Revells Spitfire Mk.II - release date and Spitfire research

[wunwinglow]

My life is now mostly senior moments, I only comment when, on those odd occasions, I have a junior moment...

 

 

Tim

[Guest Peterpools]

Same here and my senior moments easily are expanding and come by the dozen.

Peter

[Brad-M]

Well, I am in good company then, or perhaps I always have been

 

Cheers Mates

Brad

[Guest KingK_series]

The thread you mentioned Rog was going along fine for some time, and until the very end the OP/builder showed what he found as accuracy issues, showed what reference he used to determine that, and then showed how he corrected it.  If that's not the textbook definition of a perfect build thread, I don't know what is.  The fact that the kit was not perfect caused others to get upset and ran the OP/builder off which was truly shameful.

 

And - regarding critiquing of a kit you mentioned Rog - just because someone points out an issue with a kit, that does not mean they are saying it is "unbuildable".  How people come up with the idea that just because a kit is criticized for it's inaccuracies it is "unbuildable" really baffles me.  No kit is perfect, and all have issues, so whomever jumps to that conclusion that it is "unbuildable" because of issues must also agree that every kit is "unbuildable" by their own definition.  Unfortunately, as best as I can tell some folks here read what is written but comprehend something completely different, which leads to snarky posts like the first post quoted.

 

Doug

 

 

 

Doug

 

 

I completely agree with you in the above two comments

 

 

- and would only add - is not the fun, and I'd say the point of LSP modeling - the research, detailing and correction of kits

 

 

- to me Waroff and Henri Dehane, and Radu's modeling define what LSP modelling should be -

[Tony T]

Doug

I completely agree with you in the above two comments

- and would only add - is not the fun, and I'd say the point of LSP modeling - the research, detailing and correction of kits 

- to me Waroff and Henri Dehane, and Radu's modeling define what LSP modelling should be -

Not for me. With unfamiliar subjects I prefer an almost OOB, made as it was designed, modelling experience without the woes of correction sets or surgery. And a twenty quid Revell should be a fun weekend project.

 

I reserve the masochistic exercise of modding for subjects that I'm overly familiar with. Sometimes the list of things experts list to rectify transforms a model into a no-go subject, fraught with expense and tedious cutting and supergluing. I hope this one isn't corrupted by such doubtless well-intentioned but spoiler remarks.

 

When it comes out, I will simply want to know whether I can build an OOB 'classic still flying today' Spitty including the BBMF red crow bar, as seen on TV. Hopefully, corrections, if any, can be confined comments written in big marker pen on the back of a 50 pence coin.

 

Thanks

 

Tony

[Guest KingK_series]

Going by the usual premise that it's impossible to prove a negative, I offer the following as my findings, and leave acceptance (or otherwise) up to the membership, and I start with photographic references:-

In the revised edition of "Spitfire, the History" on page 46 there's a photo of K9787 (the first production airframe) on roll-out, and a join-line between wingtip and wing, on the port wing, is clearly visible. In the same volume, on page 78, there's a similar panel line (partially hidden by an erk's face) on the starboard wing of K9842 (the same photo, but larger, appears on page 66 of "The Spitfire Story," by Alfred Price.) 

"Spitfire, the Story of a Famous Fighter," by Bruce Robertson, shows (page 21) K9795 with the stiffener plate over the wing-to-tip join on the port wing.

"Spitfire, the Documentary history," by Alfred Price, shows K9791 (page 64/5) with the same stiffener under the port wing.

With regard to the "extra wingspan," drawings of the two types of wing (30008 sheet 1G for the wing with built-in tip, 30008 sheet 1H for the wing with detachable tip) are available from the RAF Museum's library, and they clearly show that, measuring along the wings' datum lines, the distance (on both,) from tip extremity to dihedral break, is 191.5", with the distance (on both,) from dihedral break to a/c centre-line is 31". (191.5 + 31) x 2 = "overall wingspan" = 445" = 37'1".

