Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire XIVe Conversion (Laminar Flow Design)

[Biggles87]

I’m interested to see how this turns out.

I bought a PCM Mk XIVc about 10years ago with the intention of turning it into a low back XIVe with the help of some aftermarket bits but haven’t started it yet. My buy to build time is usually 10-15 years.

 

John

 

[Thunnus]

6 hours ago, jenshb said:

Here's the location of the drain port on the starboard wing.  This is the operational Mk. XIV at Duxford.

 

Thank you for those pics!  Very helpful. LFD does include a scribing template for this port but it'll be interesting to try to reproduce the crazy amount of screwheads on it.

 

 

5 hours ago, Biggles87 said:

I’m interested to see how this turns out.

I bought a PCM Mk XIVc about 10years ago with the intention of turning it into a low back XIVe with the help of some aftermarket bits but haven’t started it yet. My buy to build time is usually 10-15 years.

 

John

 

I'm interested to see how this turns out too!

 

Focusing specifically on the wing gun configuration, I'm assuming that the Hispano 20mm cannon with the fairings are in the outboard location and the Browning 50cals are in the inboard location.  This is based on the photo of the machine that I am intending to build:

 

This matches the gun configuration of the Tamiya XVIe kit...

 

Does this sound correct?

 

 

[Kagemusha]

1 hour ago, Thunnus said:

Thank you for those pics!  Very helpful. LFD does include a scribing template for this port but it'll be interesting to try to reproduce the crazy amount of screwheads on it.

 

 

I'm interested to see how this turns out too!

 

Focusing specifically on the wing gun configuration, I'm assuming that the Hispano 20mm cannon with the fairings are in the outboard location and the Browning 50cals are in the inboard location.  This is based on the photo of the machine that I am intending to build:

 

This matches the gun configuration of the Tamiya XVIe kit...

 

Does this sound correct?

 

 

 

Yep, though it's fitted with the early version gun barrels, Master MR32-081

 

 

Here's a couple of FR.18e's fitted with the late type for comparison.

 

 

Master MR32-082

 

[Troy Molitor]

Loving the efforts as usual John.    Looking forward to the Ki-61 finish also.  Wait a tick?  Double chevron A-5?  Oh we are so spoiled.   .

 

[Troy Molitor]

A-6! sorry...My bad.  

[Thunnus]

Thank you Kagemusha and Troy!  Appreciate and always look forward to your comments!

 

2 hours ago, Kagemusha said:

 

Yep, though it's fitted with the early version gun barrels, Master MR32-081

 

 

On 8/15/2023 at 8:19 AM, Kagemusha said:

Nice project, and the Spitfire ain't bad either, EB-V has the late e cannons.

 

I'm confused!  When first asked about the XIVe conversions, without having chosen EB-V as the subject, you said that I would need the EARLY barrels.  But after I posted that I was doing EB-V, you said that this aircraft had the LATE barrels.  Honestly, from my perspective of the photo of EB-v that I posted above, I could go either way.

[Kagemusha]

6 hours ago, Thunnus said:

Thank you Kagemusha and Troy!  Appreciate and always look forward to your comments!

 

 

 

I'm confused!  When first asked about the XIVe conversions, without having chosen EB-V as the subject, you said that I would need the EARLY barrels.  But after I posted that I was doing EB-V, you said that this aircraft had the LATE barrels.  Honestly, from my perspective of the photo of EB-v that I posted above, I could go either way.

 

Yeah, sorry about that John, in truth the early Master barrels aren't great shape-wise, hence my inconsistency. They should be early barrels, but they should be convex, not concave in shape, which the Master barrels are.

 

You can see the shape of the longer early barrels here.

 

 

I think the best solution is to use Master MR32-020, and have more exposed than intended.

 

 

 

[PHBIO]

Hi, I really appreciate all your reports (F4U, p47, Tempest....) and i learn a lot by following your posts.  I was too busy and missed the sale of this set but for this cockpit, maybe could you waiting for new yahu 1/32 mk XIV dashboard YMA3278 ?

Edited Tuesday at 11:41 AM by PHBIO

[levier]

Few days late… I suspect the item forward of the entry door left of the radio freq control box is a flare port.

[Thunnus]

9 hours ago, Kagemusha said:

 

Yeah, sorry about that John, in truth the early Master barrels aren't great shape-wise, hence my inconsistency. They should be early barrels, but they should be convex, not concave in shape, which the Master barrels are.

 

You can see the shape of the longer early barrels here.

 

 

I think the best solution is to use Master MR32-020, and have more exposed than intended.

 

 

 

 

I'm still not clear on this. MR32-020 are late style barrels for the E-wing.  Same shape as the late barrels that I have (MR32-082) except different length. 

 

 

Are you saying that MR32-082  are ok shape-wise as early barrels but need to be longer?  I'll also check the Tamiya kit to see what barrels are included there.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, PHBIO said:

Hi, I really appreciate all your reports (F4U, p47, Tempest....) and i learn a lot by following your posts.  I was too busy and missed the sale of this set but for this cockpit, maybe could you waiting for new yahu 1/32 mk XIV dashboard YMA3278 ?

 

Thank you! I chose to try the Quinta Studios cockpit set for this build...

 

 

 

1 hour ago, levier said:

Few days late… I suspect the item forward of the entry door left of the radio freq control box is a flare port.

 

Good to know!

[Kagemusha]

15 minutes ago, Thunnus said:

 

I'm still not clear on this. MR32-020 are late style barrels for the E-wing.  Same shape as the late barrels that I have (MR32-082) except different length. 

