Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Jeffry Fontaine on January 18, 2012, 08:56:38 PM
-
A new product review on ARC caught my attention due to the fact that it was a conversion and decal kit for a variant of a Spitfire that was unknown to me.
The variant in question is the Spitfire Mk II LR. There is a review of the 3D-KITS.co.uk 1/72nd scale Spitfire Mk II LR Conversion Kit (http://www.arcair.com/Rev5/4301-4400/rev4332-3D-kits-72-C002/00.shtm) at ARC that shows a profile of the aircraft and an image of the slipper tank that was fitted to the port wing.
How about a Spitfire with the slipper tanks from the De Havalland Mosquito mounted on both wings. Perhaps the PR Spitfire would benefit from something like this for an increase in range. Since it would be flying at high altitude the reduction in performance might not be as severe for the PR as it would be for a fighter. This would be a very easy conversion/modification to a basic Spitfire and it would make a very lovely yet subtle what-if subject.
-
From what I've read the Mk II LR was a bit of a dog in the air as the slipper tank quite upset the balance of the aircraft. Quite understandably too I'd suggest.
I believe the PR Spits had leading edge fuel tanks replacing the cannon/mg of the fighter variants which bestowed a decent enough range for them and the various centreline slipper tanks were options, so the Mosquito type slippers would seem a logical progression.
Regards,
John
-
Two words Jeff! Fabric Wings! ;D >:D >:D >:D ;D
-
Just a thought for an air-racing variant, the speed Spitfire canopy on a late Mk.21 with contra-props. 8) I just happen to have all the necessary items in my stash (if I can only find them).
-
....remember when Hannants was selling 1/48 Seafire 46/47's for 4 pounds Sterling each? I bought a bunch of them then simply for the contraprops with the though of hooking them up to a Mk.XIV for the same purpose. But who can bring themselves to destroy such a beautiful kit!!??!! :o :o :o :o :o :-\ So they sit up in the storage unit, happily packed away. :icon_sueno:
-
....remember when Hannants was selling 1/48 Seafire 46/47's
I have one of these that I plan to turn into a Reno style racer.
-
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/Spitfloat12.jpg)
-
It's a Spiteful...but close enough...has additional tip tanks.
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/spitefultiptanks.jpg)
-
Another modified Spiteful
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/sinspit2.jpg)
-
Playing with different arrangements:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/frontspit1.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/frontseafang.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/frontspitful.jpg)
-
Now I am just being silly:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/spittur.jpg)
-
Playing with floats again:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/sf47fp.jpg)
-
Late one night a Spiteful and a Mustang got dirty:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/spitfultang-1.jpg)
-
Now I am just being silly:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/spittur.jpg[/url])
Actually there was a Spitfire Turret Fighter proposed Greg, Supermarine 305. Although the turret was separate from where the gunner sat, which was back to back with the pilot. It was basically a Spitfire with the appropriate modifications for the turret and gunner position and there's a 3-View of the proposal on page 54 of the BSP-Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950 by Tony Buttler. The radiator was moved to the chin position with the inlet moved back from the spinner by about a spinner's length.
-
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/TYPE-305_01.png)
-Supermarine Aircraft since 1914
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/TYPE-305_02.png)
-Spitfire:The History
-
It actually looks like it might have been proposed to be powered by a Griffon
-
It actually looks like it might have been proposed to be powered by a Griffon
Merlin with a chin-mounted combined radiator/oil cooler assembly.
The Morgan & Shacklady book reprints the Supermarine proposal in detail.
Note that on the drawings, the upper view is the original layout,
the profile view is of the second configuration with side windows added
for the gunner.
:icon_fsm:
-
Yep, was aware of the real world proposal. Mine was being silly since I just whacked a Defiant turret onto the Spit with little real thinking. ;)
-
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/Spitfloat12.jpg[/url])
This one looks quite plausible, especially if the top join between the main strut and the fuselage is widened to pick up both main landing gear trunnions to better distribute the loads.
-
Refined trainer
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Spit20trainer.jpg)
-
I'm hoping to put Airfix new 1/72 Spit-22 and PR.XIX on PM's Spitfire floats once the kit is released and use my own version of XDk Sea Grey/Br. Slate Grey over Sky. I'd prefer the contraprop version but don't know if that will ever be released. I think that would constitute wise usage of styrene.
-
Refined trainer
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Spit20trainer.jpg[/url])
Now there's a nice idea, I think I know what an upcoming project will be coming form, with the new Airfix F.22
-
Jet Spit??
-
Jet Spit??
Or just an early iteration toward the Attacker, much as the P.1035 was an early iteration toward the definitive P.1040/Sea Hawk.
-
The Italians had the G.55S and the Germans experimented with various marks of the Fw-190/Ta-152 as torpedo fighters...what about an equivalent late model Spitfire?
-
The Italians had the G.55S and the Germans experimented with various marks of the Fw-190/Ta-152 as torpedo fighters...what about an equivalent late model Spitfire?
Not sure about the Spitfire Greg, but some heavy stuff was trialed on the Spiteful, the Uncle Tom RP comes to mind, it was 1050 lbs and two were carried so two of them would be about a torpedo weight, plus there's a photo of a Spiteful carrying a long centerline drop tank which looks like something found on a Hellcat/Bearcat
-
This is a scale-o-rama-ed 1/48 S6B (into an ostensibly 1/72 aircraft) with tandem (offset) engines, Spitfire prop and canopy, and (Weddel-Williams racer?) spats (Brian DB note!). Large-caliber cannon to rear of pilot. Tactic was to fly directly under and out in front of victim, pull up and blast the cockpit area.
(http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv173/sequoiaranger/SupermarineS8C-Defender.jpg)
-
When the Channel Islands (known for their distinct breeds of cows) were "abandoned" as indefensible, the Dame of Sark begged Supermarine for fighters. They sent two land-converted S6B racers with a lashed-up 20mm cannon between the cylinder banks. The locals painted the Swallows like the islands would look from above, and the "national insignia" became the common warning roadsign ("look out for the cows").
(http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv173/sequoiaranger/SupermarineSwallow01-1.jpg)
-
How about an air racer Spitfire with the canopy of the "Speed Spitfire" fitted to a Mk.21 with contra-props? Somewhere in the stash I have all the pieces for this one. -chuckle- As a companion, similarly modify the DB-powered one the Germans did and mod the cowling for a DB605 or DB603.
-
I have a Seafire 47 already earmarked as a post war racer...
-
Seafire XVII on floats, as in the floats used for previous Spitfire experiments. Ventral strake at the back.
-
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/54.jpg)
-
Late one night a Spiteful and a Mustang got dirty:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/spitfultang-1.jpg[/url])
MB5?
-
Kind of...
-
A1_Phoenix's "early Hurricane" reminded me that I'd done a back-dated Spitfire.
-
A1_Phoenix's "early Hurricane" reminded me that I'd done a back-dated Spitfire.
That's sexy! :D
very well done, thank you!
-
Cheers A1'. Strictly done for fun ... your ur-Hurricane is far more plausible.
-
I have a Seafire 47 already earmarked as a post war racer...
Well if your going to use a late Mark Spitfire as a speed machine, why not go the whole hog?
Excuse the rough cutting and pasting, photshop etc aren't my strong point:
Speed Spiteful:
(http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae284/Tourjet/Speed-spiteful.gif)
Regards
Keith
-
This is one I built long before I realized I could buy a vacuform or resin kit of a Spiteful, this is actually of the first prototype
-
Love the speed Spiteful! :)
-
Love the speed Spiteful! :)
Indeed. It may be just the thing to do from the Falcon vac kit. :icon_meditation:
-
Love the speed Spiteful! :)
Indeed. It may be just the thing to do from the Falcon vac kit. :icon_meditation:
Indeed you could, but why bother when Trumpeter make an injection molded one?
all you then need is the Falcon vacform canopies for Spitfire set (which includes the speed Spitfire canopy)
and Robert is indeed your fathers brother :)
Regards
Keith
-
Perhaps because I already own the Falcon kit, and have no intention of purchasing the Trumpeter?
-
I had an idea! :D
Polish produced, with license, and Hispano engined!
here in FAF service!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v414/NoNNo_83/HispanoSpitfireFAF.jpg)
S!
A1
-
Oh yeah...I like that one. A lot!
-
Polish produced, with license, and Hispano engined!
Ooo, that is clever A1' ... but when do we see one in chequerboards? ;)
-
Polish produced, with license, and Hispano engined!
Very nice, I wonder if the Finns would re-engine them as they did the Morko-Moraines (sp?)?
-
Ooo, that is clever A1' ... but when do we see one in chequerboards? ;)
Soon.. :icon_ninja:
Very nice, I wonder if the Finns would re-engine them as they did the Morko-Moraines (sp?)?
:) not a bad idea at all! i must try something!
