MHall

My Feedback: (7)

Taildraggerdave,
Have you tried flying straight and level than roll inverted and watched the planes reaction? The one we watched flew nice and level once trimmed then was rolled inverted and started climbing for the moon with no inputs. It should have started a slow drop of the nose, but it climbed at about an 45 degree angle. Not good! Also on landing, it tired to three point land. Warbirds should land on the mains and slowly scrub speed than drop the tail, not this one! At least that's the way we land them. (no flaps)
Anyways, Good luck and happy flying.

taildraggerdave

My Feedback: (1)

I'll give the inverted a try, and post the results next Monday.
I had 3 landings on the mains with a fairly long rollout before the
tail settled.(makes sense with all the down elevator that I had dialed into the plane)
I emailed Airborne and they're are going to recheck the CG figures with the factory. They said they flew their test plane with this CG. They suggested I fly a vertical upline and see which way
the plane pulls...
After you moved the CG forward on your plane, how did it do inverted? Also, do you have a more exact figure of where you wound up on the CG?

MHall

My Feedback: (7)

The Spit flew as it should. Rolled inverted and the plane started a mild nose down drop. As for the new CG, I will have to wait till I see him at the field and ask. I don't know. I do know that we moved the battery pack from one bay behind the wing saddle to the spot at the rear third of the wing in the wing saddle area up against the servo tray.

Good Luck

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

Here it is guys, a link to the full scale MKIVe that the world models is based on. Blue and white stripes all the way down to the weird upper wing roundels.

http://jessiandmatt.homestead.com/fi...e/spitfire.jpg

Belongs to (belonged ) Bob Pond at planes of fame east.
Just shows how much you need to build some wing fairings for it though, it should not be too difficult. Sorry to debunk all the other theories as informed as they sounded .
Good Luck
Paul

capn crunch

Hey Richard:

I have one of the Spits due here late january. Am doing the review for RCM... all these hints are real helpful... We hope to first flite it at Shelton airport in February...

tiggerinmk

Further looking at the site revealed a smaller photo with the following caption:

Mr. Pond's Supermarine Spitfire took to the air again after a 1-1/2 year wait on the ground. The lucky pilot was Mike DeMarino. The Museum's spitfire is actually a composite spitfire with the wings from RM694 (a spitfire with a V-1 kill) and the fuselage of NH904.


Dragoonpvw, I'd be interested in how you know exactly which mark this is (especially considering the above), I emailed the site you linked to asking for more info... If I get a reply I'll post the info here....

Has anyone got information for specific Spitfire serial numbers?

Incedentely, the red, white & blue roundels aren't that unusual, have have several Spitfire pictures with this type. It may just be the standard markings used either late or post WWII.

capn crunch

tiggerin va....
Question: The elliptical design of the wing... was that for the retracts, or to get four rifle calaibre guns in the wing? Or was it to accomodatae fuel storage? (The Spit never had enough. I have oddles of documentary, but it seems that you are very up on this...

tiggerinmk

OK, another look at the photo and a bit of research gives the following:

The photo says F.R 14 the letter after could be either a 'c' or an 'e', it is not clear. It should be an 'e' I think, see below.

Assuming the designation on the photo is more or less correct, then the Spitfire is an FR XIV, which was based on the Mk XIVE with the following changes:

F24 oblique camera and extra fuel tank in the rear fuselage
Clipped wings from the Mk XII as it was used at low altitude
The first Spitfire with the teardrp shaped cockpit.

Early Mk XIV Spitfires were fitted with 'c' wings then later fitted with 'e' wings. Hence the designation MkXIVC or MkXIVE. The standard MkXIV's had conventional 'bubble' cockpits and full length wings.

I have several pictures of FR MkXIV's they all have an obvious window just to the rear of the cockpit for the camera. The plane in the picture doesn't, unless it is (pretty well) covered up.

While browsing some pictures I found one of a Mk21. This has the red, white and blue roudel on the top of the wing and is from No 600 squadron (County of London).

This still leaves those weird blue stripes......

tiggerinmk

Capn,

Don't mean to give the impression of being a 'know-it-all', I only have two books on spitfires:

Spitfire in action - This is just a 60 page 'booklet' This is just one in a series of book that covers many aircraft. I got mine at the Smithsonian in DC. but I've seen them in hobby shops.

Spitfire flying Legend - This is a Barnes & Noble book, lots of nice pictures. They were selling it off at half price so you might not be able to get it now...

All of the info I've typed here has been from these two books.

As for the wing design, I have no notes about the design of the Spitfire; the books deal mainly with the specification of the different variants. I doubt that it had anything to do with the amount of internal accommodation it gave, probably more to do with aerodynamics. Mitchell based the design on his high performance racing seaplanes.

