Author Topic: Supermarine Spitfire Family  (Read 62184 times)

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #50 on: June 24, 2012, 12:27:50 PM »
Pr.XIX with cloth wings aft the leading edge fuel tanks.
Mk.I in dark green uppers over sky.  No dark earth.
Mk.XIVc in Tuskegee markings, North Africa/Italy.
Mk.Vc in Atlantic grey over white.
Mk.XIV with contra props.
Mk.XII with rounded wing tips and contra props.
Mk.IXe with an Allison V-1710
« Last Edit: November 25, 2012, 04:23:01 AM by Daryl J. »
kwyxdxLg5T

hushkit

  • Guest

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #52 on: July 17, 2012, 02:30:13 AM »
Nice.  That is really tempting to build too.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2012, 02:47:05 AM »
Whiff currently on sale on eBay:










All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2012, 06:10:58 AM »
That wing hollers for tip tanks. 
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline TerryCampion

  • Be careful asking for his photos…he might send them to you!
  • Radish by a new moniker
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #55 on: August 02, 2012, 03:23:19 AM »
I've done an Israeli Spit 26 with contra rotating prop....

also Crusader items too....

Offline TerryCampion

  • Be careful asking for his photos…he might send them to you!
  • Radish by a new moniker
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2012, 05:54:30 AM »
Israeli Spitfire 26....

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2012, 07:35:59 AM »
For the rumored 1/48 Eduard new tool Mk.IX:   US Atlantic Scheme.   No structural changes.    Call it a Canadian build.


kwyxdxLg5T

Offline TerryCampion

  • Be careful asking for his photos…he might send them to you!
  • Radish by a new moniker
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2012, 09:20:22 PM »
Why not Lithuanian post-'45??

Offline TerryCampion

  • Be careful asking for his photos…he might send them to you!
  • Radish by a new moniker
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2012, 02:34:57 AM »
Thinking....I have a huge number of 1/48th Airfix Spitfire VB/C/Seafire III kits I bought cheap.
I shall steampunk one soon.....it's inevitable.
 :icon_fsm:

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #60 on: October 15, 2012, 10:17:33 AM »
The trick is going to be working a Spiteful into a parallel Tintin story in the mid 50's.  Afghani opium and the British connections there thru Hong Kong, corrupt American oil magnates and the Arabian Penninsula,  Amero-Franco disputing in Africa, Iranian uranium, the Suez Crisis and the U.N.,  and the like.   The time period is rife with story fodder and the name Spiteful is so fitting.
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline upnorth

  • Distorting a reality near you.
  • Reinvented Austria and the Stuka....Now what?
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #61 on: October 20, 2012, 01:05:07 AM »
The other day, I was in one of my local shops and they showed me a new product from AZ Models: 3 complete 1/72 Mk IX Spitfire kits in one box for a great price! No decals, just the sprues and instructions. My resistance is caving and may well be gone by tomorrow if the shop still has them.

Three 1/72 Spitfires will serve well to satisfy a couple of WHIFF ideas I have bouncing about in my mind:

I very much like the look of Contra-props and I think a Spit with four blade contra-props would looks particularly mean. I was also toying with the idea of a V-tail in that design.

The set would also give me a Merlin engine and a good prop to marry up to an Avia B.135 fighter:


net photo

I've often read that the B.135 was in the same class as the Spitfire and Bf-109 but was hampered by the temperamental nature of the Hispano engine it was powered by.

It had more than a bit of a Spitfire look to it and a few Spitfire bits, like the Merlin engine and Malcolm hood would probably look right at home on it.
Pickled Wings, A Blog for Preserved Aircraft:
http://pickledwings.wordpress.com/

Beyond Prague, Traveling the Rest of the Czech Republic:
http://beyondprague.wordpress.com/

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #62 on: October 20, 2012, 02:46:01 AM »
a few Spitfire bits, like the Merlin engine and Malcolm hood would probably look right at home on it.

