nice one Geo, have built the Itelaleri FR IX, it is just the normal MkIX with a decal for the camera port !
**** DONE: 1/48 Spitfire FR.lX - Jet/Recon/Transport GB
- Thread starter fubar57
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Crimea_River
Marshal
Not sure if the below pic of another FR IX with 414 Squadron will resolve the debate between Terry and Darryl buy I'll offer it up anyway. Source: "Spitfire II - The Canadians" by Robert Bracken. Unfortunately the post of the partly open canopy obscures what could be either a sight or camera control but my money is on a reflector sight being present.....
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Yep, you can see the difference in tone, of the rectangle of the reflector glass, central in the gap between the canopy and windscreen frames. Note also that this pic, and the side-on shot of 'D' in the PDF I posted, show a camera port on both sides of the fuselage, unlike the 'pink' Spit FRIXs.
- Thread starter
- #24
fubar57
General
Yep, yep. I also noticed that and the camera port on the starboard side......sigh. Couldn't they make one port and just turn the aircraft around to take the photo? A DECAL, Karl? Oh well, just another hole to make. Started painting and a bit of scratch building. The seat lever isn't a hundred percent as most of it will be hidden, just some rod and a mount. One of the photos I found on the net showed the seat with dark staining or wear. A little over done I fear. The un-painted part of the I.P. was left just in case that is where the camera controller went. I drilled a hole to accept some wiring.And, of course,the inevitable touch-ups.
More questions. The controller I've posted on page one. Would it still be relevant even if it were mounted elsewhere? To me it looks like it controls only one camera. Regarding the camera openings. Looking at the photo Andy posted, it appears to be about 8"-10". Anyone know the correct dimension? Thengkew in advance.
Geo
More questions. The controller I've posted on page one. Would it still be relevant even if it were mounted elsewhere? To me it looks like it controls only one camera. Regarding the camera openings. Looking at the photo Andy posted, it appears to be about 8"-10". Anyone know the correct dimension? Thengkew in advance.
Geo
Last edited:
Crimea_River
Marshal
Well Geo, I'm no expert here but I'll post another reference from Bracken's book, a painting of another sister machine to yours. Note the teardrop shaped flange around the camera window. This is also evident in the picture above. I'm not sure how this works with the hatch but I will say that 8x10 seems small. I have a scale drawing of a PRXIV and the hatch scales to 16 inches square - about the same as in your line profile in your first post. Note that your line drawing does not have the teardrop flange on it but the painting profile does.
Last edited:
Tony Hill
Tech Sergeant
No debate Andy...just my defective memory. That's what happens when you answer off the top of your head!! The difference in gunsight arrangement was between the Type VII and PR XIII, not FR IX. The IX most definitely had the reflector gunsight and the single camera.
Interesting that "D" has a double sided. camera port though!!!
The placement of the Type 35 is problematic for the FR IX. I've seen mention of high port as well...but there isn't really room there if a radio is fitted. There is a standard fit on the starboard (above sutton release lever) for the "G" and my bet is that this is where most (but possibly not all??) of the FR IX's had theirs.
But to make things interesting, the Gun Camera footage counter attaches to the same sort of grooved "slot attachment" plate as the Type 35...and THAT IS high on the port side. So if I was a betting man, I would say it was possible that the ones converted "in the field" to FR IX could have the Camera Controller high and port (a MOST inconvenient position...I tested mine there for about 15 seconds!) and the factory converted aircraft possibly had the controller high to starboard, which is inconvenient too but at least you don't destroy your knuckles on it each time you move the throttle....
Apologies Terry, getting old and absent minded...
D
Interesting that "D" has a double sided. camera port though!!!
The placement of the Type 35 is problematic for the FR IX. I've seen mention of high port as well...but there isn't really room there if a radio is fitted. There is a standard fit on the starboard (above sutton release lever) for the "G" and my bet is that this is where most (but possibly not all??) of the FR IX's had theirs.
But to make things interesting, the Gun Camera footage counter attaches to the same sort of grooved "slot attachment" plate as the Type 35...and THAT IS high on the port side. So if I was a betting man, I would say it was possible that the ones converted "in the field" to FR IX could have the Camera Controller high and port (a MOST inconvenient position...I tested mine there for about 15 seconds!) and the factory converted aircraft possibly had the controller high to starboard, which is inconvenient too but at least you don't destroy your knuckles on it each time you move the throttle....
Apologies Terry, getting old and absent minded...
D
Tony Hill
Tech Sergeant
Nice update!! I like the panel.
Yes the controller is still the same..there was a separate camera selector box in multi camera aircraft and the type 35 controlled whichever camera was "selected" on that other box. (except some early aircraft in 1940 and shortly after )which had two Type 35's, one for each camera.
I can get the rest of your info during the week,
D
Yes the controller is still the same..there was a separate camera selector box in multi camera aircraft and the type 35 controlled whichever camera was "selected" on that other box. (except some early aircraft in 1940 and shortly after )which had two Type 35's, one for each camera.