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

Ok folks,
I started off just trying to give you guys some idea of the model you had. It seems we are getting a little more involved, so to clear things up and especially for Tigger, here it is.
Tigger wrote "Dragoonpvw, I'd be interested in how you know exactly which mark this is (especially considering the above), "
Actually if you reread my first post I said "I guess" as I was only going on some considerable past experience with the Spitfire and the look of the model. I knew that the markings were a Far East type so I did a search for a MKXIV SEAC Spitfire and it led me to the picture I linked you guys to and that clinched the deal. It does actually say that it is a FR MKXIV c but I only wrote that it was a MKXIV as I knew from past research that (read your post of specs on the FR model) that the FRMKIV had clipped wings and this plane obviously does not. How do I know that the mark is definitely a MKXIV, the production serial NH904 tells me that. The version is a little less obvious due to the trials of renovation afflicting many warbirds still flying.
For anyone still interested I will follow this post shortly with a short synopsis of the life of the plane and its markings which have nothing at all to do with a MKXIV.
Good Luck
Paul

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

For you guys who just want the meat. The markings are of a F.24 of 80 Squadron RAF in Hong Kong Late forties early fifties.
Please note the the Squadron number is W2 and not WZ as some sites say. That would lead you to 19 squadron who did not serve in the FE. The plane in the link is a MKXIV and is in those colors for decoration only.
I am going to make an assumption now based on the wing shape on the World Models Spitfire, it is completely wrong for a Spitfire 24 but it is similar to the MKXIV. That is the only thing that led me to believe that the plane was a MKXIV in the first place, due to the innaccuracies of the model but the accuracy of the markings I am sure you can either take the plane to be a MKXIV ( the plane that is still flying marked in F.24 colours) in which case it is quite a good rendition or a MKXXIV which is the original plane that the flying model represents but then you would have to admit a bad wingform.
As I have made the assumption that it is the model in the picture I will give a little more info.
NH904 was ordered as a MKVIII in DEC '42 and built as one of 191 MKXIVs between Nov 44 and June 45. I have it showing as a F.XIV and not FR.XIV. but as it was given to 414 squadron RCAAF which was a fighter recon unit I will assume that it was actually an FR but will not guarantee it as some units had straight fighters too. The FR( fighter reconnaisance) versions were now clipped wing as we were in the ground attack stage of the war and low level tactical reconnaisance versions were the norm. It flew only once operationally on April 13 with 414 and then service with 610 Squadron too until May '49. Sold to Belgian AF as SG108. Returned to a scrap dealer and then bought for the Battle of Britain movie stock. Fuse good but wings scrapped.
RM694 was ordered April 43 and built as F.XIV between April'44 and May '45 . It claimed a V-1 kill with 91 Squadron (RAF) and later flew with 402 Squadron (RCAF).
In 1966, RM694's wings and NH904's fuselage were mated. RM694s fuse is still in storage as far as I know in High Wycombe probably meaning it was of poorer condition than NH904 in '66 when flight worthiness was of more import than historical completeness. Renovated by Pete Rogers and John Fox '79-'81 for Spencer Flack, painted red and became G-FIRE.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/spitfir...ory-nh904.html

Later sold to Bob Pond of planes of Fame in markings of an 80 squadron RAF F.24.

http://www.kai.ru/kai/aero.www/www.w.../Spitfire.html

That is why I know the picture I linked to is a MKXIV and probably an FR clipped E wing originally, I could not see a clear pic of the front of the fitted wing but I read somewhere that RM944 was a c wing. That is the Universal wing probably set up with 2 cannon and 4 mg. The E wing is 2 cannon and 2 .50 mg.
Do that last bit of research and you will find out what kind of plane it is.

The only way we will know what exactly world models meant the plane to be is ask them, I think that I have given a pretty good idea whatever transcends.
Good Luck
Paul

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

The eliptical wing, Capn you are right . The eliptical wing was Mitchells solution for providing a thin and efficient wing section yet provide a sufficiently wide cord necessary to house the guns and outward retracting undercarriage. The design of the floatplanes had no direct bearing on the Spitfire design except for the experience they gave the team in the considerations of airplane design. The type 300 (Spitfire prototype) was more closely related to the type 224 fighter which was an inverted gull low wing monoplane with fixed gear and huge "trousers".

QUOTE "Mitchell had designed the S.S, S.6 and S.6B seaplanes that had won the final three Schneider Trophy races, bringing the trophy to Britain for keeps. This experience helped, but the real keys to the success of his new fighter lay in different directions.

First was his choice of powerplant. The Rolls-Royce P.V. I 2, later named Merlin, prompted him to design the smallest airframe that could be accommodated around it. More important, perhaps, was his choice of wing aerofoil section, the NACA 2200. Wind-tunnel tests as early as 1927 had shown him that this section, coupled with an elliptical plan-form, would give the low drag characteristics necessary for a world-beating fighter design."

