2 questions for Spitfire mavins

[fallsbob]

Hi

I've received the Tamiya Mark XVIe kit. I'm more of a jet fan so I don't know alot about Spitfires.

1. Shouldn't all versions have the wheel bulge on the wing? Of the three schemes only the bare metal version is shown as having the bulge, the two 1945 versions don't.

2. The kit includes the pieces to show the elliptical wings instead of the clipped & has the non pointed rudder, can any other versions be built using these? I'm not a fan of the pointed rudder.

Thanks

[Greenshirt]

1. The wheel bulges were post-war modifications. If your subject is during the war, then no bulges.

2a. The XVIe could have either regular or clipped wing tips. Depends on the subject you want to model. Typically seen with clipped wings.

2b. The original (non-pointed) rudder would have been on the earliest versions of the XVIe, but were field replaced because the bubble canopy caused a loss in lateral stability that was improved with the larger rudder. Typically seen with a pointed rudder.

I'm not a builder in the larger scales, but the rudder and wing tips may be common parts to the Mk IX kit. A Mk XVIe is a Mk IXe with a Packard built Merlin.

Regards,

Tim

[fallsbob]

1. The wheel bulges were post-war modifications. If your subject is during the war, then no bulges.

2a. The XVIe could have either regular or clipped wing tips. Depends on the subject you want to model. Typically seen with clipped wings.

2b. The original (non-pointed) rudder would have been on the earliest versions of the XVIe, but were field replaced because the bubble canopy caused a loss in lateral stability that was improved with the larger rudder. Typically seen with a pointed rudder.

I'm not a builder in the larger scales, but the rudder and wing tips may be common parts to the Mk IX kit. A Mk XVIe is a Mk IXe with a Packard built Merlin.

Regards,

Tim

Thanks. Looks like an OOB build of a warbird.

[MattC]

The wheel bulges were post-war modifications. If your subject is during the war, then no bulges.

IIRC The bulges were introduced during the war, as a result of the increase in use of concrete runways. The toe in angle of the u/c caused scrubbing on the concrete and the bulges were required to allow the modified u/c to retract. So the bulges were seen on some wartime aircraft.

I may be wrong, but this is what I have read.

Most post war spits and restoration jobs included the bulges as a retrofit, I assume for the same reason.

Edited March 18, 2011 by MattC

[peebeep]

The original (non-pointed) rudder would have been on the earliest versions of the XVIe, but were field replaced because the bubble canopy caused a loss in lateral stability that was improved with the larger rudder. Typically seen with a pointed rudder.

Er, I don't like to nitpick but that is not actually correct. It is my understanding that the large (pointy) rudder was first used on the Mk XII to provided more rudder authority to deal with the increased power of the Griffon engine. It would also provide a little extra area to compensate for the longer nose. It was adapted for use on VIII's IX's and XVI's, because they too had more power (and increased length) with the Merlin 61 engines. A few early production VIII's had the earlier style rudder, with the IX it is more variable, but I can't recall seeing pictures of XVI's with anything other than pointy rudders, regardless of them being high back or fitted with bubble hoods.

Matt C is essentially correct, as well as the geometry the wheels/tyres were larger.

As ever your best bet is with a photo reference of the machine you wish to depict with your build.

peebeep

Edited March 19, 2011 by peebeep

[Chuck1945]

from MattC

IIRC The bulges were introduced during the war, as a result of the increase in use of concrete runways. The toe in angle of the u/c caused scrubbing on the concrete and the bulges were required to allow the modified u/c to retract. So the bulges were seen on some wartime aircraft.

...

Matt C is essentially correct, as well as the geometry the wheels/tyres were larger.

...

peebeep

According to several postings over on Britmodeller, it was a post war mod. In fact Edgar indicated the mod for the wheel bulge was issued June/July 1945. While it may have been possible an ETO Spitfire had the bulges, they would have been quite rare.

[Greenshirt]

Er, I don't like to nitpick but that is not actually correct. It is my understanding that the large (pointy) rudder was first used on the Mk XII to provided more rudder authority to deal with the increased power of the Griffon engine. It would also provide a little extra area to compensate for the longer nose. It was adapted for use on VIII's IX's and XVI's, because they too had more power (and increased length) with the Merlin 61 engines. A few early production VIII's had the earlier style rudder, with the IX it is more variable, but I can't recall seeing pictures of XVI's with anything other than pointy rudders, regardless of them being high back or fitted with bubble hoods.