S!
A1_Phoenix
-
Materials list in 1/48:
Eduard Weekend Avia 534 Series III
Quickboost 2 blade prop
Airfix Spitfire Mk.1
Ultracast Spitfire seat.
It'd about kill me to cut the nose off the Avia but someday may have to give this a try.
-
Seafire FR.XIX in USMC Korea markings.
Seafang in the same markings.
-
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
-
Here's a lovely what-if:
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/the-ultimate-what-if-the-supermarine-jetfire/ (http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/the-ultimate-what-if-the-supermarine-jetfire/)
-
Nice. That is really tempting to build too.
-
Whiff currently on sale on eBay (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110926837151#ht_7865wt_1028):
(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-bNQmoQqpMUE/T_Q1K0bYglI/AAAAAAAAIOY/wgbKqFQT5S0/s1024/DSC01695.JPG)
(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Blodcf5you0/T_Q1LRni9FI/AAAAAAAAIOg/j8Mi3CddIdg/s1024/DSC01696.JPG)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-osCesukjVVw/T_Q1L_yv8cI/AAAAAAAAIOo/O7E3xrRkla0/s1024/DSC01697.JPG)
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-K1HoYa783Ds/T_Q1MbJM1jI/AAAAAAAAIOw/Yd44sXMFHK0/s1024/DSC01698.JPG)
(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2CqegVhXTEs/T_Q1NLb3PFI/AAAAAAAAIO4/20ndZEe5cMI/s1024/DSC01699.JPG)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hLzowwLWixU/T_Q1Nx_zapI/AAAAAAAAIPA/347QLJTsQTk/s1024/DSC01700.JPG)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q2rji5axxi0/T_Q1PHfmAxI/AAAAAAAAIPQ/ywH_V902sas/s1024/DSC01702.JPG)
(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-sz1wBwT7juo/T_Q1PwZ0dXI/AAAAAAAAIPY/GTUYGg5xKR0/s1024/DSC01703.JPG)
(http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-graYGoOjgfo/T_Q1RHE0g_I/AAAAAAAAIPo/_nfTNXr-1R4/s1024/DSC01705.JPG)
(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-hNneUtHRgPw/T_Q1TPprOvI/AAAAAAAAIQA/-QeQ0dkQylg/s1024/DSC01708.JPG)
-
That wing hollers for tip tanks.
-
I've done an Israeli Spit 26 with contra rotating prop....
also Crusader items too....
-
Israeli Spitfire 26....
-
For the rumored 1/48 Eduard new tool Mk.IX: US Atlantic Scheme. No structural changes. Call it a Canadian build.
-
Why not Lithuanian post-'45??
-
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:
-
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.
-
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:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2570/5837187833_d88a3f1f74_z.jpg)
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.
-
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!!! ;)
-
A proper PR.XIX in 1/48 scale!!! ;D ;D ;D :) :)
-
How about some dedicated Nightfighter Spitfires, with radar. Possibly based upon two seat spits.
-
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.
-
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
-
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://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y317/joanblaue/SPITEFUL%20and%20SEAFANGS/14409C.jpg)
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y317/joanblaue/SPITEFUL%20and%20SEAFANGS/14409C3.jpg)
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y317/joanblaue/SPITEFUL%20and%20SEAFANGS/RB518-neg13859C.jpg)
http://s1025.photobucket.com/albums/y317/joanblaue/SPITEFUL%20and%20SEAFANGS/ (http://s1025.photobucket.com/albums/y317/joanblaue/SPITEFUL%20and%20SEAFANGS/)
FWIW the 1/48th Falcon vacform is pretty close to the photos.
-
Thanks! :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ---
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Maybe as a smaller-scaled back-up design to the Supermarine Type 391?
-
There's a 3-View of the Supermarine Type 391 in the Morgan and Shacklady book on the Spitfire. The engine seems to be much further forward in relation to the wings on that design so a 'twin' version would be more like a P/F-82 in layout.
I'm going to give Evan's suggestion of using the inner trunnion more thought, seeing as they bolt to the rear side of the firewall/bulkhead/spar on a Spitfire. Moving them towards the center of the aircraft is more likely an arrangement. On the Spiteful it's a bit more problematic, the trunnion is on the front side of the bulkhead/spar and the rear of the engine is in the same location on both aircraft.
-
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.
Hawker P.1027 was one version
-
If jets hadn't made it, would turbo-prop engines ? just a thought.
My three listed ideas were meant to be independent of each other.
-
Dibs on the 1:48 new tool Airfix Spitfire PR.XIX UAV! ;D ;D ;D
No....not really. If anyone else is looney enough to do that before I do, please feel free to do so. :)
"Construction began in the usual way be removing the cockpit". Yep. That'd be good.
-
Dibs on the 1:48 new tool Airfix Spitfire PR.XIX UAV! ;D ;D ;D
No....not really. If anyone else is looney enough to do that before I do, please feel free to do so. :)
"Construction began in the usual way be removing the cockpit". Yep. That'd be good.
Now where would you have gotten that idea..
-
;D
-
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/PR19U.jpg)
-
I'd use a bubble top as the basis so I guess it's a Mk.XIVe rather than a PR.XIX for the basis.
(carefully eyes Trumpeter's MishapenSeafang, pauses, thinks)
-
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/PR19U.jpg[/url])
Actually Greg, if you give that nose profile the Spiteful works, it'll look pretty good.
-
Israeli Spitfire Mk.XII, standard unclipped wing tips, 5 blade prop, overall RLM 71 or "green" RLM 63.
Saudi Seafire 17, then 47. Or Kuwaiti.
-
OMG!!! What have you done to that gorgeous airframe???? Perverts!!! :o
;)
-
Something I'm working on right now, a Seafire (Hybrid) Mk.45
-
Found this while surfing:
THE ULTIMATE WHAT-IF: Siamese Supermarine - The Twin Spitfire (http://www.fbody.com/anything/1102930)
(http://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/twinspitfire1.jpg?w=1014)
-
OMG!!! What have you done to that gorgeous airframe???? Perverts!!! :o
That just serves to encourage me.
-
Random idea: Spiteful with wingtip ramjets ala P-51:
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff22/Adler69_photo/p51ramjet.jpg)
-
Peter Burstow's Spitfire F.22 on floats what-if built from a 1:72nd scale Hawk (Testors) kit (http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/spits/bur22.htm) uploaded to Modeling Madness.
Tiny, nice and shiny! Such a simple little conversion and it looks quite convincing. Hopefully Peter has more of this to share with us in the future.
-
Peter Burstow's Spitfire F.22 on floats what-if built from a 1:72nd scale Hawk (Testors) kit ([url]http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/spits/bur22.htm[/url]) uploaded to Modeling Madness.
Tiny, nice and shiny! Such a simple little conversion and it looks quite convincing. Hopefully Peter has more of this to share with us in the future.
Hmm! that looks really nice, I guess a follow on to that would be a Spiteful on floats :-*
-
Purchased the new Airfix kit and the PM kit for that very purpose some time back! :D
-
Does anyone have a clear cutaway drawing of a mid to late model Spit? I'm trying to see where the intake scoop goes inside but I can't figure it out from what's on the net. I'm probably staring it in the face but just can't see it. I'm trying to figure out if and where the scoop could be relocated, preferably above the wing as I'm aiming for a float plane version and its current location would cause oodles of issues with water ingestion at all the wrong moments. Any and help is appreciated as always.
-
Cliffy: The RW Spitfire floatplanes seemed to do okay with the extended Mk.XI-style air intakes.
I'm not sure if side intakes are an option when using an updraught carburettor. Early Rolls-Royce Kestrels had side intakes for their superchargers. But that changes with the Kestrel XVI (if you look at a late Yugoslav Fury with updraught SU carbs, they have underside supercharger intakes very much like the early Spit).
Perhaps these images will help?
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/aeroenginespistoncutaways/images/82633/rolls-royce-merlin-61-cutaway-drawing.jpg (http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/aeroenginespistoncutaways/images/82633/rolls-royce-merlin-61-cutaway-drawing.jpg)
http://references.charlyecho.com/Aviation/Supermarine/Spitfire%20PR%20mk%20XI/Cutaway/supermarinespitfireprmk.jpg (http://references.charlyecho.com/Aviation/Supermarine/Spitfire%20PR%20mk%20XI/Cutaway/supermarinespitfireprmk.jpg)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/packard266-engine-installation.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/packard266-engine-installation.jpg)
-
Thanks man! So I don't need to move nor can I move it apparently...interesting... Always thought any sort of intake scoops on the undersides of float planes were problematic. Wonder if it had to do with the height of the floats on the Floaty Spits? They seem to sit up a lot higher then most other float planes. Hmmm...
That one drawing of the engine done by hand wow! Its refreshing to see such a technical drawing done by hand even if it may be from a while ago.