Tigger, if you are interested in the Spit I can recommend a couple of books to add to the two you have. One is by Morgan and Shacklady , SPITFIRE :THE HISTORY (that is the absolute definitive Spitfire book) and SPITFIRE by Stewart Wilson. Both invaluable books. There is also a a good group at Yahoo Groups called Supermarine Spitfire.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supermarine-Spitfire

Good Luck
Paul

tiggerinmk

Thanks Paul for the extensive research, I'm sure it'll be more than adequate for most people's needs.

From your information I found the picture below, a colleague here seems to think that it has an 'e' type wing. I may be able to confirm this later when I get to look at my diagrams.

From my point of view, as the aircraft is semi-scale anyway with 'the world models' stamped all over it, it might be worthwhile recovering it as G-FIRE........

One last question: were the two books you mentioned your primary source of reference? If so, they will definitely be worth getting...

taildraggerdave

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks to everyone for all the input. This thread really took off.
I have 11 flights on the plane now. It is holding together well.
I fly it 3 times a day at the field and pull it down when I get home.
So far so good. I have not yet moved the CG from the factory number. Flying it the way it is for now. It gets a lot of looks at the field, which is cool. A friend shot it with a radar gun and I got 116mph out of it- staight and level, wind calm. Pretty fast for me.
It's the fastest plane in my fleet Regarding Tiggerinva's reply, I didn't put any of the "World Models" stickers on the plane-none of the stickers are installed. Only the camo comes from the factory.

Paradiddle

My Feedback: (3)

There was a great program about the Spit last night on Modern Marvels on the History Channel. Talked about the design, it's construction, interviews with test pilots, etc.

Jeff

Cscape

Hi All

Your all right about the WM Spit, it is of the later models of Spit with modifications tested on the Hawker Tempest. The Thunder Bolt and the P51D also had their canopys moded in this way. I acualy think this model is quite good for a ARF Spit as most are pritty poor and it's nice to see a later model reprosented. As for the colour, well I'm not sure about the blue strips, Living in Southampton (the home of the Spitfire) I have seen most types anc colours, but never this one. I will be getting one of these shortly, but might cover the strips. Note this model should not have invation stripes on it BTW, it is a post war spit, so dont fall into that trap.

P.S. Any of you guyes hered that WM are working on a Hurricane, I hve herd this but not seen anything.

ShempHoward

My Feedback: (3)

The local boss from Airborne - Models in Livermore, Calif told me well over 2 years ago they were working on a Spitfire. I would not hold my breathe too long waiting for a Hurricane.

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

Cscape said
>As for the colour, well I'm not sure about the blue strips, Living in Southampton (the home of the Spitfire) I have seen most types anc colours, but never this one. I will be getting one of these shortly, but might cover the strips. Note this model should not have invation stripes on it BTW, it is a post war spit, so dont fall into that trap. <

"As for the colour, well I'm not sure about the blue strips"The colors are fairly close, why it is so hard to see the colors of an actual photograph is beyond me. I posted enough links for someone as poorly sighted as me to realise the origin of the markings. I am sure that everyone is grateful for you insightful warning on how not to fall into the "invation" stripe trap. It is a post war Spit you say, well thank you for pointing that out. The fact that I had already posted quite clearly that the colour scheme is of a mk24 spit based in Hong Kong circa 1950, I believe that was after the war wasn't it. Then again right around the Korean War perhaps. THE STRIPES ARE HONG KONG SQUADRON MARKINGS AND SO ARE THE NATIONAL INSIGNIA WHICH ARE UNUSUAL TO YOU BUT NOT TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF BRITISH WAR PLANE MARKINGS.
Lastly I must commend you on your remarkable memory, I say this as you must be well into your seventies as you use your living in Southampton as validation of your having seen most types and colours of Spitfires. As the first production models hit the air in 1938, thats 66 years ago, giving that you were at least 8 years old to even remember these planes that puts you at about 74. Well done old fella, also many kudos to your eyesight too, must have been quite the hawkeye to see from Southampton to Castle Bromwich in Birmingham where a huge portion of Spitfires were built including the largest order of military planes ever made by the British government.
Sorry Cscape but I do not always suffer fools gladly, many posts in this thread were made by people with a lesser experience in the field but I was happy to join with them and show some real history of the type. Most were happy to learn and also add to the knowlege. You on the other hand seem to have read the thread and completely overlooked every piece of simple evidence and been unable to comprehend one part of the data. I can accept even that but to be unable to look at pretty pictures and match the original to the model is just too much. Even my two year old can pick up pairs.Then to top it off you actually had the temerity to try to sound knowlegeable about it. Hawker Tempest by bum, the Typhoon mark 1B had a bubble canopy in production while the Tempest was still the Typhoon 2.
I give up, I have never flamed anyone in 10 years on the net and you finally broke me. If you do not know what you are talking about and think you do fine, it is a common complaint of newsgroups etc. but to ignore or misunderstand a whole thread and then wrongly summarise it is the limit.
Good Luck all
Paul