And if painted appropriately will definitely fool some people...go for it!!! ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #63 on: November 11, 2012, 06:44:35 AM »
A proper PR.XIX in 1/48 scale!!!   ;D  ;D ;D :) :)
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 07:34:55 AM by Daryl J. »
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #64 on: November 18, 2012, 03:47:43 AM »
How about some dedicated Nightfighter Spitfires, with radar.  Possibly based upon two seat spits.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2012, 03:07:04 AM »
1:48 Tamiya Spitfire Mk.1, remove the engine, add the nose of the Airfix Seafire XVII remembering to preserve the 3 degree nose droop.  Strengthen the fuselage, add the hook, add a widened pointed rudder for a Mk.VIII.     Put the Tamiya nose with a two bladed prop on the Airfix kit, early exhausts.   
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #66 on: December 01, 2012, 08:23:38 AM »
Thoughts on Trumpeter's 1:48 Seafang.  Note: Note intended as a kit review.  Rather, it's just an overview of some of the aspects of the kit. 

What a finely moulded model kit.   It's going to be a tremendously easy kit to Whiff and get to look really good.    It is beautifully moulded and the fit is very precise. 

The spinner is the same diameter as Airfix Seafire F.XVIII and Mk.XII.   The contrarotating spinner is geared and functional.   The contour may be a bit pointy, but photographs show some rather pointed spinners on some Seafangs.   The prop blades have no twist whatsoever and are spinning butter knives, they need replaced.   I wish the Barracuda resin Seafire prop set included a spinner.  Roy??  I'm sure his Spitfire Mk.22 set will work great on the Spiteful.  But there is a rumor the older Airfix long nose Griffons have a smaller spinner diameter than the newer short nose Griffon engined kits.   

The nose has virtually the same taper as the Airfix kits above when viewed from the top.  The rocker covers, however, have both a serious inward taper at the nose when viewed from the top and a pronounced drop at the front when viewed at the side.   They also are flat across the top surfaces rather than dropping inwards towards the cowling.   As a result, when viewed from the direct side, the rocker covers at the front do not rise above the contour of the nose like the prototype does.    The rocker covers do not blend into the fuselage at the aft end on the kit; they should.   A set of replacement covers would do wonders to bulk out the nose to proper contour.     A resin set of exhausts is recommended to all but those with the most steady of hands on a drill.     Edit:   The rocker cover error might be because of the choice to integrate the rocker covers with the fuselage piece.   If the front 1/4 of the rocker covers had the proper height of contour, a slide mould would have been needed.   

I have not entirely bought into the arguement the wing chord is wrong and the wing is malpositioned.   The leading edge starts half way through the length of the 5th exhaust pipe; the kit follows this.   Photographs of a Seafang show bird droppings running down the leading side of the port door towards the ground.   The stripe of bird dobby is aft of the trailing edge of the wing; if the wing ended 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through the door as others have suggested, the yuck would be on the wing.   The kit might have this aspect better than what reviews suggest.  Is it completely correct?  No.  It's a bit too narrow.   Key word: bit.   

When viewed from above, the fuselage begins to taper inwards toward the midline right at Frame 5.  All my other Spitfire kits keep their width until after the cockpit.

The canopy is moulded closed.   Given the simplification the toolmaker chose over the resin prototypes for the cockpit, it is just as well.    The cockpit leaves questions.   I do, however, think they got the depth quite close to prototype.   The instrument panel is a joke.   

All in all, I'm pretty glad to have the couple that arrived today especially since they were discounted to $US 11.99 each.    I hope the resin companies jump in to dealing with the prop, the rockers, and the exhausts.  As to the cockpit and the other shape issues...meh.   ;D  With that, it will look a lot better to use a proper Americanism.   

Or, one could leave the kit as-is, slap on a smart set of tip tanks, put it in New Zealand markings, or Khemed, or Saudi Arabia, or...or...or....or... and have a great time building something uncommon for the display tray.   


