**** DONE: Spitfire Mk. I P9306 ZP H of No 74 Squadron Battle of Britain Group Build

[Wayne Little]

Good stuff Glenn!

 

[T Bolt]

Nice work Glenn. Looks like you need a new set of pliers.

Thanks Andy. My grandfathers gas pipe pliers from the time of the 1st World War. Great for opening stuck lids on paint jars!

 

[B-17engineer]

Thats the only things I use giant pliers for

 

[rochie]

very nice Glenn

 

[vikingBerserker]

Nicely done Glenn!

 

[Airframes]

Nice work Glenn. Slight problem though - the Mk1 didn't have the same undercarriage selector on the starboard wall. It had a hand pump lever, and a small 'Up -Down' selector lever. The pilot had to pump the lever back and forward to raise or lower the gear, which is why you may notice, in period film footage, some Spits seeming to rock their wings just after take off - it was the result of the arm movements due to the pumping action !

 

[T Bolt]

Nice work Glenn. Slight problem though - the Mk1 didn't have the same undercarriage selector on the starboard wall. It had a hand pump lever, and a small 'Up -Down' selector lever. The pilot had to pump the lever back and forward to raise or lower the gear, which is why you may notice, in period film footage, some Spits seeming to rock their wings just after take off - it was the result of the arm movements due to the pumping action !

Terry it's too late now, I already closed up the fuselage before I came to work today. Was the hand pump in all Mk.Is?. I read a book on the development of the Spit a few months ago and I remember something written about all the pilots all having skinned knuckles from operating the landing gear pump. "Spitfire knuckles" I think they called it. I don't have the book with me right now but it seemed to be very early on in the spits service life before the war. I know some change was made to alleviate the problem pretty early on. weather this was the installation of the newer style landing gear leaver, or a relocation of the pump handle I don't remember. I'll see if I can find out when I get home tonight.

 

[T Bolt]

Terry the book I have is 'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price. Chapter 4 is about The Mk I in service and he quotes an interview he did with Squadron Leader Henry Cozens of No 19 Squadron which was the first to receive the Spit in 1939. He talks about the landing gear pump and the pilots 'Spitfire Knuckle I mentioned above among other problems such as the starter not turning fast enough, not enough head room, and the Merlin's leaking oil like a sieve. He goes on to say that all these problems were solved with improvements on the production line early on (with the exception of the oil leaks) the solution to the scraped knuckles being "An engine driven hydraulic system to raise and lower the undercarriage"

My spit was delivered to the RAF in Jan 19 1940 and was the 508th spit built so I think its reasonable to assume that it has the hydraulic undercarriage system but if not it may still be possible to do something about it. Like I said I've joined the fuselage halves together , but I haven't installed the seat/ panel/bulkhead assembly yet so it would be possible for me to make changes with some difficultly. From what I can see in the photo if I snip off the existing handle on the landing control and adds add a long silver handle, it should look good enough with what you can see of it.

Well that was rather ling winded! let me know what you think.

Photo from above mentioned book:

 

[Airframes]

Yep, I've got that book too. Can't see the photo at the moment, as the forum is running slow for me. However, the Spit Mk1 retained the pump handle, the first modification being to alter its angle. The electro-hydraulic unit didn't arrive until the MkII, and I think that statement in the book should have read the problem(s) were eventually solved.
It's too big a job to try to correct if the fuselage is joined, as the pump handle was quite long, coming up from the bottom of the cockpit (no floor in a Spit), with a short 'gate' behind it housing the 'Up'Down' lever, which looked a bit like a throttle control. The unit as included in the kit would need to be removed too, as it wasn't there !l
I'll post a pic and drawing tomorrow, but I'd just leave it as is.
Many (possibly all) Spit Mk1s were later retrofitted with the newer control (if they survived long enough) but this was much later, when they had been passed onto OTUs etc.

 

[T Bolt]

Thanks Terry. I might be able to do something to at least superficially represent it. It shouldn't take much, maybe a piece of stretched sprue for the handle with a dab of glue on the end for the nob as nothing low will be very visible from the outside, and at this point I haven't decided weather the canopy will be open or closed. I'll wait to put in the seat and panel assembly until I see your picture to see what I can come up with. In the picture I posted all I can really see is a big handle with a nob on it.

 

[Airframes]

I can see the picture now, and it's the same one I was going to post ! I think I have another somewhere, which, if I find it, I'll post with the drawing.
Personally, unless you can remove the kit part, I'd leave it, as it would be rather tricky to get in to re-paint and then fix the new handle.

 

[T Bolt]

That must be the only surviving picture if a Mk. I cockpit. I found it again in Squadron signals 'Spitfire in action" only there the caption called it a Mk II. I wish I could get a shot of the one hanging in the museum here! As far as the model goes I could pop the kit part off with a tweezer causing minimal damage, but then the hydraulic lines I added would go to nowhere and I glued those on pretty solidly and pulling them off would make a mess of the side wall paint. Right now I think I'll just let it alone.

 

[Wayne Little]

Right now I think I'll just let it alone.

Good decision Glenn....

 

[Airframes]

I agree. Anyway, here's the cockpit drawing, which is actually a MkII, the change coming in the mid or late production run. I think I have some of my own pics of a MkI and MkII with the pump handle somewhere, but they'll be on 35mm transparency.

 

[T Bolt]

That sure shows it clearly Terry. I know that I should just leave it alone but it bothers me now that I know how it's supposed to be. I might just put it aside for a few days and work on the 109s

 

[rochie]

Leave it as it is Glenn, we wont tell anyone - promise !!!!

 

[Airframes]

Yep, don't risk ruining the interior, especially if the canopy is to be in the closed position. Put it this way, as most kit manufacturers base their Spitfire kits on available airframes, normally at least a MkV or MkIX I suspect, and therefore provide the later undercarriage selector (factory standard from MkV), then if they think it's correct the average person would too. I understand your desire for accuracy, but it's not worth the risk - put it down to experience, and the fact that next time around, you'll know !

 

[T Bolt]

I finished assembling the cockpit and decided to make a harness for it before installing it. I also made the retraction cable and this caused me some problem as it kept breaking the harness of the seat every time I bumped it, but I finely got the whole assembly installed in the fuselage.

 

[Crimea_River]

Doin' well Glenn.

 

[B-17engineer]

Very cool Glenn!