-
Found this while surfing:
THE ULTIMATE WHAT-IF: Siamese Supermarine - The Twin Spitfire ([url]http://www.fbody.com/anything/1102930[/url])
Hushkit also has a Jetfire, using a Derwent engine which made it a bit plump:
(http://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/jetfire1.jpg?w=830)
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/the-ultimate-what-if-the-supermarine-jetfire/ (http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/the-ultimate-what-if-the-supermarine-jetfire/)
-
Thanks man! So I don't need to move nor can I move it apparently...interesting... Always thought any sort of intake scoops on the undersides of float planes were problematic. Wonder if it had to do with the height of the floats on the Floaty Spits? They seem to sit up a lot higher then most other float planes. Hmmm...
The engine mount would prevent a side intake like what you're proposing. But you could always give it a downdraft carb', DH Hornets had those because their air intakes were in the wing leading edge and were ducted to the top of the carb'. You'd need to have the intakes higher than the exhaust stubs though on your Spit.
-
Retro Spitfires
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/spit_retro.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/spit_retro.jpg.html)
-
:)
-
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
-
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
There have been a number. Perhaps one of the best known was the Chrysler IV-2220:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Chrysler_IV-2220_%281%29.PNG)
Which was mounted on the XP-47H:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Republic_XP-47H.jpg)
-
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?
-
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?
Not that I am aware of. I understand the only 16 cylinder engines developed by Germany in that timeframe were the twinned ones (I.e Db 606 and 610) neither which were exactly what I would classify as V engines anymore.
-
That Chrysler IV-2220 is quite interesting. Thanks for posting! :)
-
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?
Not that I am aware of. I understand the only 16 cylinder engines developed by Germany in that timeframe were the twinned ones (I.e Db 606 and 610) neither which were exactly what I would classify as V engines anymore.
I went and checked, and I mis-remembered. Daimler-Benz was indeed working on an IV-16 engine, the DB609, but it was cancelled in 1943 along with the proposed testbed aircraft.
-
Was there any 16 cyl V engine ever?
It's the other side, but didn't Daimler-Benz develop an IV-16 engine that was flight tested on FW-190V19?
Not that I am aware of. I understand the only 16 cylinder engines developed by Germany in that timeframe were the twinned ones (I.e Db 606 and 610) neither which were exactly what I would classify as V engines anymore.
I went and checked, and I mis-remembered. Daimler-Benz was indeed working on an IV-16 engine, the DB609, but it was cancelled in 1943 along with the proposed testbed aircraft.
And the Db 606 & 610's were actually inverted 'W' 24 cylinder engines, two Db 601 side by side using a common PSRU gearbox and the engines were rotated so the two inner banks were vertical.
-
Doh!! Forgot the DB609 - basically a stretched outgrowth of the Db603:
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n291/nsumner/db609.jpg)
Probably best known as the planed engine for this:
(http://www.luft46.com/mrart/mrdbj-2.jpg)
-
Would that have been installed with the supercharger at the front then Greg ?
-
The engine was mounted in the fuselage nose, with an annular radiator in front.
-
Yes I can see that's where the engine was to be, I just wanted to know if it was turned around. On a standard tractor prop arrangement, the supercharger is at the rear of the engine and the PSRU was at the front, on this mid fuselage prop arrangement (basically a pusher prop) it would seem to me that the PSRU would be at the back and the supercharger inlet at the front with a direct line of flow into it.
-
24 cylinder, twinned RR Merlin Spitfire ;):
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/A12772110-6_zpsfe116457.gif)
-
:icon_fsm:
Check yer maths Greg. 12 + 12 = ___ ;)
-
Different, needs two exhaust stubs removed in each bank though and shortened a bit -- ;)
EDIT, Jon beat me to it -- ;D
-
:icon_fsm:
Check yer maths Greg. 12 + 12 = ___ ;)
Doh!!! Its early - I still haven't had my first coffee... :-[
-
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)
-
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)
.... or the view on take-off / landing ....
-
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)
That was coming ---- ;D I believe that the Spitfire Mk.21 wing was an effort to change the load cg on Griffon engined versions as most of the enlargement difference was 'in front' of the main spar. Maybe give it this wing instead --
If you remove two exhaust stubs from each bank and then make the gap between the two banks about the same as two exhaust stubs wide, the engine wouldn't be very much longer than the Griffon set up I think.
-
Let's try that again shall we…16 Cylinder (stretched RR Merlin) Spitfire ;):
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/A12772110-16_zps42572282.jpg)
-
Now that doesn't look much different to a Griffon Spit, does it?
Incidently, there was a paper version of the Crecy engine that was to be sixteen cylinders, only that was an 'X' configured engine of about 2500 hp. But get this, only 9 liters capacity ---
-
And yet there are no comments regarding nose heavy... ;)
There are now!
-
This has given me a project idea, only I'll use a
Griffon Sea Fury spinner and blend it into the cowling. That should have a few scratching their heads ---
There was a fellow who's name was Stewart Tresilian, worked on & off for RR, Bristol, AW and others during the war, his pet theory was to short-stroke/over-bore everything and bump up the RPM to get the airflow through the engine. This could go along the lines that he got hold of the Merlin, worked his magic, kept the same bore but shortened the stroke and to keep the Cubic Inches the same, added four more cylinders to it. With the engine spinning at 6000-7000 rpm, should bump up the hp quite well I think --- Of course, this would mean bigger tail surfaces --- etc --
-
Earlier supercritical wings
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/spit-p51.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/spit-p51.jpeg.html)
-
to keep the Cubic Inches the same, added four more cylinders to it. With the engine spinning at 6000-7000 rpm, should bump up the hp quite well I think --- Of course, this would mean bigger tail surfaces --- etc --
The bigger tail surfaces would help a bit with the balancing. Maybe put the radiators in (inside?) the tail too. I believe some of the long Griffon Spitfires needed extra weight in the tail to balance.
-
The bigger tail surfaces would help a bit with the balancing. Maybe put the radiators in (inside?) the tail too. I believe some of the long Griffon Spitfires needed extra weight in the tail to balance.
Actually all the Spitfires had some sort of ballast perttime, there was a special frame built into the end of the fuselage, right where the tail assemble was bolted on. Depending on what motor/propeller combination was installed depended on how much ballast was bolted in. This ballast comprised of steel plates of various thicknesses, stack on top of each other and had a big bolt running through the lot. They had to go this way because all through the Spitfires production, from the Mk.I to the Mk.24 (including Seafires, Spitefuls & Seafangs), the fuselage length (that's the distance from the engine bulkhead to the tail assemble joint and even to the rudder hinge line) never changed. Now I'm not saying the overall lengths didn't change, just the fuselage length.
One of my up coming project is to build a Spitfire with a Mustang style radiator duct, apparently Supermarine studied all the various radiator styles at one time ot other.
This one below for instance has wing leading edge radiators but I have also stretched the rear fuselage by a scaled 24" [610mm) which is about 8.5mm in 1/72, I'm going to do a regular Spitfire the same too.
-
One of my up coming project is to build a Spitfire with a Mustang style radiator duct, apparently Supermarine studied all the various radiator styles at one time ot other.
One of my "erryplane" drawings is a Griffon "Spitfire" racer, with a radiator just behind the wing:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2970.msg45377#msg45377 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2970.msg45377#msg45377)
-
One of my up coming project is to build a Spitfire with a Mustang style radiator duct, apparently Supermarine studied all the various radiator styles at one time ot other.
One of my "erryplane" drawings is a Griffon "Spitfire" racer, with a radiator just behind the wing:
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2970.msg45377#msg45377[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2970.msg45377#msg45377[/url])
Nice, maybe do the wing like the real Speed Spitfire had too -- This is not my model and unfortunately I can't remember who sent me the pics
-
maybe do the wing like the real Speed Spitfire had too
Unfortunately, the Speed Spitfire wing is my least favorite Spitfire wing shape. I like the "late" wing, so made a short version of it for some of my doodlings.
-
Old enemies become friends :)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/spit_fw190.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/spit_fw190.jpg.html)
-
Spitfire + Hurricane
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/spit_hurricane.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/spit_hurricane.jpeg.html)
-
Spitfire + Yak
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/spit_yak.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/spit_yak.jpg.html)
-
(https://elpoderdelasgalaxias.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ng23.gif?w=545)
-
I wonder what that does to gun accuracy?
-
I wonder what that does to gun accuracy?
You need to be good at deflection shooting? ;D
-
(https://elpoderdelasgalaxias.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ng23.gif?w=545)
Is this for real Greg ?
-
The picture is real... ;) The design it portrays is not. See here (http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/birds/spitfire/secret/spitproject.htm) for more
-
One to upset the purists...
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/cc618449cd91581055e2772832e59f2e.jpg)
-
One to upset the purists...