Also in the RAF Museum is Vickers' modification ledger, for the Spitfire & Seafire, which lists over 2990 mods, including clipped tips (mod 792,) extended-to-standard tips on the VIII (1002,) clipped tips on the XIV (1609,) there is no mention of modifying the early wings to include detachable tips (a stipulation in the first contract, remember.)

In contract 527113/36/C.23A, dated 30-12-39, listing airframes K9837-9862, 9863-9893, 9894-9999, L1000-1096 (plus others,) the Air Ministry list, over 5+ pages 114 amendments that must be incorporated. not one mentioning introducing separate wingtips, but including massive undertakings like "improving flexibility of lead to tail light."

In an April 1939 issue of "Aircraft Engineering," the following photo, titled "first type of main-plane assembly jig" appears, with no provision for a built-in wingtip:-

Also included in the article (which was written when only 132 airframes had flown, there's a photo of the separate wingtip.

I turn, now, to the two photos of K9787, which had guns installed 23-9-38, yet there's no sign of them, nor access doors to the guns or ammunition boxes, nor underwing serial numbers, which were not deleted until 30-11-39. This leads me to suspect that, for some unknown reason, the photos have been censored, with parts, serial nos and panel lines airbrushed out.

Well, there you have it; I remain unconvinced about this wingtip/extra wingspan business, and will do so, until some written (rather than apocryphal) evidence turns up.

Edgar

 

 

Edgar

 

 

I despair

 

you quote Shacklady and the photo on page 46 of K9787  photo on page 46as clearly showing separate wing tips - I quote you from above

 

"In the revised edition of "Spitfire, the History" on page 46 there's a photo of K9787 (the first production airframe) on roll-out, and a join-line between wingtip and wing, on the port wing, is clearly visible".

 

this is the photo on page 46

 

 

 

I think you are very very brave to make such a claim for such a very poor photo, which is just ropy old book illustration quality.

 

 

Here is an enlargement taken with my Leica R8 and DMR with macro Elmarit 2.8 60mm lens - in itself a very poor image in the scheme of things [i'll illustrate this point in a minute]

 

 

 

now you say of my photographs;-

 

'I turn, now, to the two photos of K9787, which had guns installed 23-9-38, yet there's no sign of them, nor access doors to the guns or ammunition boxes, nor underwing serial numbers, which were not deleted until 30-11-39. This leads me to suspect that, for some unknown reason, the photos have been censored, with parts, serial nos and panel lines airbrushed out".

 

 

No - you are quite right there are no guns on the aircraft in my prints, however there are clearly fairings over the gunports, access doors, and no underwing serial nos, they are also clearly single piece wings - and I say to you these photos are not airbrushed or manipulated in any way. All the features you claim are not there, or are airbrushed out, are there in the photographs which are original 1937 prints taken from large scale negatives taken on a plate camera. The detail and resolution on the prints is exceptional and of a quality that not even the very best £50,000 plus Sinar 5x4 Digital cameras, the like of which I have seen at Christies and Sotheby's are capable of. I apologise only because the pics I copied in of my first post with pics were simple copies taken with a silly handheld Panasonic Lumix - dire quality.

 

Below are the same pics taken with the Leica, - which honestly are c?r?a/P in terms of the image image quality a plate camera will give

 

however

 

 

 

and

 

 

from which I'll show you close ups;-

 

 

 

 

- see gun port fairings, panel lines - AND ABSOLUTELY NONE of the retouching you claim

 

 

and I apologise because this posted image is still very very very poor compared to the original image, having been copied with this;-

 

 

which produces images of diabolically bad quality compared to this;-

 

 

my Sinar large format camera, - exactly the same sort of camera my 1937 photos of K9787 were taken on, and I wish I was set up to use it now, but I've just moved house, everything is chaos and I do not have a macro lens for my 10X8 Sinar. If I labour the point I apologise but I am trying to make the point that, the reproductions in any book are at best very poor images, - just lots of dots, and even expensive cameras like this Leica produce very poor images by comparison to a large format plate camera, the likes of which took my K9787 pics and therefore I am absolutely 100% certain they are single piece wings and there is no retouching of gun port fairings or ammo box panels all of which are clearly visible in my pics. I apologise further for not being able to make that as clear as the original pics are to me - limitations of the diddy Leica, but the above enlargement is clear enough I believe

 

- heres another close up - see gun port fairings - pretty obvious - and no retouching at all !

