RBrown Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Just an observation on my part, but I've been looking over Revell's Spitfire II and noted the mold inserts in the wing. There are inserts for the gun ports, the upper wing blisters, and one which would allow for the Vb or Vc cannon bulges. With new parts for the cannon, a Vokes or even Aboukir filter, a wing radiator, and a canopy they have got a Vb Trop. The wing blister could be tailored for Vb or eliminated for Vc. Additionally, for a Vc, the three piece gear leg assembly could accommodate the change in the gear's rake with the substitution of a single part. Like I said, it is just an observation on my part andromeda673 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I'm sure I saw the initial announcement for the Mk II list Vb and IX (was wondering how they'd put all that in one kit). Of course my grey cells aren't what they used to be - so my memory may be lying... Iain Rick Griewski 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share Posted October 4, 2015 The wing inserts provide for the possibility of a Vb or Vc, and I am sure we will see one or the other at some time. A IX would require a new fuselage and, as there is no insert for the oil cooler, a new wing to accommodate the symmetric radiators. But it is certainly possible... If Revell is actually considering stretching the kit to this extent they should consider the Mk XII. The "insert modified" asymmetric wing and a new fuselage, prop and spinner. D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B. Andrus Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 If Revell is actually considering stretching the kit to this extent they should consider the Mk XII. The "insert modified" asymmetric wing and a new fuselage, prop and spinner. A Mk XII, yes! Love the early Griffon w/o cut down rear fuselage. Cheers, D.B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andromeda673 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I'm in the middle of my Mark 2 right now, and you get 4 propeller blades in the kit, there are some other bits and pieces that you don't use and or need to build a Mark 2, I'm thinking that they will have something coming down the line. Alot like their 1/32 F4 phantom, you can build an E or G right out of the box, they give you all the parts, but only show instructions for a G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotsman Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 oh please not another Vb, we have at least 2 options for that in 32nd , ok neither of them are perfect , but at least they exist , a Vc is what we need, Malta Spits , RAAF and the basis of Seafires .. please mr Revell see sense , not another B!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 oh please not another Vb, we have at least 2 options for that in 32nd , ok neither of them are perfect , but at least they exist , a Vc is what we need, Malta Spits , RAAF and the basis of Seafires .. please mr Revell see sense , not another B!! Well on the initial release Revell went with the Mk II rather than the more commonly kitted Mk I and the kit's landing gear design could accommodate the Vc's rake with a parts substitution... D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Yes, essentially no difference between the two. There were modifications incorporated to production run which manifested in minor differences, but were not specific to the Mark. For example, the under carriage controls in the cockpit was modified. But changes like this were received by both the Mk I and II. Then there is the inconsistency in the oil coolers. The Revell kit is repeatedly chastised for the round intake on the oil cooler, but there is photographic evidence of this being fitted to Mk II and even Mk I aircraft. Whether a factory modification or field refit it was not limited to Mk Vs. D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Yes, the kit needs to be modified for BOB machine. There was a modification introduced in the spring of 1941 directing all that all A and B wings be made with the provision to accept the late oil cooler. And in September another to fit the late oil cooler on the Mk II. D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) The Chicago example has the original type oil cooler. It is a Mk I which was built in late 1939 or very early 1940. She was the victim of a Bf 109 in July 1940, repaired and sent off to various training units until the spring of 1943. Perhaps it was never fitted with the revised oil cooler because it lacks the late cooler provisions established in by the modification directive in the spring of 1941. But that is just conjecture on my part... Edited October 5, 2015 by RBrown D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 There is one other external recognition feature distinguishing Mk I and IIs. The Mk I had a hole for a crank starter on the starboard cowl,accompanied by an aluminum placard below the opening. This was abandoned on the Mk II with the advent of the Coffman starter. D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now