(Mods....if there is a better spot for this, please let me know.  I'll copy/paste it there happily.   Thanks.)
Cheers,
Dr. Daryl
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 09:35:12 AM by Daryl J. »
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #67 on: December 01, 2012, 02:36:55 PM »
Hi Daryl,
the photos posted on Photobucket by Joanblaue show the wing positioning very clearly.
A line drawn perpendicular to the aircraft centreline, not the ground, from the trailing edge of the wing, not the root fairing, bisects the pilot's door.







http://s1025.photobucket.com/albums/y317/joanblaue/SPITEFUL%20and%20SEAFANGS/

FWIW the 1/48th Falcon vacform is pretty close to the photos.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2012, 11:27:44 PM »
Thanks!  :)
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #69 on: December 02, 2012, 01:19:43 AM »
Comparing my Trumpeter Spiteful to the Airfix Spitfire Mk.22 (both 1/48) which is supposed to be the best 1/48 Spitfire kit around these days,  I found that the slot for the exhaust stub slot to be 1.2mm different in position, the Trumpeter kits one is the furthest back when measuring from behind the spinner.  The exhaust stub parts of the two kits are almost the same, the Trumpeter one looking a tad better in appearance but they measure out the same length.  Re-positioning the exhaust stubs to match the Airfix kit, shows that the wing is maybe about 1mm too far foward because everything else I measured for comparison seems to be the same, for example,  from behind the spinner to the vertical windshield posts, to the rudder hinge line and also to the front and rear end of the air intake fairing.  I've decided that for 1mm, moving the wing is a lot of work.

Here's a useful 3-View given to me by my friend Steve Gardner, who used it when he made some decal artwork for an aftermarket outfit.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 01:26:19 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #70 on: December 02, 2012, 03:48:57 AM »
Hmmm...random, unrelated thoughts:

If jets hadn't come online, how far might the Spiteful/Seafang have been developed?

Turboprop Spiteful/SeaFang?

Twin-Spiteful/Seafang?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #71 on: December 02, 2012, 05:12:21 AM »
Hmmm...random, unrelated thoughts:

If jets hadn't come online, how far might the Spiteful/Seafang have been developed?

Turboprop Spiteful/SeaFang?

Twin-Spiteful/Seafang?

If jets hadn't made it, would turbo-prop engines ?  just a thought.

I've been looking at a Twin-Spiteful or even a Twin-Spitfire.  It's my thoughts that they would have both had to have 'four' u/c legs which I don't really like the look of.  I was thinking of doing one like the P/F-82 but the air intake system just gets in the way where the u/c leg would have to fold away, I'm trying to figure out what North American did with the Mustang because the engine is more or less in the same position as the Spiteful/Spitfire's in relation to the wing ---

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #72 on: December 02, 2012, 05:57:14 AM »
Perhaps it would progress in a longer, wider, stronger way like the Hurricane/Typhoon/Tempest/P.1030 did, but in a Spiteful sort of way. 
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #73 on: December 02, 2012, 05:59:57 AM »
I've been looking at a Twin-Spiteful or even a Twin-Spitfire.  It's my thoughts that they would have both had to have 'four' u/c legs which I don't really like the look of.  I was thinking of doing one like the P/F-82 but the air intake system just gets in the way where the u/c leg would have to fold away, I'm trying to figure out what North American did with the Mustang because the engine is more or less in the same position as the Spiteful/Spitfire's in relation to the wing ---
The Twin-Mustang uses only two main gear legs and they are moved inboard inboard, relative to the wingtip, as compared to a standard P-51H.  Since they are behind the engine, they don't get in the way of the induction system.  For  twin Spitfire or Twin-Spiteful, I'd go with using only the inboard pair of undercarriage legs and making them sufficiently robust to take the load.  You wouldn't be that far off from where the F-82 MLG trunnions are.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Supermarine Spitfire Family
« Reply #74 on: December 02, 2012, 06:01:17 AM »
Perhaps it would progress in a longer, wider, stronger way like the Hurricane/Typhoon/Tempest/P.1030 did, but in a Spiteful sort of way.
Late-model Spitfire or Spiteful with a RR Eagle piston engine?  I know Hawker drew up a Tempest variant with one.