 

 

 

What somewhat bewilders me Edgar is that you quite rightly quote the pic of K9791 on page 64 in Price's Spitfire A Documentry History,

 

see this;-

 

Edited March 30, 2014 by KingK_series

[Edgar Brooks]

I have no intention of getting into an argument about one single facet of my findings. I can see it, in my copy of the book, you can't see it in yours. Perhaps you'll now enlighten us about any other "mistakes" you've found in the rest of my research?

[Guest KingK_series]

Whats this restriction on posting images?.....

 

second part of above post ;-

 

and close up with Leica

 

 

 

but completely neglect to mention the photo on pages 58 and 59 of K9793, a much much better photo covering almost two complete pages I might add which is clearly a single piece wing - even allowing for poor quality book reproduction, though I might say better than in either Shacklady edition

 

 

here;-

 

 

and just to make this clear to anyone who is not as familiar as you are Edgar -[said with great respect], here are some pics of unrestored Spits taken recently, and though I was not thinking of the wingtip seam at the time - enough to take pics of the feature specifically - these pics clearly illustrate how obvious the seam is because of the fairing strip which is proud of the wing and covers the leading edge.

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

-  for certain,  I am clear about the quality of my pics of K9787 being of the highest order, at a level completely beyond any of these book reproductions and do not show two piece wings.

 

 

 

- And we are making progress are we not Edgar? - it was ionly on the 4th of January that you wrote - that there were no records of changes to the design of the "A" wing in the records - now you have an original Supermarine drawing and photos, even if you contest the latter.

 

 

 

 

Now here's where I think you and I differ - you take the Air Min directives as gospel, - I cannot, - you often say Supermarine would never dare not build to directive and to spec for fear of losing the contract

 

 

- I think you are right and wrong - firstly I think there is a lot of history and design that is just not in any directive or drawing - I have spent a lot of time with people restoring Spit wings, and one thing is absolutely clear - there are so so so many oddities, differences to the drawings in the real things - the fitters joke - "every wing is different" and it's true - more about wing stiffening in another post - but there are drawings with modifications to the ribs in wheel wells - that go with a host of minor changes inside the wings too - and lots of versions - it is not a black and white, revision - yet when wings are stripped none correspond to the drawings - some have some mods but not others, some have some mods from one drawing and mods from another - it is a huge mistake that production ever was methodical or to design, and that's not just me saying it = it's a common conversation at Shuttleworth and at Airframes Assemblies.

 

 

As far as Supermarine towing the line for fear of losing the contract = ? well they very nearly did - it was touch and go..... because wing production was so fraught

 

- did you know wing production was so problematic that a ply skinned wing was designed built and tested? - had it been necessary it wouldn't have been the Mossie that got christened the "wooden wonder"

 

 

 

- at the bottom of all this you have to ask ...... why did the Spitfire wing have a removable tip - I'll rephrase that - why was the Spitfire wing redesigned early in it's life to have a removable wingtip? After all the Hurricane doesn't have the outer tip removable, nor Lancs or Mossies, .....

 

I might add the Bf109 and 110 did, - and I can show you pics I have of BF110B's with extended round tips and square [typical C D E F G types] I can also show you pics of Bf110C1's wioth rounded B type tips - because nothing is simple

Edited March 30, 2014 by KingK_series

[Guest KingK_series]

I have no intention of getting into an argument about one single facet of my findings. I can see it, in my copy of the book, you can't see it in yours. Perhaps you'll now enlighten us about any other "mistakes" you've found in the rest of my research?

 

 

You say

 

'In 1976, the Royal Aeronautical society hosted a 40-year Symposium, and published details (including dimensions) supplied by Vickers, and all standard wingspans are quoted as 36'10". In the modifications ledger, held in the RAF Museum library, there is no mention of any modification to the wing involving its length, and, in a list of early modifications, held in the National Archives, there's no mention of structural alterations to the wings, either.

