Jump to content
jbrundt

More Tamiya Spit pics

Recommended Posts

Photos of the landing gear "in wartime action" are hard to come by. I had a look in "Spitfire the Canadians, Vol. 1" and on page 80 there is a photo of a wartime "high back" Spitfire XVI with scissor links in April 1945. So, scissor links were used during the war.

On page 106 of the book, there is a photo of a Spitfire IX taken in August 1944 and the door is curved.

HTH

Radu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, gentlemen, but you're wrong. When the Mk.III was built, the u/c was raked forward 2", probably as a counter to the longer Merlin XX, which put a lot of weight forward of the CofG. This extra was incorporated into the Vc, and, after that, all airframes with the C wing(as Westland were the main builders of the Vc it might also ,have been kept as an aid to the Seafire, when landing.) This had the effect of altering the angle at which the wheel entered the well, and, rather than start fitting bulged surfaces to the top of the wing (which, as we all know, did happen in 1945, but that's a different story,) the wheel was allowed to hang a little lower in the well, and the doors were curved, to allow for this.

Edgar

 

 

On page 8.08 of Monforton's "Spitfire Mk. IX & XVI" there are photos of the doors from a few different angles and they are curved.

HTH

Radu

 

Well, there's one disaster averted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-542-1255348024.jpg

 

post-542-1255348785.jpg

 

l took these pictures last year at the local airshow and the Russell Group Spitfire is suppose to be a fully original and authentic Mk IX Spitfire. As you can see in these photos yes they did have scissor links on the landing gear and the doors were curved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, there might be this and that on the kit somewhere, but I just wanted to say "WOW!"

 

Sure looks Awesome! Generally captures that Spitty look to me. And regardless of corrections-sure beats the -hit out of what I had to do to get a Mk. VIII before!

 

They will sell piles of these. Super cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't go too heavy on the torque links; although provision was made in 1943 (a small triangular cut-out in the wheel well,) the legs, themselves (with forward-facing links,) weren't introduced until 27-11-44. There was another leg, used on early XIVs, for certain, but I'm not sure about the IX, which had rearward facing links. I only discovered this about a month ago, so there'll be some more ferreting needed.

Edgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically it's another grey(ish) area huh?

I don't mean medium sea grey or ocean grey, neutral grey maybe?

 

hehehehe!

 

Whatever, this will be one great kit - I wonder what it will go for in England though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, gentlemen, but you're wrong. When the Mk.III was built, the u/c was raked forward 2", probably as a counter to the longer Merlin XX, which put a lot of weight forward of the CofG. This extra was incorporated into the Vc, and, after that, all airframes with the C wing(as Westland were the main builders of the Vc it might also ,have been kept as an aid to the Seafire, when landing.) This had the effect of altering the angle at which the wheel entered the well, and, rather than start fitting bulged surfaces to the top of the wing (which, as we all know, did happen in 1945, but that's a different story,) the wheel was allowed to hang a little lower in the well, and the doors were curved, to allow for this.

Edgar

 

 

I don't have a problem with the curve. but that doesn't answer my question regarding the bulge along the length of the gear door. None of my photos of the Spitfire that I have show this bulge. Am I way off base here? Perhaps I am not understanding the idea of the curve compared to the bulge that the kit part seems to have?

 

Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went back to the pics, and I see what you are talkig about. :please: Perhaps there version of the "curve"? It is over stated. But that can be fixed.........Harv :bow:

 

You must factor in a couple of things:

1) in the photos of the Tamyia kit, the parts are glued in place on the wing, which highlights the "bulge" when placed against the relatively flat wings. When the legs are extended, the bulge is less noticeable. Look at the photos posted by Hacker above - the bulge is there, but it is not that evident when on its own. If you have the WWP book "Spitfire LF.Mk.IX in detail" by Koran et al. on pages 31 and 65 you can see the doors in the retracted position. There is a bulge there, right where Tamyia put theirs.

2) the parts are mounted on a piece of cardboard and then displayed almost vertically. The light coming almost parallel to the wings creats shadows and highlights that ccentuate the bulge.

 

Anyway, we are talking about the narrow part of the door that is 5x17mm in size and has a "bulge" that may (or may not) be about 0.2mm too high. That's no biggie! It is always easier to "reduce a bulge" than "increase a bulge" :clap2:

 

Radu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must factor in a couple of things:

1) in the photos of the Tamyia kit, the parts are glued in place on the wing, which highlights the "bulge" when placed against the relatively flat wings. When the legs are extended, the bulge is less noticeable. Look at the photos posted by Hacker above - the bulge is there, but it is not that evident when on its own. If you have the WWP book "Spitfire LF.Mk.IX in detail" by Koran et al. on pages 31 and 65 you can see the doors in the retracted position. There is a bulge there, right where Tamyia put theirs.

2) the parts are mounted on a piece of cardboard and then displayed almost vertically. The light coming almost parallel to the wings creats shadows and highlights that ccentuate the bulge.

 

Anyway, we are talking about the narrow part of the door that is 5x17mm in size and has a "bulge" that may (or may not) be about 0.2mm too high. That's no biggie! It is always easier to "reduce a bulge" than "increase a bulge" :bow:

 

Radu

 

 

Hi,

 

Funny, I always thought the bulge/curve affected the portion of the cover where the wheel/tyre/tire is covered and not the oleo portion of the u/c.

 

Brad :please:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at these and just imagine what they could do IF they ever decided to do a 32nd 109..... :(

 

Jeff

 

How strange life works sometimes; I just recently made a trade for a book on Israeli Spitfire MK IX aircraft, and now this is thrust before me. :punk: I'm driving a $200 car and buying $150 models; maybe I should have my head looked at. :)

 

 

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How strange life works sometimes; I just recently made a trade for a book on Israeli Spitfire MK IX aircraft, and now this is thrust before me. :punk: I'm driving a $200 car and buying $150 models; maybe I should have my head looked at. :(

 

 

Kevin

 

Hey, we're a bunch of grown men building plastic model airplanes. Maybe we all should have our heads looked at! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, I always thought the bulge/curve affected the portion of the cover where the wheel/tyre/tire is covered and not the oleo portion of the u/c.

Don't forget that the wheel goes in first, and the leg is below it, when retracted; if the cover needed adjusting to go over the sides of the wheel hanging down, I can see how it would also need to be altered to allow for the lower part of the oleo leg, (and the brake line) as well.

It isn't generally realised that, though the entry hole for the wheel is round, the walls of the well slope backwards, following the travel of the wheel, so there's an optical illusion that the well is oval; if Tamiya get that item right, they'll really deserve all the praise that they look like getting, because they'll be the first.

Edgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that the wheel goes in first, and the leg is below it, when retracted; if the cover needed adjusting to go over the sides of the wheel hanging down, I can see how it would also need to be altered to allow for the lower part of the oleo leg, (and the brake line) as well.

It isn't generally realised that, though the entry hole for the wheel is round, the walls of the well slope backwards, following the travel of the wheel, so there's an optical illusion that the well is oval; if Tamiya get that item right, they'll really deserve all the praise that they look like getting, because they'll be the first.

Edgar

 

 

So you are ok with the entire shape and characterists of the u/c covers then Edgar?

 

Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, we're a bunch of grown men building plastic model airplanes. Maybe we all should have our heads looked at! :punk:

You actually meant miniature historical replicas; didn't you? :)

 

 

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ok ok I conffess I am in it for the glue sniff nothing historical no build satisfaction juist a big sniff :punk:

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...