([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/cc618449cd91581055e2772832e59f2e.jpg[/url])
Oh, good lord! What engine was fitted?
-
I would say, going by the cowling, either a late model Bristol Hercules or Centaurus.
-
There's got to be a better way to install the exhausts... ;D
-
I would say, going by the cowling, either a late model Bristol Hercules or Centaurus.
Agree. But it looks to be photoshopped?
-
I would say, going by the cowling, either a late model Bristol Hercules or Centaurus.
Agree. But it looks to be photoshopped?
I would say poorly photoshopped. And a radial engine Spitfire would surely create havoc amongst certain people! So who's going to build one?
-
I would say, going by the cowling, either a late model Bristol Hercules or Centaurus.
Agree. But it looks to be photoshopped?
I would say poorly photoshopped. And a radial engine Spitfire would surely create havoc amongst certain people! So who's going to build one?
And why would you need two radiator ducts under the wing, I could understand one for an oil cooler though.
-
I would say, going by the cowling, either a late model Bristol Hercules or Centaurus.
Agree. But it looks to be photoshopped?
I would say poorly photoshopped. And a radial engine Spitfire would surely create havoc amongst certain people! So who's going to build one?
And why would you need two radiator ducts under the wing, I could understand one for an oil cooler though.
A badly done PS job but something to look at.
-
There's got to be a better way to install the exhausts... ;D
The cowling and spinner look like they have come from a Bristol Freighter, those engine exhausts just exited behind the rear end of the cowling, like this below
-
I would say, going by the cowling, either a late model Bristol Hercules or Centaurus.
Agree. But it looks to be photoshopped?
I would say poorly photoshopped. And a radial engine Spitfire would surely create havoc amongst certain people! So who's going to build one?
And why would you need two radiator ducts under the wing, I could understand one for an oil cooler though.
really needs to go back to the oil cooler under one wing of the early marks. Nice concept but less than perfect execution in the details.
-
Another:
(http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/SpitfireHerculesEngine_zps233058c6.jpg)
-
At least we know that one is feasible Greg, as it comes from the Hercules Hurricane
-
I would say, going by the cowling, either a late model Bristol Hercules or Centaurus.
Agree. But it looks to be photoshopped?
It is photoshopped - but not by me. I just found it online whilst looking for something else.
-
How long was the Mk1 in service? I know some refurbished ones were supplied to Portugal but I wouldn't be surprised of many remaining mk1s were pretty shagged and not good for much after 41.
-
How long was the Mk1 in service? I know some refurbished ones were supplied to Portugal but I wouldn't be surprised of many remaining mk1s were pretty shagged and not good for much after 41.
I really don't know but they must have been passed on to other duties. This one below is still flying
-
Interesting one:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/Mark12/Album%203/RussianSpitfire-02-001.jpg)
-
Damn! I thought I had come up with another idea
-
Got one of these in the stash:
(https://www.model-making.eu/zdjecia/5/6/6/5047_rd.jpg)
(http://www.aviationmegastore.com/img/prod/max/1/d/122053_1.jpg)
-
I wonder how hard it would have been to develop an improved spit based on the MkI/II for manufacture overseas. Say with wide track landing gear (difficult I know because of the thin wing), 50cals, more fuel etc.
-
I wonder how hard it would have been to develop an improved spit based on the MkI/II for manufacture overseas. Say with wide track landing gear (difficult I know because of the thin wing), 50cals, more fuel etc.
It depends who by and when? If you are talking about Supermarine in the normal timeframe (i.e. around late '30s) then I would say the chances were nil as you would have been talking about major redesign efforts for the wings. If you had a non-Supermarine effort though than maybe a possible though getting the licence to produce in the first place might be difficult. Maybe a fictional overseas (say Canada or Australia based) subsidiary (more likely a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrongs) could do it...
-
[/quote]
Maybe a fictional overseas (say Canada or Australia based) subsidiary (more likely a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrongs) could do it...
[/quote]
Exactly what I was thinking ;)
-
In one of my many alternate realities, the USN used the Spitfire. It was designed as the FS-1, F1S-1 etc.
S* Schweizer Aircraft Corp. (gliders)
S Sikorsky Aviation Corp.
S Stearman Aircraft Co. (became Boeing-Wichita in 1939)
S* Supermarine
Codes marked with an asterisk (*) were rare or limited to gliders and drones in World War II.
Source: http://rwebs.net/avhistory/acdesig/usnavy.htm (http://rwebs.net/avhistory/acdesig/usnavy.htm)
-
...Say with wide track landing gear (difficult I know because of the thin wing), 50cals, more fuel etc.
(http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/125/2/a/spitfire_lf_mk_31__estonian_air_force_by_perttime-d4ymbi9.png)
-
Nice
-
What I'm thinking is the 1936 Australian aviation industry is more advanced than in reality, i.e. some of Jellicoe's advice is followed and Australia invests in building strategic capabilities in aircraft design and production (as well as shipbuilding of course). This starts with licence production of the Supermarine Seagull III and perhaps even the Supermarine Sea King single seat amphibian fighter that was related to the Sealion Schneider Trophy winner, potentially at an expanded Cockatoo Island facility which was operated by Vickers who took over Supermarine in 1926. They would also build Supermarine Southampton's, Stranaer, Seagull V / Walrus, Otter, Seagull ASR1, fighter versions of the S.4/5/6 and of course the Spitfire, then Spiteful. Cockatoo would also licence produce Napier then RR engines and a variety of Vickers types including the Vildebeest, Wellesley and Wellington.
An Australian Spitfire, even if selected in 1936/7 would take a number of years to gear up for, especially if the powers that be wanted to simplify production and improve durability. It is conceivable that the Australianised Spit could incorporate a number of improvements, such as mentioned above, and not enter service until 1941. By 41/42 it would be obvious that an improved version was needed and then maybe Australia could jump to building an Australianised Mk VIII and then instead of Griffon Spits, going straight to the Spiteful. Maybe with its inward retracting wide main gear the Aussie Spits could be seen as more suitable foundation for the Seafire and then supplied to the UK and other nations under Lend Lease.
-
then supplied to the UK and other nations under Lend Lease.
Err...unless the USA was somehow involved Lend-Lease would play no part.
-
then supplied to the UK and other nations under Lend Lease.
Err...unless the USA was somehow involved Lend-Lease would play no part.
During WWII Australia ended the war with a massive lend lease credit to the US, i.e. we supplied more to them than they did to us in terms of supplies facilities and services while with the UK we tallied and invoiced them for same, I just grouped them together. For example the UK were looking to supply the RAN with a squadron or two of new ships including Colossus Class carriers modern cruisers and destroyers, and even considered getting RAN to crew and commission Implacable and Indefatigable within the BPF until they realised our government intended to bill them for everything we had supplied them.
-
Lost my train of though because my six year old daughter is going through her usual, incredibly frustrating routine of avoiding going to bed. Should be done in about two hours and I will try and get some coherence back then.
-
Just realised something, the floatplane Spits were strong enough to have the float pylons attached roughly where inward retracting gear would be pivoted therefore the mod to the gear should be structurally possible.
Extrapolating this the modified Spit I envision could actually be reverse engineered from a Spitfire Floatplane fighter developed for the RAAF as a replacement for the earlier licence built Supermarine Floatplane and Flying Boat fighters built in Australia for the RAAF Fleet Support Command. These aircraft would have evolved from requirements developed by the RN and passed onto the RAN for cruiser based fighters during the 20s and 30s, eagerly adopted by the RAAF in their efforts to justify their existence by proving their dedication to supporting the RN and Army.
-
Lets show these folks what BTS can do in 24 hours .....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ3l2heXkAAxt5m.jpg:large)
Airfix @Airfix
Now here are a LOT of Spitfires, displayed during the epic 24 hour Spitfire build at the Hornby Visitor Centre this weekend to celebrate the centenary of the formation of the Royal Air Force - raising money for the Royal Airforce Benevolent Fund and the Rainbow Ward, Margate.
-
French derivative of Supermarine SeaFang.
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/crocdemer.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/crocdemer.jpeg.html)
-
:smiley:
-
A classic beauty, Griffon Dora, and her complementary, Jumo Spitfire
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/SpitDora_X.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/SpitDora_X.jpeg.html)
-
Via the Facebook page of illustrator Ian Bott:
A recent Briefing File illustration for Aeroplane Monthly on Spitfire propeller development plus a detail of the Mk IX and its constant speed hub and one of the aircraft drawings, a Spitfire Mk I
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52915646_2448214388536491_6674825231812526080_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=5377878873d5cb0c6baae31d8ffb322d&oe=5CEC8BD9)
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53298625_2448214411869822_3061688207415443456_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=fa3ece7c27ac9f1f396b66370604fab4&oe=5D1869C7)
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52891165_2448214375203159_6529255484342403072_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=78d731f9be1ed9226671b3dd1337fd56&oe=5CEB2133)
-
Please forgive me for the thread hijacking. I was looking at hour "Spiteful" posts from around seven years ago, and it struck me that truth is imitating fiction. Your Spiteful resembles a paper Sea Spitfire project from around November 1939 with a Griffin engine and raised canopy, and four 20mm cannons. Fifty were ordered off the drawing board, with deliveries by July 1940. Personally, I think that was optimistic, but the order was quickly cancelled. Also, there was a ground attack version of the Spit on paper again, the type 312. This also carried four 20mm cannon and the cockpit raised six inches. This is all real world.