 

Edgar"

 

- Here is a pic of the ribs inside a 1940 "A" wing, typical of the period 1937-1941

 

 

 

 

As I've mentioned previously, early wings suffered from many issues and were constantly redesigned and revised, the pic below shows an early stiffening feature to combat flutter of the wing surface over the wing well which was found to cause fatigue cracking

 

 

 

 

This was not a factory mod, it was a field mod -= or supposed to be - if any one can find any pics opf aircraft being built late 1940 - late 1941 with these strakes in the factory, I'd be very grateful to see them - I have not found any.

 

 

below is on of the first redesigns of the structure of the wing to prevent this failure, which was clearly a factory made feature, this is common on mK IIs and Mk Vs, built in 1941

 

 

 

this change goes with a lot of other stiffening inside the wing, and there were several stabs at an effective redesign, - as I say the guys at Shuttleworth and Airframe Assemblies tell me its a lottery to find a wing that conforms to a drawing, each bloomin wing is bespoke -

 

- the first major redesign of the wing saw the "C" wing, which was principally a new design to mitigate the fatigue issues - it is totally different in it's structure, much stiffer, stronger and heavier, it was designed to take the ganged oil cooler of the Mk II and V and the early oleo strut.

 

the difference is obvious in the well, the changes are just as significant throughout.

Edited March 30, 2014 by KingK_series

[Guest KingK_series]

- this on a MkIXc

 

 

the sheet also went up in gauge

 

- all major design changes

 

- these changes prior to C wing all variously, confusingly applied to wing manufacture in a very haphazard way.... on A and B wings

 

----- but then the Shuttleworth C wing has stiffening strakes on top of the wing - which should not be there - the higher requirement for stiffness is in the new "C' wing design, - and I have never seen a wartime pic of a C wing with stiffening ribs as a field mod - yet there they are on the Shuttleworth's Mk Vc .....

Edited March 30, 2014 by KingK_series

[Derek B]

This is like watching two intellectual giants having a dual - and a very civilised one at that. I think that both of you are correct to a very large extant (which is a very dangerous think I know: you may both end up violently agreeing with one another! lol).

 

May I offer a personal perspective based upon over 26 years in the aviation industry and over 12 years in the RAF before that? If you talk to an aircraft designer about any specific aircraft component, they invariably want to know the part number of that component and will then religiously follow the 'family tree' of drawings and parts catalogues in order to discover the relationship of the component with it's sub-assembly and so forth. Likewise, a similar method will ensue when researching the relationship of modification to said components - I believe that this is essentially what Edgar does.

 

Now to address Simon's position, here is what I know from my experience of the application and execution of agreed aircraft modifications. The 'go-between' between the customer (RAF) and aircraft industry is an MOD appointed technical specialist, generally known as a resident Technical Officer (RTO) or some such similarly titled gentleman. His job is to discuss customer concerns with various technical heads of aviation industry departments such as flight test, structures, design airworthiness, etc. These meetings are (or were) known as Local Technical Committee (LTC) meetings (or other similar title). It is within the minutes of such meetings that specific aircraft modifications are discussed and prioritised, based upon many factors - these may result in any ledger of modifications being implemented out of sequence, cancelled or superseded dependent upon urgency, cost or other reasons.

 

Once an aircraft company has identified the need to design and implement an agreed modification, is is given a company modification number and this is its identification until it is either fully developed (and an MOD contract thus forthcoming) and finds its way into production - at which point it will appear on drawings and official modification ledgers, or it dies and never appears on the aircraft. This process can take anything from months to years depending upon urgency. Add to this war conditions, and it can be soon appreciated that these slated modifications can become very fluid indeed.

 

This is only my experience, but I believe that the practice and process most likely did not differ significantly from one aircraft manufacture to another, nor do I believe that it would have changed much since the war years until more recent times.