Matt C is essentially correct, as well as the geometry the wheels/tyres were larger.

As ever your best bet is with a photo reference of the machine you wish to depict with your build.

peebeep

Your answer is much more accurate. I was trying to say it was possible, but I haven't seen any photos either. My presumption, just that, is on the earliest high back XVI's may have had the original rudder. I should have been more clear.

Tim

[peebeep]

My presumption, just that, is on the earliest high back XVI's may have had the original rudder.

I suspect that when XVI production was commenced that the pointy rudder was standard. I'm hoping Edgar will chip in to correct us on all points!

peebeep

[Edgar]

The "Mk.XII rudder" was introduced onto the production line, for the VII, VIII, IX & XI, from 7-2-44 (that's February in the U.K. calendar, by the way.) The teardrop-shaped bulges were officially introduced (via leaflets) post-war, but I'm trying to find out if any crept in early, somehow, during the 1945 dash across Europe. The trouble with research is that it seems never-ending.

The clipped wings and Mk.XII rudder were mandatory for aircraft carrying bombs and the aft fuel tank; for the same reason 4-spoke wheels and metal elevators were fitted to the XVI, and it didn't have a Sutton harness, but an early manifestation of the so-called "Q" harness, because the fuel tank got in the way.

Edgar

P.S. Even the high-back XVIs should have had the rudder, since the XVI, as a Mark no., didn't exist until August, 1944.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Edgar

[Greenshirt]

The "Mk.XII rudder" was introduced onto the production line, for the VII, VIII, IX & XI, from 7-2-44 (that's February in the U.K. calendar, by the way.) The teardrop-shaped bulges were officially introduced (via leaflets) post-war, but I'm trying to find out if any crept in early, somehow, during the 1945 dash across Europe. The trouble with research is that it seems never-ending.

The clipped wings and Mk.XII rudder were mandatory for aircraft carrying bombs and the aft fuel tank; for the same reason 4-spoke wheels and metal elevators were fitted to the XVI, and it didn't have a Sutton harness, but an early manifestation of the so-called "Q" harness, because the fuel tank got in the way.

Edgar

P.S. Even the high-back XVIs should have had the rudder, since the XVI, as a Mark no., didn't exist until August, 1944.

Thank you Edgar. "Never-ending" research is right. Seems there is always another question where the answer isn't obvious nor simple.

Regards,

Tim

[Greenshirt]

P.S. Even the high-back XVIs should have had the rudder, since the XVI, as a Mark no., didn't exist until August, 1944.

Edgar,

I looked at what little I have on production, what was the serial number that started the low-back XVI? My only production reference, SAM MDF 3, says only Contract B981687/39/C.23© delivered the XVI, all Supermarine built. It started with the 10th order, 1 delivery: MJ556. Subsequent deliveries were:

12th order -- 5 in PV series

13th order -- 24 in RK series

14th order -- 23 in RR series

15th order -- 40 in RW series

16th order -- 73 in SL series; 215 in SM series

17th order -- 4 in TA series; 293 in TB series; 141 in TD series; 179 in TE series

I did not include cancellations and my math may be off as the letters are very small (age related blurriness). There are no dates for either when the order was placed, nor when deliveries commenced/completed.

Regards,

Tim

P.S. production was very interspersed with IX production. Also, what series number began the e vs c wing armament?

Edited March 19, 2011 by Greenshirt

[fallsbob]

Wow. Thanks to everyone. Looks like Spitfire info is as complicated as the Luftwaffe stuff.

[Greenshirt]

Wow. Thanks to everyone. Looks like Spitfire info is as complicated as the Luftwaffe stuff.

My observation is that less data exists for the Luftwaffe because it was destroyed in the last few months of the war. In some respects it makes it less complicated because more conjecture is accepted (to a point) and more reliance on limited photographs. We're getting more sophisticated in our ability to glean knowledge from the available/limited resources, but there is so much more with respect to the Spitfire and other Allied production. Of course, much was destroyed as "no longer useful" not knowing that us modelers would be fascinated by it 70+ years later.

Makes me wonder what mundane work I do today might fascinate someone in 2085.

Regards,

Tim

[Edgar]

Government paperwork, as a matter of course, is preserved at Kew, but has a minimum 25 years "closure time," before you're allowed to read it. I was asked to look for a 1946 Court Martial, and found that it was closed for 75 years, so had to decline; while I want to be alive in 2021, I can't guarantee it. There are files with 150 years closure, but, so far, I've never fallen foul of one.