I propose the Sea Spit was authorized a couple months earlier, with the FAA just starting workup with the first two squadrons in June 1940. They were called up to help hold the perimeter at Dunkirk, and the "Smashers" as they were nicknamed, were deadly in the anti-tank and anti-vehicle role. In the meanwhile the RN decided to go with Fulmars, but the RAF liked them as ground attack aircraft operating from forward bases. Give me a chance to use some Hurricane and Typhoon decals.
-
What Mark numbers would those be Kim, I'll check in the Morgan/Shacklady book I have.
-
AFAIK, the proposed Sea Spitfire did not have a type number in the information I have. However, the Supermarine 311 is mentioned as an unknown Spitfire project. Interestingly, it is followed by the type 312 with the 4 cannon armament and raised canopy.
-
BTW, does the Shacklady book have anything in depth on the Supermarine 333? THis was a project that was eventually filled by the Fairey Firefly. The books I have (Buttler's old and new British Secret Projects and Beyond the Spitfire) imply the wing was simplified compared to the Spit wing. It does away with the curved leading edge, yes. However it has a gull wing, which pretty much defeats the purpose of simplification.
Also, are there any pictures of the planned Malinowski wing?
-
Please forgive me for the thread hijacking. I was looking at hour "Spiteful" posts from around seven years ago, and it struck me that truth is imitating fiction. Your Spiteful resembles a paper Sea Spitfire project from around November 1939 with a Griffin engine and raised canopy, and four 20mm cannons. Fifty were ordered off the drawing board, with deliveries by July 1940. Personally, I think that was optimistic, but the order was quickly cancelled. Also, there was a ground attack version of the Spit on paper again, the type 312. This also carried four 20mm cannon and the cockpit raised six inches. This is all real world.
The paper Sea Spitfire project is, I believe, the "Folded Wing Spitfire" mentioned in the Morgan/Shacklady book in the section on the Seafire. The discussion around this does mention both a Griffon Engine and an order of 50 in 1939. It does not however seem to mention/show a raised cockpit or 20mm cannon.
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsxcv5oygp.png)
Later on, there is also a mention/image of a Single Seat Fleet Fighter NAD925/39 derived from the Spitfire F Mk.IV which also has the Griffon and folded wings and does appear to have a slightly raised cockpit although no mention is made in the text. It also has a wing with a straight leading edge and gull wing. It also does not show 20mm cannon:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsyvydtsuk.png)
Finally, there is a version with 20mm cannon but with elliptical wing and V-tail:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zps9veohquc.png)
The ground attack Type 312 is also mentioned though briefly:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsaddvyct6.png)
BTW, does the Shacklady book have anything in depth on the Supermarine 333? THis was a project that was eventually filled by the Fairey Firefly. The books I have (Buttler's old and new British Secret Projects and Beyond the Spitfire) imply the wing was simplified compared to the Spit wing. It does away with the curved leading edge, yes. However it has a gull wing, which pretty much defeats the purpose of simplification.
Also, are there any pictures of the planned Malinowski wing?
The Type 333 is mentioned with multiple images:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsvo9y9fad.png)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsnbehtcl3.png)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsq6dvwwyc.png)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsnfoq8nwb.png)
As to the "Malinowski wing", I cannot find any reference - are you able to elaborate?
BTW, apologies for the crude images - they were taken using my phone in bad lighting conditions.
-
Wow! Great stuff ... thanks for all those images Greg :smiley: Some great whif-fodder there :D
-
Here's another for you - from 1942:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/edited-image_zpsvcffybvf.png)
-
If Hamsters could fly... :)
-
Thank you for the drawings. This really helps.
-
The second naval Spitfire drawing, the FIV based one seems to have a wing similar to the 333. Your further drawings of the 333 wing make the design even more complex. Two bends on the wing spar?
BTW, thanks for chiming in on this, Apophenia. I meant to post it on your thread, I don't know how it ended up here. A couple sources mention that a Spit VIII was to be tested with a Malinowski wing. That about covers it in the Buttler books, my only real source. If there is nothing in the Morgan and Shacklady book, there is nothing. Google "Stemal III" for further Malinowski wing reference. Broadly it was a variable camber wing that was tested on a Nieuport in the early 20s, and was never heard from again. Variable camber concepts, usually meaning a drooped leading edge were tried since WWI. I don't see why the Malinowski wing was particularly different, especially since this was 20 year old technology at the time. Maybe he had some patent?
-
I meant to post it on your thread, I don't know how it ended up here.
Greg split it from Apophenia's thread Kim
-
Just because it's gorgeous, the Silver Spifire, which is on an around the world flight. :thumbsup:
(https://www.silverspitfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/spit-flying-v3-1.jpg)
(https://www.silverspitfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Silver-Spit-turning-v7-e1536936315414.jpg)
-
Does look beautiful & I love the registration GIRTY! :D
-
She's scheduled to arrive here in Everett on Aug. 31 for a four night stopover at Paine Field.
:icon_fsm:
-
I think I conflated your first drawing with the 925/39 project. AFAIK the first project was a request to get some sort of carrier compatible Spitfire by yesterday. Some preliminary stuff was done, then the project was quashed by Churchill.
-
Cool photo:
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/spitfire-with-ratog_rocket-assisted-take-off-gear-_1943-jpg.375746/)
-
I was thinking of something similar to apophenia's Americanised Spitfire (see here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.2300)). Mine would take a slightly different turn without the belly radiator mods etc. Rather I am thinking of an early Spitfire Mk. I or II as the basis (maybe even a Mk.V) but with the RR Merlin replaced with an Allison V-1710 and maybe 6 × 0.50 in (12.7mm) M2 Browning machine guns instead of the eight .303 calibre Browning machine guns.
-
I suppose a further development to the last would be a Spitfire V with a Allison V-1710 including the turbocharger from a P-38.
-
I suppose a further development to the last would be a Spitfire V with a Allison V-1710 including the turbocharger from a P-38.
Canada built Spitfire?
-
I suppose a further development to the last would be a Spitfire V with a Allison V-1710 including the turbocharger from a P-38.
Getting that model of GE turbo-supercharger to fit on a small single-engine airframe,
especially something as small as the Spitfire is very difficult and kinda pointless unless
you're trying to produce some kind of super high-altitude recce or 'stratosphere bomber'
interceptor.
The problems with the XP-37/YP-37 installation demonstrated some of the issues. The
turbo installation on the XP-39 was crap-tastic and among the reasons it was dropped,
the turbo was mounted beneath the engine and both the exhaust to drive the turbo and
the pressurized air to the intercoolers and then carb each had to make two 90º turns, which
reduced the efficiency of the turbocharger. This drawing of the Model 3, the P-39's predecessor,
shows the issues.
(http://bellaircraftmuseum.org/sites/default/files/bell_model_3_0.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-6cVKRLn/0/77977e8b/O/YP-37_01.png)
-
The Allison-Powered Spitfires
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg170676#msg170676 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg170676#msg170676)
-
Getting that model of GE turbo-supercharger to fit on a small single-engine airframe,
especially something as small as the Spitfire is very difficult and kinda pointless unless
you're trying to produce some kind of super high-altitude recce or 'stratosphere bomber'
interceptor.
that is kind of what I was thinking.
-
The Allison-Powered Spitfires
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg170676#msg170676[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg170676#msg170676[/url])
:smiley:
-
An interesting one: in 1943 a catapult was fitted and successfully test-launched a Supermarine Spitfire fighter from the Soviet cruiser Molotov:
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/5b7f1f2b533cdcb650f1850c7d63d69b-jpg.545862/)
-
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?
(https://www.modelflying.co.uk/sites/3/images/member_albums/30974/578338.jpg)
-
^ That is pretty much in the style of https://hushkit.net/
... but perhaps it was not published on his main site?
-
Fast looking super Spitfire ! Mach 0.8 nice.
-
Has shades of the Supermarine Type 391 in it --
-
Is there any existing turboprop engine that would go on a late model Spitfire without too much complication?
That propeller is obviously a bit extreme, and it would need a canopy, or at least wind screen, from something that isn't a Spitfire winds screen.