 

I think that MOD/Supermarine technical meeting records would substantiate a great deal of both Edgar's and Simon's assertions.

 

Keep up the good debate chaps!

 

Derek

[Guest KingK_series]

Edgar

 

 

you wrote;-

 

'The first stiffening of the wheel well skin was introduced 19-11-41, but no drawing seems to exist (or, at least, I haven't found it,) so it could well have been the strakes. It was replaced by two further mods, in early 1942, one was the overwing strakes (on the Va & Vb,) and the other was internal strengthening (on the Vc.)

Together with this, the oleo legs, on the Vc (and all subsequent Marks) were raked forward so that the wheels were 2" further forward; this affected the angle of the wheel, as it entered the well, so, to avoid upper wing bulges and tyre rubbing, the leg was allowed to hang slightly low in its housing, and the door was curved so that it still touched the lower wing surface.

Edgar"

 

so see above

 

 

the oleo legs were not all raked forward on the C wing, C wings started life with the same oleo - that is to say same length without torque forks = as A and B wings. What did happen as wrote in that earlier post was that the oleo is mounted lower in the wing, such that the rear of the oleo axle requires a bulge fairing in the lower wing skin, that is entirely absent in the A or B wing with the same oleo

 

 

a typical A wing with forkless oleo

 

 

 

and more of the same leg - clearly no fairing

 

 

compare this to C wing with the same early forkless oleo as fitted to MkVc's and some MkIXc's

 

 

 

- in short Edgar, there were constant redesigns going on, there were many wings that did not correspond to the many drawings of mods made and I have no doubt that some did, -

Edited March 30, 2014 by KingK_series

[Edgar Brooks]

Oh dear, why does it, so often, have to get personal? 

The Spitfire had separate wingtips, for the same reason it had a transport joint just in front of the fin/tailplane; item xxii, in the 28-7-36 Specification No. F.16/36, says "The wing tips and the end bay of the of the fuselage are to be made easily detachable. These components together with each wing as a whole, shall comply with current interchangeability requirements." (My underlining.) If you're wondering why, there's a clue in a memo, from Keith Park, while he was in Malta, telling pilots not to taxi aircraft into pens, since wingtips were getting damaged, and replacements were running short; imagine the results if a whole wing needed replacement rather than just the tip.

There is a Martlesham Heath trials report, from August 1938, for K9787, which quotes the wingspan as 36'10", and Alfred Price noted "Wing tips made detachable."

It will be a huge disappointment, to some, but the wingtips, on the Hurricane's metal-covered wings, were detachable, while those on the fabric-covered wings were not. A.P.1564A Vol. 1, Sect.3, Chapter 2, fig.1 shows item 49 (only on the metal wing) as detachable; in A.P. 1564B (for the Hurricane II) Vol.1, Sect.7, Chapter 2, fig.3 has an illustration of the wing, with "detachable wingtip secured by 8 bolts through ribs, and 36 bolts through skin."

The "1937" photos of K9787 are probably a little later, and date from 1938 (at least,) since its first flight wasn't until 14-5-38, and guns weren't fitted until 23-9-38; note, too, that it has a later version of the aerial mast, and it was 26-4-39 when it became a radio trials aircraft..

If there's one thing I've learnt (the hard way) is that one should never assume that a theory is correct, and try to make the "facts" fit that theory. Perhaps I need to repeat that, if there's any real evidence to this business of fixed wingtips, on so many aircraft, I'll accept it, and add it to my researches and files. I do research, and do not have an entrenched viewpoint; produce real (written) evidence, rather than picking out certain photos, and ignoring other evidence.

Modellers learn by presentable evidence, not by histrionics, so let's have a little less of this continual "Edgar" business, there's a good chap.

