Crimea_River
Marshal
I think I still have it. Will scan and send tomorrow if that's OK.
**** DONE: 1/48 Spitfire Mk.IXb - Aircraft Nose Art GB.
- Thread starter fubar57
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
fubar57
General
That's great Andy, thank you. Right, some photos. A bit of weathering tomorrow. Did some interweb searching on the seat and it seems brown leather is the way to go.
Geo
Geo
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
- Thread starter
- #24
fubar57
General
Thanks Terry. Quick question to you or Andy. Is the firewall necessary to the build? I'm thinking it probably adds rigidity to the multi-piece front end, but as one cause to the wing/fuselage fit issue, is it really needed?
Geo
Geo
Crimea_River
Marshal
Yes, I recommend you put it in as the nose area is pretty flimsy without it. But before gluing it in, make sure you do a dry fit of the fuselage halves and the underside cowl to make sure everything will fit. You might find that the firewall needs a bit of trimming, though I don't recall having to do that. If you don't install the engine, you'll need to rig some kind of a frame to support the exhaust stacks.
Sent you a PM Geo. Need your e-mail address after all.
Sent you a PM Geo. Need your e-mail address after all.
- Thread starter
- #26
fubar57
General
Many thanks Andy, Email sent. I was going to use photo-etch belts, but since I opted to close the canopy, I'll just make some tape ones. Dang close-up shots. Dang wing inserts, about 10 passes on each side with a sanding stick. Dang one pass too many on the bottom side.
Geo
Geo
Last edited:
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
looks pretty dang good!
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
I agree about the firewall - it's needed to provide rigidity and aid in alignment. For the exhausts, I cemented strips of plastic along the inside of the cowling aperture, onto which the exhausts fitted. For the wing BFM bulges, a piece of plastic card or strip, inside the hatch opening, supports the hatch cover, and allows it to be cemented flush, by gently pressing from either the inside or outside, whichever is required, in order to get it to align evenly.
Catch22
Major
I thought this was going to be a slow start Geo? Nice work!
nice work Geo 
Vic Balshaw
Major General
Go George, with Terry behind you, you can't go wrong.
- Thread starter
- #32
fubar57
General
Thanks for looking in. Since I purchased a scribing template, I thought I'd better use it. Gotta remove the yellow and add the red. The odd shape in the red square is a landing light and now having read a couple of articles, I'm not sure it was fitted after Mk.V's. I await opions......
Geo
Geo
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
George, if you mean remove the cannon stub in the yellow square - DON'T !
This should remain, as part of the 'C' wing, and should have the domed cap on it, supplied in the kit. (The later 'E' wing had the cannon here, with the inboard 'stub' housing a .50 cal mg.)
As far as I know without checking the references I still can't get to at the moment, the circular inspection hatches below this and to the right should remain too (red and yellow squares). Not sure what that is you've marked in the yellow rectangle below this, as it's not showing very well on my monitor.
The red rectangle outboard of the wheel well is roughly where the MkV retractable landing lamp was, on both wings, and you're correct, the MkIX didn't have them.
The slot in line with the inboard cannon needs to be opened up, as this was the ejector (on the 'C') for the empty 20mm cases, and the larger blister should be moved behind this. The engraving for the outboard slot needs to be filled in. (The wing lower surface has been moulded to represent the 'E' wing.)
This should remain, as part of the 'C' wing, and should have the domed cap on it, supplied in the kit. (The later 'E' wing had the cannon here, with the inboard 'stub' housing a .50 cal mg.)
As far as I know without checking the references I still can't get to at the moment, the circular inspection hatches below this and to the right should remain too (red and yellow squares). Not sure what that is you've marked in the yellow rectangle below this, as it's not showing very well on my monitor.
The red rectangle outboard of the wheel well is roughly where the MkV retractable landing lamp was, on both wings, and you're correct, the MkIX didn't have them.
The slot in line with the inboard cannon needs to be opened up, as this was the ejector (on the 'C') for the empty 20mm cases, and the larger blister should be moved behind this. The engraving for the outboard slot needs to be filled in. (The wing lower surface has been moulded to represent the 'E' wing.)
Last edited:
Crimea_River
Marshal
Geo, your kit, like every ICM Spit I did, has a pronounced sink mark on the wing just inboard of, and parallel to, the aileron. You can see it in your second pic in your post 26. A little putty and this is easily fixed. Recommend you do that before you paint.
BTW, I did not get your e-mail. Maybe you should PM me your address.
Terry, there are references indicated that Cameron's IX, rightly or wrongly, did not have the outer cannon stub. Here`s a painting of the aircraft from Bracken`s Spitfire II - The Canadians, though the pictures I have are inconclusive:
Also, if it helps, here's a scale drawing of the underside of the c-wing:
BTW, I did not get your e-mail. Maybe you should PM me your address.
Terry, there are references indicated that Cameron's IX, rightly or wrongly, did not have the outer cannon stub. Here`s a painting of the aircraft from Bracken`s Spitfire II - The Canadians, though the pictures I have are inconclusive:
Also, if it helps, here's a scale drawing of the underside of the c-wing:
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #36
fubar57
General
Thanks Terry and Andy. Might it be that this aircraft had a C wing and the stub was removed and faired over as shown in the above drawing?
Geo
Geo
Crimea_River
Marshal
That's the theory. Your decal sheet uses Bracken's book as a reference and has therefore left the outer port off me thinks. I'm seeing if there are other pics around with this kind of an arrangement and will let you know if I come across something.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Good info, but a bit out of the ordinary. I'm not doubting the sources, especially as I haven't seen the photos, but if possible, check further.
The reason being, both the cannon mount, and the 'stub', were actually fairly substantial structures, being heavy 'tubes' mounted through the wing leading edge, back to, and through the main spar, into which the weapons could be mounted. Bear in mind that the 'C' wing was designed to have two cannons per side, as originally fitted to the MkVc, but the outer mount was left 'empty' on the MkIXc. These 'tubes' ended roughly six inches or so in front of the wing leading edge, where they were then threaded or flanged to accept either the tapered 'sleeve' for a cannon, or, when not used, the domed blanking cap.
It is of course possible that the unit made a 'local', field modification, removing the outboard 'tubes', presumably to save weight and reduce perceived drag, to gain an extra mph or two, but it's also possible that this might be a result of faulty photo interpretation.
The reason being, both the cannon mount, and the 'stub', were actually fairly substantial structures, being heavy 'tubes' mounted through the wing leading edge, back to, and through the main spar, into which the weapons could be mounted. Bear in mind that the 'C' wing was designed to have two cannons per side, as originally fitted to the MkVc, but the outer mount was left 'empty' on the MkIXc. These 'tubes' ended roughly six inches or so in front of the wing leading edge, where they were then threaded or flanged to accept either the tapered 'sleeve' for a cannon, or, when not used, the domed blanking cap.
It is of course possible that the unit made a 'local', field modification, removing the outboard 'tubes', presumably to save weight and reduce perceived drag, to gain an extra mph or two, but it's also possible that this might be a result of faulty photo interpretation.
Crimea_River
Marshal
I agree with you Terry, seems an odd and unlikely field mod. Perhaps 402 sqdn had a penchant for weight saving field mods. Keltie's AE-B (Johnnie Johnson's future mount) had the outer MG's removed.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Great work and teamwork here lads!