... Oh. It is mentioned elsewhere that the TurbospiteS is supposed to have inwards retracting landing gear. (secretprojects or modelflying.co.uk)
-
If we could have a Dart Mustang (see below), why not a Dart Spitfire?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/GiRdr8sk5_Innb8zp62gKu29EK1P0BPL16mAzO4XHNCk7u7vvC-eDA-sIOFtoHZ5ms6C5OAqrvaDKkBQbdem8ljB0nVLgdmO9wwtuEqN_tKe-eJf68hQIEM2txnf1WRl_XnomrUa8eISrzxWhwRkWEzQKDgObc4KhN0MNG3iYM4)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/o6vtln7_sHpOPCsIMwz5a0hVvmBUBWcoq80hMwg5W20hfYLr4sbpUr-znGZ1dMZ43L8nlYBQ3stHD4ddwNzDeC6C-JtnzQmiDHzmtB0Qit9a_e0a2ZolnkVNlyecKZKoRvSpDec)
-
That should work!
:-*
-
If we could have a Dart Mustang (see below), why not a Dart Spitfire?
Should be easy enough with that one resin Dart Mustang conversion as it can be whittled down to fit the Spitfire. Carefully of course...
-
Gordon Aerolite Spitfire fuselage. The very first Spitfire resin conversion kit :smiley:
-
:smiley: Some details here (https://erenow.net/ww/fighters-under-construction-world-war-two-rare-photographs/3.php)
-
So Galland made a comment about "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron.":
(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-1/8-1.jpg)
(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-1/10-1_.jpg)
(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-1/12-1.jpg)
-
Posted on 'The Aviation Historian' FB page as a preview of the new issue:
"Here at TAH we don’t make a regular habit of publishing “What-if?” articles, but this one by the late Melvyn Hiscock — about how rearward cockpits could have given photo-recce Spitfires a much longer range — has a pedigree stretching back to legendary test pilot Jeffrey Quill."
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51325432984_702326f489_o.jpg)
http://www.theaviationhistorian.com/public-downloads/preview-PDFs/tah_iss36_spread2_spitfire.pdf (http://www.theaviationhistorian.com/public-downloads/preview-PDFs/tah_iss36_spread2_spitfire.pdf)
-
Posted on 'The Aviation Historian' FB page as a preview of the new issue:
"Here at TAH we don’t make a regular habit of publishing “What-if?” articles, but this one by the late Melvyn Hiscock — about how rearward cockpits could have given photo-recce Spitfires a much longer range — has a pedigree stretching back to legendary test pilot Jeffrey Quill."
...
More space for fuel over the wing. Later model Spitfires needed some weight in the tail for balance anyway.
-
snip
Yuuuggghh!!! Not only does that look utterly wrong but landing the abomination would be a real handful at the best of times, let alone after an extended long-range flight! Even with a curved approach, that would be a pig to get on the deck. At the very least they could give it a contra-prop to reduce torque effects.
If you needed to extended the range of a PR.19, I'd try drop tanks, bulging the spine ala MiG-21SMT, towing an aerosled or in-flight refuelling from a friendly neighbourhood Lanc before that. Elegant it ain't!
-
.....in-flight refuelling from a friendly neighbourhood Lanc.....
Perhaps something a little like the following?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51326389909_a7cfb24748_o.png) (https://flic.kr/p/2mcxax4)
(https://flic.kr/p/2mcxax4)
-
Landing the aft-cockpit Spit wouldn't be that big a deal, all the pilot would have to do is
keep the tail up, land on the mains and then drop the tail. No point in trying a 3-point
landing which had already become something of an anachronism as aircraft performance
steadily increased.
"Fattening" the spine for more fuel would be a worse solution from a CG standpoint and
the increase in fuselage volume would increase drag and might give rise to some major
issues concerning airflow on to the empennage. It works on something like the MiG-21
because of the nature of the aircraft and it's basically cylindrical fuselage cross-section.
Towing an aerosled, with all the requisite plumbing etc., would be a needless complication.
Trying to refuel in that fashion with propeller driven aircraft would be nigh on impossible.
-
Thinking about it, the fat spine needn't be of concern if done right. The late Spits were nose-heavy so some added weight aft of the cofg might be beneficial. A bulge aft of the wing wouldn't necessarily add meaningfully to the drag and might actually reduce it and also lead to the early discovery of the area rule! A revised (taller) tail is hardly an insurmountable hurdle. Incidentally, I meant MiG-21SMT as in position not in degree, I'm not talking a huge bulge here. The more I think about it, the more I like it. The end result would even still look like a Spitfire! How many Spitfires do I have....
As for your pronouncements, jcf? I guess I disagree with pretty much all of them. [Shrug]
-
Additional fuel aft is a Changing CoG issue as it gets consumed, larger fuel tanks above the CoG with a fixed-mass pilot/cockpit combo aft is more stable for flying purposes.
-
^ Bigger trim tabs on the elevators then. Or the pilot can lean back more as the flight goes on, either-or. Honestly, I just suggested those alternatives for fun as anything would be better than blighting the artform that is a Mark XIX Spit. I'm not particularly interested in concocting a 10-part defensive thesis.
Frankly burning the Spitfire production lines completely would be better than letting that ugly PoS with the aft cockpit see the light of day. Leave that for the P-40 lineage, they're already ugly.
When did BtS move it's servers to Alpha Canis Majoris?
-
I hope the Lancaster crew buys the Spitfire pilot dinner first.
-
Plenty of ideas here: https://www.strijdbewijs.nl/birds/spitfire/secret/spitproject.htm (https://www.strijdbewijs.nl/birds/spitfire/secret/spitproject.htm)
-
I think I like my Twin Spit better ;) ;) ;)
-
Plenty of ideas here: https://www.strijdbewijs.nl/birds/spitfire/secret/spitproject.htm (https://www.strijdbewijs.nl/birds/spitfire/secret/spitproject.htm)
OMG! There is some seriously weird s**t here! :icon_surprised:
-
On a slight tangent here: Full Scale, Allison-Powered 2004 Spitfire Mk IX For Sale
https://www.ebay.com/itm/324743274698 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/324743274698)
Current bid is $45K USD
(https://www.airport-data.com/images/aircraft/000/536/536901.jpg)
(https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/Airframe/Gallery/0/87/0000087590.jpg)
Lets break those piggy banks open and get into some 1:1 modelling.
-
Oh that is seriously tempting. 8)
-
It is a 1:1 model. I saw a much higher asking price, too.
-
Highest bid is now $100,000. Still 4 more days left in the auction and there is a reserve price.
-
Seeing as a real one goes for over a million, those bids look like a bit of cheap-skating to me --- no matter that it's a replica ---
-
Highest bid is now $201,000 USD. 2 days left in the auction. Reserve price not yet met.
-
Did not sell.
-
Via The Two-Seat-Seat Spitfire Page on Facebook.
The BIG update! I realized that I haven't done the complete list of two-seat Spitfires for a while and so here it is:
Airworthy
1. MT818 Airworthy operated by Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
2. MJ627 Airworthy operated by Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
3. MJ772 Airworthy now lives at the Royal Netherlands Historic Flight foundation
4. ML407 Airworthy operated by Ultimate Warbird Flights
5. PV202 Airworthy operated by Aerial Collective
6. TE308 Airworthy operated by Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
7. PT462 Airworthy operated by Aerial Collective
8. MH367 Airworthy operated by Warbird Adventure Rides Ltd
9. SM520 Airworthy operated by Spitfires.com
10. NH341 Airworthy operated by Aero Legends
Non airworthy
11. ML295 Being restored at Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
12. EN570 Being restored for Norwegian Flying Aces
13. BS410 Owned by Martin Philips
14. No14 ID witheld being restored Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
15. BS548 Being restored by Airframe Assemblies Ltd for Ross Pay
16. MJ444 Being restored for Aero Legends
17. TE566 Being restored by Airframe Assemblies Ltd for Enstone
18. MJ518 Indian Air Force heritage flight
19. Unknown project for unknown owner!!
(https://scontent.fyzd1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/241197351_1823353884517348_8810951541632752790_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=fi_DNacVzX4AX_6H7_c&_nc_ht=scontent.fyzd1-2.fna&oh=65ec3a3d6ef7617c4d7326aa4bb6f8a3&oe=615E7123)
-
A1_Phoenix's "early Hurricane" reminded me that I'd done a back-dated Spitfire.
Oh hell yes, I missed this one.
Another of yours I have to earmark for a possible future project .. I would of course ask permission.
-
Oh hell yes, I missed this one.
Another of yours I have to earmark for a possible future project .. I would of course ask permission.
And I'd forgotten all about it :o I'd love to see what you do with that ur-Spitfire.