Private companies tend to be less forthcoming, for instance, the Mosquito Museum only has such a huge number of drawings because a man happened to walk into a derelict building, on Radlett aerodrome, found them, and realised what they were. Supermarine (Vickers) and Westland seem to have passed much to Hendon, but a lot of Castle Bromwich material is missing.

Cut-down (known as R.V. by Supermarine) fuselage Spitfires were built during 1944, but not released to service use until 1945, so working out which they were will be something of a nightmare. They were held in storage, then converted to "E" armamnet, extra fuel, etc., and, even though we know the (planned) M.U., for all of the work, they have a nasty habit of just noting that "** Spitfires converted to ** standard despatched during the month of **," which doesn't help a lot. Conversions were done to an operational need, and the only clue is often the discovery that the airframe spent a week at an unusual facility (e.g. Miles Aircraft); though C to E couldn't be done on-Squadron, "approved" sites, or a travelling working party, could do the work.

Edgar

[Greenshirt]

Wow. I'm lucky enough to be at a forced change in my career. The Navy prefers younger people but thankfully my Country still believes in compensating us post service. We get pretty "clipped, cropped and clapped out" after 30 years. I'm doubly lucky in that I live relatively near (~85 miles) our National Archives. I have no real idea what may be lurking in their files, but I want to look. Learning of some limitation that may exist, realizing our rules of release are different, will help keep my frustration down. It genuinely appears one searches for what is there, gleaning knowledge as one goes; versus looking for "X" and rarely finding it.

Of course, back to Spitfires...why would a nation at war produce a supposedly new design only to hold it back? I can bring forth much conjecture, but it seems odd to build the low-back XVI only to hold them long enough to warrant upgrading their wings to "e" configuration and then issue them months later to operational units. Then again, why ask "why"? It just "is".

Regards,

Tim

[agboak]

I haven't seen anything specifically written on the subject, but this could be because of problems with directional stability due to the reduced rear fuselage area and (possibly) the bulged cowl that appeared about the same time. Hints about this are found in the test pilots' notes in Spitfire The History, but these are something of a jumble. Spitfire handling was beginning to get marginal after so long a development history and much effort had to be put into clearing each new development by detail tweaks. It took the "Spiteful" tail and contraprops to cure the problems.

At this stage, of course, there was no shortage of new Spitfires, and the "low back" wasn't that important a gain.

Edited March 20, 2011 by agboak

[Edgar]

Of course, back to Spitfires...why would a nation at war produce a supposedly new design only to hold it back? I can bring forth much conjecture, but it seems odd to build the low-back XVI only to hold them long enough to warrant upgrading their wings to "e" configuration and then issue them months later to operational units.

There was a lot of antipathy towards the .5", since it was not seen as giving any advantage over the .303" from the rear, and, in a deflection shot, 4 streams of .303" bullets were more likely to disable the enemy pilot than a couple of (slower-firing) .5".

Also, the general ability, of the average pilot, to actually hit the target with the then-standard gunsight was fairly poor in said deflection shot; when the gyro gunsight (the oblong type, with the twin lenses under the reflector glass) became generally available, shooting improved, and the hierarchy relented, finally agreeing to the "E" armament. Apparently, some of the better shots (like Johnson, it's believed) stayed with the older-style of sight, since they found it easier to judge how to "aim-off" with it.

Remember, the low-backs had to have "E" armament, due to the outer compartments being needed for the displaced air and oxygen bottles, officialdom wanted the G.G.S. to ensure the pilots actually hit something, and the G.G.S.'s "black boxes" had to be fitted in place before the fuel tank went in. Add to that the necessary modifications to hang bombs under the wings (which Supermarine didn't incorporate until May, 1944,) stronger (4-spoke) wheels to carry said bombs, metal-covered elevators to lift the extra weight of fuel off the ground, and I sometimes wonder how they managed it all, and, during all this, the Typhoons were already doing the ground-attack tasks, quite ably.

Edgar

[Greenshirt]

Right, I remember reading of the directional stability issue. There was also a balance issue, IIRC; and the larger tail contributed to fixing both issues. It seems reasonable to view production moving forward but fielding held until developmental testing was completed; and of course critical issues resolved.

Tim