 

 

Are you saying that MR32-082  are ok shape-wise as early barrels but need to be longer?  I'll also check the Tamiya kit to see what barrels are included there.

 

 

Yep, sorry it's a wee bit confusing - doesn't help the early Master Barrels are the correct length, but wrong shape - if you look below, the Spitfire 22/24 barrel bodies are the same shape as the Seafire 47, but longer, as are the barrel tips, there must have been a really good pub near the Supermarine design offices.

 

 

[Thunnus]

Another observation... looking at the photo of the subject aircraft EB-v, notice the exhausts...

 

 

They are not the round exhausts that come with the LFD conversion set...

 

LFD did provide the highback conversion with both round and fishtail type exhausts...

 

So... a quick email was sent to Mathieu at LFD and was promptly promised a set of fishtail exhausts for my project.  Thank you Mathieu for the quick customer service response!

 

[Uncarina]

I'm learning a lot here John! Thank you to all who have contributed to the background, and now I will be on the lookout for the exhausts and the cannon barrels. Just to be clear, the aircraft you chose had full-span wings, correct?

 

Cheers,  Tom

[Dpgsbody55]

10 hours ago, Kagemusha said:

 

Yep, sorry it's a wee bit confusing - doesn't help the early Master Barrels are the correct length, but wrong shape - if you look below, the Spitfire 22/24 barrel bodies are the same shape as the Seafire 47, but longer, as are the barrel tips, there must have been a really good pub near the Supermarine design offices.

 

 

 

The wing shown in your picture is not an E wing, but a completely new wing designed for the Mk.21 and later variants which carried four 20mm cannon and no machine guns.  With the introduction of the RR Griffon engine, speeds had risen to a point such that aileron reversal was becoming an issue.  The original wing had a theoretical aileron reversal speed of 580mph which was a speed that could be reached in a dive quite easily with the Griffon engine Spitfires, and lower than many of the newer planes.  The older wing and all it's different types (B, C, D, and E) were all derivations of the original 8 machine gun wing and was also much more flexible aft of the wing spar.  This was done deliberately by R.J. Mitchell to save weight and improve theoretical manoeuverability.  But it also had speed limitations and was a cause of gun jamming when cannons were fitted.  The new wing was 47% stiffer and had piano hinged ailerons with geared trim tabs which helped increase the theoretical aileron reversal speed to 825mph.  It was fitted with Mk2 or the shorter lighter Mk5 Hispano 20mm cannon and had a different planform to the original wing.  Note the changed wing tip area here as the most obvious clue.  One other change was a 7.75 inch increase in undercarriage track. 

 

The Spitfire went through many changes in it's production life, but most of them were "small".  The plane had a major update with redesigned strengthening and fuselage structure for the Mk.VIII, to help take the power of the Merlin 60 series engines.  Because of the pressures of war, this took too long to get into production, so the interim Mk.IX was hastily built, having used a converted Mk.V, which was itself converted from the Mk.I.  As such, the Mk.IX was noticeably weaker and more dangerous to fly than the Mk.VIII because of the increased stresses on the airframe brought about by the power of the two stage supercharged Merlin.   Similarly, the Mk.XIV Griffon used the Mk.VIII as it's basis and had similar issues.  All of these later marks ran into compressability problems brought about by the use of engines far more powerful than was originally intended for the Spitfire.  The problem was known by early 1942, and this is the period when thoughts turned to a major redesign of the Spitfire's wing for the model that became the Mk.21 which first flew in production form in March 1944 (LA-187).  However, the plane had handling problems (trim sensitivity) and were not considered as suitable for the average squadron pilot until March 1945, though the first squadron to become operational was 91 Squadron in January 1945.  Only 120 were built and production stopped with the war's end in May of that year.  The Mk.22 was similar, but had the cut down fuselage, enlarged tail surfaces as shown in the drawings above, as well as 24 volt electrics.

 

WW2 was the first time in military aviation when planes were modified and adapted as much as possible to keep them in use, rather than design completely new planes with all the development delays they would bring.  Previously, after one or two marks, a new plane would replace it, but pressures of wartime needs and the increasing sophistication of aircraft meant they could be adapted and improved, for the most part.  The Messerschmitt BF-109 is another example of this, though with that plane, it had reached it's zenith with the F model and would have been replaced had the Me-209 or '309 been any good. 

 

However, you are quite right to be confused by the difference in cannon barrel bodies.  This is yet another part of the plane than was constantly improved and model builders need to be very careful in researching the variant that they are building.  More so than many kit manufacturers have been. 

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

[Kagemusha]

@Dpgsbody55 I think you're muddying the waters/missing the point, the reason for posting the drawings was to illustrate that though late Spitfire/Seafires had different barrel lengths, they were essentially the same shape which is pertinent to John's build, and any choosing a similar subject.

 

I should have referred to Paul Monforton's book on the IX and XVI.

 

The early E wing Spitfires carried the Mk.II cannon - same as the C wing Spitfires - which required a longer barrel, and some had an "elliptical shaped fairing" which is what EB-V carried.

 

The E wing Mk.II cannon length was 930.65mm

 

The E wing Mk.V cannon length was 609.6mm

 

The C wing Mk.II cannon length was 920.66mm

 

So essentially John, you require a late E barrel to the same length as a C wing barrel, hopefully the drawing below is accurate in that regard, the cannon lengths datum point is the line across the barrel on the leading edge on the port wing, it's missing on the starboard side, here's a link to the fantastic drawings by Jumpei Temma, the Mk.XIV drawings are on part 3, which you can enlarge.