[Edgar Brooks]

the oleo legs were not all raked forward on the C wing, C wings started life with the same oleo - that is to say same length without torque forks = as A and B wings. What did happen as wrote in that earlier post was that the oleo is mounted lower in the wing, such that the rear of the oleo axle requires a bulge fairing in the lower wing skin, that is entirely absent in the A or B wing with the same oleo

Which is a classic case of what I said, earlier, namely making the facts fit the theory; the C wing (aka the "universal wing") was first fitted to the Mk.III, and had the oleo raked forward to counter the extra weight of the longer Merlin XX in front of the CoG;p (if you check, you'll find that the Mk.III, as with the Hurricane II v the I, was 4" longer than the Marks I - VI.)

The oleo remained the same length, but was raked forward by the simple expedient of fitting a wedge between the wingspar and the pintle (erks were told to take care, when tightening the six bolts, to avoid cracking the base of the pintle. The change of the angle of the axle caused the tyre to rub on the top surface of the wing, so the oleo was allowed to hang a little lower, and the gap was covered by changing the shape of the wheel cover; previously it had been flat, but, from that period, it was curved.

As I've mentioned previously, early wings suffered from many issues and were constantly redesigned and revised, the pic below shows an early stiffening feature to combat flutter of the wing surface over the wing well which was found to cause fatigue cracking.

This was not a factory mod, it was a field mod -= or supposed to be - if any one can find any pics opf aircraft being built late 1940 - late 1941 with these strakes in the factory, I'd be very grateful to see them - I have not found any.

You won't find such photos, since the modification (532 - look it up in the ledger, and the drawings) wasn't incorporated until July 1942, and was both a factory and a field mod (you'll find copies of the published leaflet in the National archives.) As well as the oddity of the Shuttleworth Spitfire (which some believe had items swapped with other airframes,) you'll find a photo of a IXc with those strakes.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Edgar Brooks

[Guest KingK_series]

Oh dear, why does it, so often, have to get personal? 

If there's one thing I've learnt (the hard way) is that one should never assume that a theory is correct, and try to make the "facts" fit that theory. Perhaps I need to repeat that, if there's any real evidence to this business of fixed wingtips, on so many aircraft, I'll accept it, and add it to my researches and files. I do research, and do not have an entrenched viewpoint; produce real (written) evidence, rather than picking out certain photos, and ignoring other evidence.

 

 

- Spitfires in Malta - are you really saying that is relevant to the discussion about Spitfire wings and their design in 1937/38/39/40? - Just how do you work that one out?

 

 

however.... with

 

'

Oh dear, why does it, so often, have to get personal? 

If there's one thing I've learnt (the hard way) is that one should never assume that a theory is correct, and try to make the "facts" fit that theory. Perhaps I need to repeat that, if there's any real evidence to this business of fixed wingtips, on so many aircraft, I'll accept it, and add it to my researches and files. I do research, and do not have an entrenched viewpoint; produce real (written) evidence, rather than picking out certain photos, and ignoring other evidence."

 

I agree entirely -

 

To start with and to quote you again -

 

 

'In 1976, the Royal Aeronautical society hosted a 40-year Symposium, and published details (including dimensions) supplied by Vickers, and all standard wingspans are quoted as 36'10". In the modifications ledger, held in the RAF Museum library, there is no mention of any modification to the wing involving its length, and, in a list of early modifications, held in the National Archives, there's no mention of structural alterations to the wings, either.

 

Edgar"

 

 

- now I have produced a Supermarine drawing of the single piece wing, told you that it was common knowledge at Airframes Assemblies - and I defy anyone to say they know more about Spitfire wings than they, and IWM, and RAF Hendon amongst the curators - and if an original Supermarine wing drawing - when you clearly knew nothing of such a thing - is not "written evidence" - frankly cows can fly -

 

- honestly I don't think you could have a more entrenched point of view or be more determined to make photos fit that view -

 

 

- I also note you have not responded to the photos or notes I have made in reply to yours on wing mods vis a vis wing stiffening, nor commented on the photos I have posted which clearly show gun ports faired over and clearly not airbrushed out or any such thing that you have claimed.

 

 

I do not doubt your affection for this aircraft, or your knowledge and have repeatedly used the word respect in my attitude for you - please do the same for others and their efforts to know about and love this aircraft -

Edited March 30, 2014 by KingK_series