So, considered permission given and an ever so teensy amount of pressure turned on ;D
-
On a slight tangent here: Full Scale, Allison-Powered 2004 Spitfire Mk IX For Sale
https://www.ebay.com/itm/324743274698 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/324743274698)
Current bid is $45K USD
(https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/Airframe/Gallery/0/87/0000087590.jpg)
Lets break those piggy banks open and get into some 1:1 modelling.
The Jurca MJ100 has been on my wants list since 2004 and Bob's seems to be a fun weekend fighter, any accuracy issues aside. Originally it was listed at Barnstormers etc for US$975,000...
8. MH367 Airworthy operated by Warbird Adventure Rides Ltd
For those playing at home MH367 is based here in New Zealand and is, I believe, the only two-seater flying in the Southern Hemisphere. My pics for gratuitousness:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51020552233_99c82c373e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJvEDF)01702c1c-f97e-4e6b-9e4d-5876fa3845ad_zpsezqyvi6k_35571349331_o (https://flic.kr/p/2kJvEDF) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51020436868_f66486afbf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJv5mC)d7b7c41d-e050-4667-b45f-29ed0f7445fe_zps4mpoh9ki_35644181806_o (https://flic.kr/p/2kJv5mC) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51020438258_9ee5e4a655_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJv5LA)9a1764f7-1689-471f-84d7-8a78b9e48238_zpst9e135mf_35296327960_o (https://flic.kr/p/2kJv5LA) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51021165561_a0839615db_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJyNYi)fd93accc-0cd5-4d15-a99b-9873d91ea25a_zpsog1bus9c_34843769184_o (https://flic.kr/p/2kJyNYi) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51021266257_ee4e9e5811_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJzjUr)da9bd67e-caa7-4d34-9450-d418adc5bc36_zpsmgo7kahx_35644183186_o (https://flic.kr/p/2kJzjUr) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51021266537_73368a7839_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJzjZg)09016625-f332-4b4f-bb8a-331d312081b7_zpszux7epep_34874411243_o (https://flic.kr/p/2kJzjZg) by Zac Yates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zacyates/), on Flickr
-
Random idea: Spitfire with turbocharging rather than supercharging.
-
Random idea: Spitfire with turbocharging rather than supercharging.
I had a go at an Allison-powered Spitfire with a rear fuselage turbocharger. Jon was less than impressed with my exhaust pipe feed ... to put it mildly ;D
Perhaps if the turbo was placed underneath the engine and back under the leading edge. The shape I have in mind would be something like the Curtiss XP-60 (although I realize, on the Curtiss, that was just the radiators, not a turbo).
-
On that Allison Spit. There seems to be some sort of grill or air duct on top of the cowl even with the wing leading edge. Is this the carburetor intake? It's in about the correct location.
-
For maximum visual effect, maybe something with a very obvious turbocharger such as that shown on the Nakajima Ki-87
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Ki-87-1s.jpg)
or CAC CA-14A:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/q1izMFKxM893Ms0KgHGfTWb2jYWdQ9mBB1RrvjW39-k.jpg?auto=webp&s=ad8bdc015f335a1af381cd5f48dfc9a7ed135743)
Or one could go with more of the P-43 layout:
(https://inchhighguy.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/p43_08.jpg?w=1100)
Or go really radical with something more akin to the FW190 V-18:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R-VaJckAJ98/Wm87ZzxJlsI/AAAAAAAAblk/TkBmBJqEaK8uVtnaJHA0c1krmDUrgYpAgCLcBGAs/s1600/V18real.jpg)
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/v18-jpg.121377/)
-
On that Allison Spit. There seems to be some sort of grill or air duct on top of the cowl even with the wing leading edge. Is this the carburetor intake? It's in about the correct location.
The 'Memory Sieve' has retained zero details on that turbo Spit :P
Although I do vaguely remember pillaging P-38s and B-17s for bits and bobs ...
-
Offset under the engine as on the XP/YP-37 would work as you'd be leaving the radiator(s) under
the wings. Use an 'F' type Allison rather than the 'C' used in the XP/YP-37 and you could probably
tuck the intercooler in behind the engine. You'll also need to add an intercooler cold air intake of
some type; a P-40 carb intake style on top of the cowling perhaps to really mess with the Spitfire
fans or just a simple scoop.
;)
Note that you will need an intercooler not an aftercooler as used on the Merlin.
On the turbo-supercharged Allison, the incoming air is compressed, passed through the
intercooler and then pushed through the carburetor where it is mixed with the fuel and
the mixture then passes through the engine mounted centrifugal supercharger where it
is compressed further and then fed to the cylinders via the intake manifold.
The Merlin is the reverse, the incoming air is pulled through the carburetor, the fuel mixture
is then compressed by the supercharger, passed through the after-cooler and then fed to the
cylinders via the intake manifold.
In short an intercooler cools air only, an after-cooler cools an air-fuel mixture.
-
Indeed:
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/curtiss-xp-37-5-jpg.546393/)
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/curtiss-xp-37-jpg.546311/)
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/curtiss-yp-37_03-png.546313/)
-
Property of Otik Stahl.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDNC7BfWYAMlM8P?format=jpg&name=large)
-
Super start on building them all tail number by tail number.....
-
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202013/SPREPSPITFIRE9C01_zps0cc355f0.jpg&key=e769e8d1578726a5d061cb12e0fee91ec1ba590a23f6d2b1d6a2a05fcef6c617)
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202013/SPREPSPITFIRE9C02_zpse397f94b.jpg&key=c9c9f5f136fed10fdd1e66a5448c4d4d5aa916ed8df8699be17bc732dd58290a)
(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202013/SPREPSPITFIRE9C03_zps0d812d77.jpg&key=d9fdef573ff152823506d331c517f3903364981dac901b4ff6f0cacf9d8a45e8)
-
I stumbled on this site doing research on the MK.XVIII.
I cannot confirm it's accuracy but it does list 39 flying Spits in the UK, 21 in the US, 5 in Australia and 3 in New Zealand.
Condition as stated below
Number listed below
Airworthy 73
Static Display 64
Restoration / Stored 61
Total 198
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires# (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires#)
-
My attempt to hang bombs of one of my Spits -- a bit agricultural I think ---
-
I stumbled on this site doing research on the MK.XVIII.
I cannot confirm it's accuracy but it does list 39 flying Spits in the UK, 21 in the US, 5 in Australia and 3 in New Zealand.
Condition as stated below
Number listed below
Airworthy 73
Static Display 64
Restoration / Stored 61
Total 198
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires# (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires#)
Several Spitfire-related facebook pages have reported that an ex Indian Air Force Mk XVIII has arrived in UK, for restoration to fly. There's a wing and other items from other Spitfires with it.
-
I stumbled on this site doing research on the MK.XVIII.
I cannot confirm it's accuracy but it does list 39 flying Spits in the UK, 21 in the US, 5 in Australia and 3 in New Zealand.
Condition as stated below
Number listed below
Airworthy 73
Static Display 64
Restoration / Stored 61
Total 198
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires# (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires#)
Several Spitfire-related facebook pages have reported that an ex Indian Air Force Mk XVIII has arrived in UK, for restoration to fly. There's a wing and other items from other Spitfires with it.
Correct. Here is is.
Warbird Lovers (Facebook Group)
Exciting news from Sywell today as Air Leasing / Ultimate Warbird Flights took delivery of a very original Spitfire Mk.XVIII which they will be returning to flight. This is Mk.XVIII HS683 (later re-serialised HS674) that served with the Indian Air Force in the late 40s and early 50s, although prior to that she was TZ219 in RAF service.
The ID is this Spitfire is quite a hot topic. Peter Arnold has provided some insight into this:
"I made a detailed study of this Spitfire at Chandigarh in 1991 and was invited to view it at again at Sywell yesterday. The fuselage is formally TZ219 of the RAF and this became HS683 of the IAF. At some time in Indian service it was amalgamated with at least two other Spitfires and re-serialled HS674. From the attached image you can see the HS674 over painted on HS683. HS674 was formally TP397 of the RAF. The starboard wing and some panels are from TP370 that became IS229 of the IAF. So whilst in RAF terms the military serial of a Spitfire always remains with the fuselage, in Indian Air Force terms this is not the case."
Following withdrawal from service, HS674 spent almost sixty years as an instructional airframe at the Punjab Engineering College (later named PEC University of Technology), as such despite having various components / skins removed and not being fully assembled, she has remained in remarkably complete condition. It was not until 2019 that she was finally removed from the college – the last Spitfire in the world still being used as an instructional airframe! She was relocated to the Indian Air Force Museum at Palam and subsequently shipped to the UK.
I look forward to seeing the progress as another example of the mighty Griffon Spitfire is returned to flight and we can enjoy some more fierce elegance!
I’ve seen quite a few comments about the wing. It is possible that in service the wing was replaced, or when looking to acquire a Spitfire for the college the best parts were used to complete HS674 – it's not that unusual or unique to this aircraft, and regardless, this is an incredibly original Spitfire project as opposed to one incorporating significant new build sections – something that is becoming very rare!
