The Librarian
Kit Basher
In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded...
Posts: 142
|
Post by The Librarian on Jun 23, 2010 11:17:02 GMT
Can someone please help with the tech. behind the so called e-wing of the Mk. IX Spitfire. Does this mean that the outer four guns have been removed and if so, does this require the filling in of gun panels, chutes etc. I understand that many e-wings had the cannon on the outer port with the panel bulge in that position too. I've managed to aquire the correct replacement but its the outer guns that are causing the headache. Aeromaster sheet 48-581 has a nice French machine named Duci(2Y-L) that shows the cannon in the outer port..is this an e-wing? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks Max
|
|
|
Post by sanguin on Jun 23, 2010 14:18:47 GMT
|
|
edgar
Kit Basher
Posts: 91
|
Post by edgar on Jun 24, 2010 20:54:37 GMT
On the IX (and XVI) there was no such thing as the "E" or"C" wing; it was the "universal" wing. The 20mm + 4 x .303" was the initial armament, which saw the cannon set in the compartment closest to the wingroot, with the outer compartment occupied by pipework, which took heat from the radiators out to .303" guns. The so-called "E" armament saw the cannon moved out to the outer compartment of the bay, with its original position occupied by a .5" Browning. This meant that the plumbing had to be removed, along with the outer .303" guns. The outer compartments remained in place, either with the muzzles and ejection slots covered by a double thickness of canvas patches, or not drilled out, so there's no need to change, or modify any of the panel lines. Later, in the low-back XVI, the compartments were used for the compressed air and oxygen bottles, because of the addition of the fuel tank behind the pilot. One final point; when the cannon was moved out to the next-door compartment, it was also moved back, which means that the cannon fairing, for the "E" armament, was shorter than for the "C". Edgar
|
|
The Librarian
Kit Basher
In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded...
Posts: 142
|
Post by The Librarian on Jun 25, 2010 11:11:09 GMT
Many thanks for the links and information: more info than many of the Spitfire books on the market. Thank you. On the Hasegawa/ Revell kit there is also a oval bump inboard of the cannon/50mm panel. I suspect this needs removing too as I can find no visual references for it. For the cost of their kits I wish they would stop producing these multi-molds and expect us to do the work. I suppose it makes the hobby a bit more challenging though. Can anyone help with the French machine? I would really like to get it right. Best regards Max
|
|
edgar
Kit Basher
Posts: 91
|
Post by edgar on Jun 25, 2010 11:44:44 GMT
The oval "bump" was caused by the change of tracking for the undercarriage. Due to the prevalence of grass runways, during the war, in order to stop ground-looping, the wheels were not set parallel to each other, but post-war, when metalled runways became the norm, the wheels had to be reset, otherwise the tyre treads would have been scrubbed down to nothing in very short order. The change of angle meant that, when retracted, the tyre rubbed, and jammed, against the wheel well's top skinning, so it was bulged up, out of the way. If your model is wartime, the wing's top surface should be flat (well, almost. ) Edgar
|
|
The Librarian
Kit Basher
In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded...
Posts: 142
|
Post by The Librarian on Jun 25, 2010 15:15:28 GMT
Once again, thank you. I'm going to make a Mk.VIII as well from the same source (Imphal period) so I suspect that the bump has to go on this one too.I'm amazed I still have fingerprints.
|
|
edgar
Kit Basher
Posts: 91
|
Post by edgar on Jun 26, 2010 6:12:31 GMT
Correct, the bulge was not on the VIII; modification 1545 was exclusive to the IX & XVI. Possibly because the VIII didn't see service in Europe, so remained on the rougher airfields of Italy and the Far East, the u/c was never modified; also, Peter Cooke discovered that the XIV wheel was thinner, so the XIV never had the bulge, either, and, since the VIII, like the XIV, was built at Eastleigh, it could well have utilised the same wheel. As far as I can tell, the VIII, like the XIV, never used the 5-spoke wheels. Edgar
|
|
The Librarian
Kit Basher
In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded...
Posts: 142
|
Post by The Librarian on Jun 26, 2010 22:58:12 GMT
Edgar Very, very useful information. Many thanks. Hope this picture from Uncle's log-book/photo album has attached. It shows white stripe underneath but not above the wings. Was this a regular marking on Mk. VIIIs. This was after Imphal I believe, early '45. He had just done a training stint on P-47s and hated every minute! Can't make out wheel hubs but I would agree with what you said. Sorry to ask but you definitely know your Spitfires. Max Attachments:
|
|
The Librarian
Kit Basher
In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded...
Posts: 142
|
Post by The Librarian on Jun 26, 2010 22:59:59 GMT
This one too. Attachments:
|
|
edgar
Kit Basher
Posts: 91
|
Post by edgar on Jun 27, 2010 0:04:45 GMT
The white stripes were a standard SEAC marking above and below the wings, and (slightly narrower) over the tailplane/elevators as well. For some reason they didn't usually cover the flaps. By the time of that photo, the Squadron might have started to remove them from the top surfaces, if they were compromising the camouflage. The SEAC roundels, on 152 Squadron (Imphal Main-based) were very small, only about 16" diameter, and the standard blue/light blue, in all 6 positions. Incidentally, the light blue was arrived at by mixing 1 part roundel blue with four parts white. In March, 1944, the top camouflage colours were changed to green/brown (standard RAF colours, not Australian,) with the brown replacing the ocean grey; medium sea grey remained the underside colour. Edgar
|
|
|
Post by The Hooded Claw on Jun 27, 2010 11:48:51 GMT
Looking at that second picture which is a superb shot, one has to ask what the hell they were putting in the fuel!
THC
|
|
The Librarian
Kit Basher
In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded...
Posts: 142
|
Post by The Librarian on Jun 27, 2010 16:15:25 GMT
I would thoroughly agree with the camouflage compromise theory. Uncle couldn't remember that far back. To help the boys on the ground to identify them so those above the wing were just dead paint weight. I've seen several photos of 607 aircraft, including a nice one in the book Air Battle Over Imphal, where there appears to be a small white symbol on the tailplane above the fin-flash. Again, Uncle couldn't recall it and I cannot find any reference to what it could be. Any ideas anyone?
|
|
edgar
Kit Basher
Posts: 91
|
Post by edgar on Jun 27, 2010 17:30:40 GMT
Looking at that second picture which is a superb shot, one has to ask what the hell they were putting in the fuel! THC That, quite simply, is lean-running; the RAF became past-masters at it, and even had to show the Americans how to do it, with the B-24, since we were getting far better range. Edgar
|
|
|
Post by Bri on Jul 3, 2010 13:09:16 GMT
Wow! and I thought I knew my Spits pretty well. Thanks, Edgar, that was wheely helpful.
As to "what were they putting in the fuel?" I think the answer is "too much lead." 150 grade (150% octane rating) was full of the stuff and it condensed out all over the place - especially obvious on -5 Hellcats. I use Medium Sea Grey for it myself - well, it matches my spare bits of roofing lead - but I'm open to other suggestions.
Regards, Bri.
|
|