fraction of an inch.

Edgar

Edited February 5, 2011 by Edgar

[gingerbob]

The narrow bulge on the late mod is, I believe, covering an external reinforcement which replaces a section of channel that had to be cut away on the roof of the wheel bay.

Well, OK, I wasn't exactly correct, but...

bob

p.s. This is probably covered by some FAQ, but can someone explain how that "Quote" button next to "Reply" works? I'm flummoxed.

Edited February 5, 2011 by gingerbob

[John Aero]

There are of course two diameters of Spitfire wheel. Back in the early 70's when I looked after our Spitfire 21 (LA255), Dick Melton of the B of B flight arranged to aquire our later three spoke wheels. I duly delivered these to Coltishall and exchanged them for a set of 10" wheels off a Mk.V. Dick told me then that they were flying the XIX's on Sea Vixen nosewheel tyres on the three spoke 12" wheels.

I presume that the Bucc and Sea Vixen share the same nose wheels which would make Navy spares sense.

John

[Miggers]

There are of course two diameters of Spitfire wheel. Back in the early 70's when I looked after our Spitfire 21 (LA255), Dick Melton of the B of B flight arranged to aquire our later three spoke wheels. I duly delivered these to Coltishall and exchanged them for a set of 10" wheels off a Mk.V. Dick told me then that they were flying the XIX's on Sea Vixen nosewheel tyres on the three spoke 12" wheels.

I presume that the Bucc and Sea Vixen share the same nose wheels which would make Navy spares sense.

John

I bet that Mk.V was EP120 John.

Seen a pic of her with the BBMF before she was sold and she was sitting on what looked like large wheelbarrow

rims instead of her 10" five spokers.

Mark

[John Aero]

I bet that Mk.V was EP120 John.

Seen a pic of her with the BBMF before she was sold and she was sitting on what looked like large wheelbarrow

rims instead of her 10" five spokers.

Mark

Mark

As far as I know they came out of their stores as non airworthy spares, but LA255 still wears them I believe, and I'm hoping to be reunited with her at some point soon.

John