Photo shared with permission by Air Leasing.
(Another very exciting ex-Indian Air Force project is also with Air Leasing and it's return to flight is greatly anticipated; Hawker Tempest MW763/HA586 G-TEMT.)
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/268512881_459965762156149_7415224116495494425_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=dTt0wbW8elsAX_-AIlF&_nc_oc=AQkJvvt1-wFVAz3SG_pfzesILSlPDI9L4qqAHDqI5efz_6RhsLiniP-NkNttYuvlusA&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=00_AT9lR_XagRlCdP5LTVESluXNBoi2XQks8qVJDeGU-mcskQ&oe=61C2E011)
-
Two of the five in Australia are owner by 100 SQN RAAF - which took over the Temora Museum aircraft. One flew late Nov at the flying day.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51754716957_55282ee964_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mRosfa)IMG_1524 (https://flic.kr/p/2mRosfa) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), on Flickr
Here are the ground run:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/31337/51756413070_ba9a3264db_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mRx9ru)MVI_1589 (https://flic.kr/p/2mRx9ru) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), on Flickr
And ready to taxy for display
(https://live.staticflickr.com/31337/51756188714_c7a6045f73_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mRvZKh)MVI_1590 (https://flic.kr/p/2mRvZKh) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), on Flickr
-
Two of the five in Australia are owner by 100 SQN RAAF - which took over the Temora Museum aircraft.
Indeed - see here: https://aviationmuseum.com.au/raaf-re-establishes-no-100-squadron/
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/401/Swiss1.jpg)
CFBV
-
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/0246dd0e-5d49-4d08-a8ae-daa09f0b309f/dcof3uy-24ac1daf-dcd1-4c6e-89b3-a438439b67a0.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzAyNDZkZDBlLTVkNDktNGQwOC1hOGFlLWRhYTA5ZjBiMzA5ZlwvZGNvZjN1eS0yNGFjMWRhZi1kY2QxLTRjNmUtODliMy1hNDM4NDM5YjY3YTAuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.jAzomeglyDvlSWxLwAeOlZbuK_erXvFCvYT6x0j8pAo)
-
Oh, Clave, Clave ...
Thou shalt not commit sacrilege (unless it is truly believable) :o
-
I think the air intake should go under the nose in a housing not unlike the extended air intake that Spitfires were fitted with. Bigger intake opening though ;)
-
Turbo looks like it would rip :smiley:
-
My response to turboprop Spitfires ... https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg195226#msg195226
-
My response to turboprop Spitfires ... https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg195226#msg195226
The Spiteful and Seafang fuselages had the cockpit raised a little, which might improve visibility.
-
My response to turboprop Spitfires ... https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg195226#msg195226
The Spiteful and Seafang fuselages had the cockpit raised a little, which might improve visibility.
I've always wondered why Supermarine didn't use the Spiteful fuselage on the Spitfire instead of messing around with the F.23 like they did.
-
I think the Airfix 1:48 Seafire 47comes with some extra wing bits. Does anybody produce a 1:48 Seafang or Spiteful?
-
I think the Airfix 1:48 Seafire 47comes with some extra wing bits. Does anybody produce a 1:48 Seafang or Spiteful?
Trumpeter does, I've got them in my stash (part of the very few 1/48 kits I have)
-
I've always wondered why Supermarine didn't use the Spiteful fuselage on the Spitfire instead of messing around with the F.23 like they did.
Agreed. A Spiteful fuselage with F.22 wings would've got Supermarine to a better place quicker than them faffing about with the 'Vickers Valiant'.
Love your hybrid build! I had an early-war whack at the Spiteful-with-Spitfire-wings concept. And, it turns out, that was almost a decade ago ... :o
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg30920#msg30920
-
My Seafire 45 hybrid is based on a Mk.21 but with the Spiteful tail group.
-
Paul Bonhomme on Flying Spitfire FR XIV:
https://vintageaviationecho.com/spitfire-mkxiv-mv293/
-
January 2023 Update.
The complete list of current two-seat Spitfires.
Airworthy
1. MT818 Airworthy operated by Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
2. MJ627 Airworthy operated by Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
3. MJ772 Airworthy now lives at the Royal Netherlands Historic Flight foundation.
4. ML407 Airworthy operated by Ultimate Warbird Flights
5. PV202 Airworthy operated by Aerial Collective
6. TE308 Airworthy operated by Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
7. PT462 Airworthy operated by Aerial Collective
8. MH367 Airworthy operated by Warbird Adventure Rides
9. SM520 Airworthy operated by Spitfires.com
10. NH341 Airworthy operated by Aero Legends
11. ML295 Airworthy restored at Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar
12. BS410 Owned by Martin Philips. Operated by @Spitfire
Non airworthy
13. EN570 Being restored for Norwegian Flying Aces
14. MJ444 Being restored for Aero Legends
15. BS548 Being restored by Aircraft Restoration Company for Ross Pay.
16. TE566 Being restored by Airframe Assemblies Ltd for Enstone.
17. A T9 being restored for Aerial Collective at ARCo.
There are at least three other aircraft that are proposed but until they get off of the drawing board then I'll leave them off of the public list.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DStzUrrX0AQO_7f?format=jpg&name=large)
-
Different drop tanks - look like US ones.
-
Kind of a retro-idea, Soviet Lend-lease Spitfire re-engined with a suitable Soviet engine that would be better adapted to the Soviet fuels and lubricants.
-
Different drop tanks - look like US ones.
Yes. They are US 75 Gal tanks.
Build, display, take flak from the JMNs. Then their heads will explode when you correct them!
-
Kind of a retro-idea, Soviet Lend-lease Spitfire re-engined with a suitable Soviet engine that would be better adapted to the Soviet fuels and lubricants.
I presume the most likely candidate would be the Klimov M-105.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/F2tOq0qmNXI/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEcCOgCEMoBSFXyq4qpAw4IARUAAIhCGAFwAcABBg==&rs=AOn4CLB007lE25IHVR_6ZK0TtCLKl9lA6Q) (https://youtu.be/F2tOq0qmNXI?si=-7g8BH0haBz9ppa8)
(Image sourece: YouTube > Rex's Hanger > The Twelve-Gun "Twin-Engine Spitfires" (https://youtu.be/F2tOq0qmNXI?si=-7g8BH0haBz9ppa8))
Click on image above or html below to watch video.
YouTube > Rex's Hanger > The Twelve-Gun "Twin-Engine Spitfires" | Supermarine 324, 325, 327 (https://youtu.be/F2tOq0qmNXI?si=-7g8BH0haBz9ppa8)
-
What about a French Spitfire development with a Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine instead of the Merlin? One advantage of this might be that it could be fitted with an engine mounted 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon. Perhaps have it based upon the Mk.1 Spitfire?
-
What about a French Spitfire development with a Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine instead of the Merlin? One advantage of this might be that it could be fitted with an engine mounted 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon. Perhaps have it based upon the Mk.1 Spitfire?
Take the nose from a Dewoitine D.520 (somewhat sleek) or Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 (a bit lumpy).
-
Take the nose from a Dewoitine D.520 ...
Yup ;) -- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg213816#msg213816
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKtI5quXYAAy8bC?format=jpg&name=large)
-
^ I wonder how they ended up using the same name of the design that we usually identify as Spitfire. Type 224 was quite different.
-
Cool document :smiley:
^ I wonder how they ended up using the same name of the design that we usually identify as Spitfire. Type 224 was quite different.
The name suggestion came from the Chairman of Vickers (Aviation) Ltd., Robert McLean. Reportedly, R.J. Mitchell disliked this appellation and it was dropped from use for the Type 225. However, Sir Robert was in a position to reassert his name preference for the Type 300 ... by which time Mitchell was probably too ill to continue his objections.
-
Cool document :smiley:
^ I wonder how they ended up using the same name of the design that we usually identify as Spitfire. Type 224 was quite different.
The name suggestion came from the Chairman of Vickers (Aviation) Ltd., Robert McLean. Reportedly, R.J. Mitchell disliked this appellation and it was dropped from use for the Type 225. However, Sir Robert was in a position to reassert his name preference for the Type 300 ... by which time Mitchell was probably too ill to continue his objections.
Also, as I understand from what I've read, at this time, a name could be proposed, but would not be adopted by the RAF until a production order was placed, or was expected to be placed . . .
Also, I've also read, somewhere, that when the 'real' Spitfire was named, Mitchell's response was 'that's the sort of bl**dy stupid name they would give it', or words to that effect . . .
cheers,
Robin.
-
I'm sure they felt the same about the Fairey "Flycatcher" ... but I'm also sure that it did catch quite a few flies & other insects on its windscreen ;D