New Revell Spitfire Mk II build

[LSP_Matt]

I hope its obvious where I've moderated the tone of some of the posts.

 

Last warning Simon.

[Edgar Brooks]

Secondly the stiffeners over the wing had absolutely nothing to do with a "V' in inverted commers or not, they were a field mod - and I have never found any pictorial evidence for them being fitted on the production line to MkVs or IIs or Ias, though I have lots of photos of MkVs at Castle Bromwich with B wings but no upper surface braces

The idea that a major modification, for strengthening components as important as the wings, would have been left as a "field mod" doesn't hold up against serious investigation, especially as Vickers' own records show it as going into production (and, again according to Vickers themselves, designed solely for the Va & Vb.) Others may feel free to ignore the manufacturer's own records, but that's their prerogative, I can't. Remember, too, the saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Rather these braces were a modification that was conceived because a Spitfire MkI landing at Tangmere in august 1940 was found to have cracked - fatigue failed - the wing skin above the wheels - these braces were therefore a mod designed to avoid that issue on all A and B wings fitted to any early Spit . The fact that they were so randomly fitted is probably because they were just a field mod - and there are thousands of MkVb pics from 1941-45 were the aircraft have no braces.

Hardly; there was an earlier wing-strengthening mod (455,) for the I, II & V, in November 1941, which was cancelled by the modification, introducing the strakes, in July 1942.

There had also already been strengthening (inside the "D" box, and thicker skinning) as a result of pre-war wing collapses.

[Guest KingK_series]

The idea that a major modification, for strengthening components as important as the wings, would have been left as a "field mod" doesn't hold up against serious investigation, especially as Vickers' own records show it as going into production (and, again according to Vickers themselves, designed solely for the Va & Vb.) Others may feel free to ignore the manufacturer's own records, but that's their prerogative, I can't. Remember, too, the saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Hardly; there was an earlier wing-strengthening mod (455,) for the I, II & V, in November 1941, which was cancelled by the modification, introducing the strakes, in July 1942.

There had also already been strengthening (inside the "D" box, and thicker skinning) as a result of pre-war wing collapses.

 

 

But Edgar - I have just posted a photograph of a MkI Spitfire that has upper wing Strakes that were fitted as a field mod in I941 -

 

 

Here is another MkI with upeer strakes, but the H ribbing inside the well [as opposed to the capped V rib] the former being 1938-1941 production and the v ribbing being the modification on all A/B wings briought onto the production line in 1941 - in other words this is another Mk I with early wings - but with strakes. ie field mod.

 

 

- Moreover - if it was felt that there was an issue to be addressed with the A or B wing  - why oh why only fit it to MkVs when there are so many MkIs and MkIIs flying about? That makes no practical sense at all - and this is above all else a practical issue - stopping the wings falling off.

 

plus the issue became apparent from the failure of a wing on a MkI not a MKV with the same A/B wing

 

 

- I feel the problem is you put far to much reliance on paperwork, and maybe there is more to the whole picture?

 

 

- the C wing was the major design change where the brief was longer fatigue life and to that end had a completely revised inner structure and was also skinned with thicker ally over the wells

 

-

Edited July 2, 2014 by KingK_series

[Kagemusha]

Can anyone recommend any source of drawings which show the various marques and the differences between them - I'm thinking like the Kagero books do?

[Juggernut]

There's the SAMI series data files on the spot that I think does a good job of showing the differences between Merlin Mark spits.

[JamesHatch]

There's the SAMI series data files on the spot that I think does a good job of showing the differences between Merlin Mark spits.

That's what I'm using. Very good reference.

[Edgar Brooks]

But Edgar - I have just posted a photograph of a MkI Spitfire that has upper wing Strakes that were fitted as a field mod in I941 -

Do you have a photo of the relevant mod plate, which gives the date of each mod's inclusion? If not, you're guessing, especially as K9942 suffered a "Category B" flying accident in February 1942, then went to an OTU (where anything could have happened during training flights, including retrofitting of modifications,) before going to the museum.

As for the reason for an earlier airframe getting modified wings, if the production lines for the I & II have been shut down, where else would an OTU get a set of A wings but from the V production line?

It's true that I give a lot of credence to paperwork, but always try to cross-reference it, which is why I can categorically state that the "Mk.III" oil cooler was not fitted as early as you say, because it didn't exist.

It seems rather strange, if they started fitting the Mk.III in April, that they were still asking for it in May:-

 

and they were still, apparently, asking for it in September:-

There was a "Mk.II" type, no drawing of which I can find; perhaps you have one?

 

And I repeat, there was no such thing as a C wing; it was known, from the start, as the "universal" wing.

Edgar

P.S. One thing forgotten (or ignored) by those who deride people, like me, who go on these paper-chases, is that official documents rarely make claims that can't be substantiated, and it's usually very easy to cross-check, IF you're prepared to put in the legwork; it's all too easy to make some extravagant statement on a website, but, without some sort of evidence to back it up, it's often not worth a can of beans.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Edgar Brooks

[Bill Cross]

The nose/top of engine cowl shape doesn't worry you?

 

the three flats on the fuel tank armour don't worry you?

 

the flats under the wing root leading edge don't worry you?

 

the canopy srceen shape doesn't worry you?

 

the heavyness and section of the wing root fillet doesn't worry you?

 

 

 

Now on the other hand the old Hasegawa, was much better on all these basic shapes - ignore radiator ducts or rivets,....