I can get the rest of your info during the week,
D
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
fubar57
General
Sorry Andy, I was thinking about how big to make the clear part. And Darryl, I am really really hoping that you are thinking that "D" may be an anomaly and that mine only has an opening on the port side. Would I be correct in thinking that the controller would be mounted somewhere in the area I've circled in the photo below and would the controller be similar to the one posted on the first page? A large thank you for your assistance gentlemen.
Geo
EDIT: Sorry about the cross post, Darryl, and again, thank you.
Geo
EDIT: Sorry about the cross post, Darryl, and again, thank you.
Last edited:
Crimea_River
Marshal
Looking closer at the picture I posted, it also reveals a possible variation in the gray camouflage. If you look at the camo on top of the main wings and tail planes, I'd suggest that this gray could be the lighter gray variation applied to some of the earlier MK IX's rather than the standard Ocean Gray. However, if you look at the gray near the roundel, it seems darker. If it was the same gray as the wings, then I would expect the very top of the fuselage receiving the full sunlight to have the same gray tone as that on the wings. It seems to me that when the invasion markings were overpainted, the painters might have used Ocean Gray. It's quite evident that the over-painting of the stripes on this machine was rather crudely done.
EDIT: More crossed posts! Can't help with the controller Geo, sorry.
EDIT: More crossed posts! Can't help with the controller Geo, sorry.
Last edited:
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
No problem Darryl, and good info.
Re the mounting of the controller Darryl - if you remember some of the photos I sent you some years back, scanned from 'Spitfire in Blue', there was an external shot of the port side of the cockpit and wing root, which showed the rivet or bolt heads, on the outer skin, which held the controller in place. This should indicate its position in the cockpit. From what I remember, it may have been closer to the entry hatch, and not where I previously described, above the throttle, which, I'm sure would not only be extremely awkward, but would almost certainly interfere with the operation of the the throttle.
I'm a bit 'woozy' with yet another bl**dy cold at the moment, but, if I can find the strength to lift books of the bottom shelf (!), I'll have a look through my PR Spit references, as I'm fairly sure there's a factory drawing or two, showing the mounting positions for various type/Marks.
Re the mounting of the controller Darryl - if you remember some of the photos I sent you some years back, scanned from 'Spitfire in Blue', there was an external shot of the port side of the cockpit and wing root, which showed the rivet or bolt heads, on the outer skin, which held the controller in place. This should indicate its position in the cockpit. From what I remember, it may have been closer to the entry hatch, and not where I previously described, above the throttle, which, I'm sure would not only be extremely awkward, but would almost certainly interfere with the operation of the the throttle.
I'm a bit 'woozy' with yet another bl**dy cold at the moment, but, if I can find the strength to lift books of the bottom shelf (!), I'll have a look through my PR Spit references, as I'm fairly sure there's a factory drawing or two, showing the mounting positions for various type/Marks.
Some great info going on!
- Thread starter
- #32
fubar57
General
Finished touching up and added the seat lever.
And now, some more aid is needed. I did a small mod to the twin bottles that are attached to the left fuselage and will build the small one that is attached to the right side. I know there has been discussion about the colors of these bottles but danged if I can find the thread. It seems that more than one spitfire has been built here in the past. If I recall, the two bottles were silverish and the smaller bottle was black.
Thanks in advance for the help.
Geo
And now, some more aid is needed. I did a small mod to the twin bottles that are attached to the left fuselage and will build the small one that is attached to the right side. I know there has been discussion about the colors of these bottles but danged if I can find the thread. It seems that more than one spitfire has been built here in the past. If I recall, the two bottles were silverish and the smaller bottle was black.
Thanks in advance for the help.
Geo
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Nice work so far Geo, and yes, that's the correct colours for the bottles.
- Thread starter
- #35
fubar57
General
Thanks Jerry and thanks again for the info Terry. Off to do some paintin'
Geo
Geo
Crimea_River
Marshal
Good work Geo.
- Thread starter
- #37
fubar57
General
Thanks Andy. Last question before bed, or before breakfast, as the case may be. Was all the tubing and wiring sprayed cockpit colors during war-time or were they similar to what is shown from museum picture I find on the net. It seems that no two pictures are exactly the same. Thanks in advance and goodnight, or good morning etc.
Geo
Geo
T Bolt
Colonel
Nice work George. I always painted the plumbing on my Spits copper (or used copper wires and didn't paint them). Not totally sure it's correct though. Terry would know for sure.
Vic Balshaw
Major General
Not sure about the wiring Geo, but have to say you're making some good progress.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Most colour photos showing the wiring are reasonably accurate, apart from where it's obvious, in restorations, where modern components have been used, more prevalent in airworthy examples.
The plumbing leading from the undercarriage control was a copper colour, and most other wiring, in WW2, would have been either black, brown or a dull brownish red. Any lightish coloured wiring seen in B&W photos, was likely to be either some shade of grey, or a sandy brown colour.
The plumbing leading from the undercarriage control was a copper colour, and most other wiring, in WW2, would have been either black, brown or a dull brownish red. Any lightish coloured wiring seen in B&W photos, was likely to be either some shade of grey, or a sandy brown colour.