The choice here is this kit and the various AM fixes coming to help improve it, or what exactly????

 

The old Revell/Hasegawa kit is very difficult to find. And it requires re-scribing the raised panel lines, as well as a new cockpit.

 

So correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't mean this in a mean way), but what PRACTICAL solution do you propose for a modeler like myself who'd like to build a BoB Spitfire Mk. I or II?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Bill Cross

[Martinnfb]

Gentleman, Thank you for sharing your knowledge and research. I am learning a lot.

Cheers

Martin

[Derek B]

It has probably been said before, but if Edgar and Simon were ever to pool resources and jointly share their knowlege and research to the end of producing a definitive Spitfire production history in book form, it would be a classic seller for ever (especially if it offered definitive 'how to' information to correct known issues with all existing 1/32 Spitfire kits).

 

Both gents are very clearly passionate about their pet subject and I greatly respect both gentlemen for that, but us lesser mortals are struggling under the counter blows from such knowledgeable heavy weights, and we thirst for practical knowledge (the minutae of when something was or was not introduced - as intersting and important as it is in it's own right for the purist - is, dare I say, largely lost to the masses here). 

 

The only way that I could satisfy myself that the new Revell kit is accurate is by finding, as Simon puts it, an 'unmolested' Mk.II Spitfire and measure/photograph it and compare it directly to the kit. I appreciate very much that the wartime production history of all Spitfire marks is a very complex issue, and many of the jigsaw pieces are missing, but I feel that all most want is a fairly accurate representation (in model form) of what the majority of aircraft would have looked like at the time period depicted by the model mark, and more importantly, exactly how to achieve it.

 

My thanks go to both Edgar and Simon for their very informative interventions in the name of furthering Spitfire history knowledge and trying to lay some issues/conundrums to rest.

 

Derek

[Sparzanza]

Wouldn't it easier to conclude that both of you agree to disagree, and proceed with the topic at hand? Basically if you like it, buy it, if you don't .. buy from another maker.

 

I have solved the problem. Yes.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Sparzanza

[Kagemusha]

Mushroom V book link http://www.scribd.com/doc/195021107/Mushroom-Yellow-Series-6111-Supermarine-Spitfire-Mk-V

Edited July 3, 2014 by LSP_Ron

[LSP_Matt]

Perhaps  Edgar and Simon are employing different methodologies in seeking the truth.   Each with their own inherent advantages and disadvantages.  To understand it better I actually started researching and reading : argument, theory of justification, rationalisim and empirical evidence...all in wikipedia)...but I digress 

 

I suspect the prusuit of the truth and accumulation/consideration of technical information is what interests those doing the leg work and all of us who follow the conversation.

 

Ideally the pursuit is undertaken with acquisition and dissemination of knowledge being the foremost objective rather than the building of a definitive perspective on how something was, in all places, many many moons ago.  That doesn't preclude a statement like 'the weight of evidence is that X never occurred' but perhaps more importantly, statements couched in those tones prevents the development of that pestilence that is dogma.

 

I just hope it can continue in a collegiate fashion.  All of us can admire deductive reasoning in action but also acknowledge that establishing a fairly persuasive paper trail is hardly the equivalent of a Munic Agreement. It garners credibility not only becasue of the insight and effort required to obtain it but by the culture of the organisation that promulgated it.

 

Cheers Matty

[Bill Cross]

Matty, I agree with all you have said, though I would add this:

 

It's very confusing for us non-experts when two knowledgeable members can't even agree about whether a change was a field modification or a factory improvement.

 

But more to the point, I suspect that most of us on this thread (and others about the Spitfire Mk.II kit) are MODELERS LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE. In other words, we want practical suggestions.

 

If this is a defective kit, then what do we need to do in order to bring it more in-line with the original?

 

As I have said several times, there are no alternative BoB Spitties on the horizon. The cavalry isn't coming to save us, the Carpathia isn't going to get here in time, at least not for us senior members, We have to eschew the kit entirely, or else look for remedies to improve it. Some of you hate the kit and won't touch it.

 

For me, tell me how to fix the kit. Period. It's better than having no BoB Spitfire at all.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Bill Cross

[LSP_Matt]

It's very confusing for us non-experts when two knowledgeable members can't even agree about whether a change was a field modification or a factory improvement.

 

 

For sure.  I guess thats how things can be in any field where different methodologies are employed in seeking the truth.  I've seen Neuroscientists from different research institutes lining up in their camps and at times I thought it was going to be pistols at dawn.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the rest of us were observing all the shenanigans and thinking it'd be nice it we could get a simple and straight answer that would assist with clinical (real world) care of patients.

 

It's probably unsurprising how many complex medical decisions need to be taken that way...no right or wrong...no simple answers...just a case of weighing the evidence for and against on your own set of scales.  Whats equally surprising is how many times complex decisions are made based on the charisma and persuasive power of the presenter, rather than empirical evidence.

 

If I had the Revell kit...and I could be bothered/was interested/in the mood to tweak or correct it I guess I'd make a start and pursue the build on the basis that, the evidence at the time suggested strategy X was the most sensible at the time.

 

As a generalisation I think society now expects the party with the more controversial opinion to be the bearer of the burden of proof. Maybe its my own training and legal experiences but having a paper trail is awfully persuasive to me.  That might be my personal preconceptions in action but I do have an open mind and always enjoy the testing of accepted 'truisms' as a worthwhile acitivity.

 

Cheers Matty