Spiteful F.15; has anyone tried to make a contra-prop work

[kitnut617]

Are the diameters of the Airfix and Trumpeter spinner the same?    I'm toying with the idea of putting the newly available Spitfire Mk.22 resin spinner and prop forn Roy on the Spiteful.
Thanks.

No Daryl, the Trumpeter spinner is quite a bit smaller in diameter than the Airfix kit spinner.  The Heritage Aviation spinner that I'm using isn't as big as the Airfix one but still bigger than the Trumpeter one.  I've slipped a sliver of styrene into the fuselage halves joint right up the front.  If you look in the set of photos I posted where the other props are being shown, you can just make out the sliver although the joint is a bit more open because the two halves started coming apart when I took the pic.  I'm also thinking of buying the Barracuda Studios spinner for mine, or rather I'll put that on the Spitfire, and use the Airfix spinner on the Spiteful.

[Daryl J.]

Thanks, it's appreciated.   

[kitnut617]

and in my view it was a converted Mk.XIV fuselage and not a converted bubble top type.  The lower half is Spitfire.  But don't take my word for it, you have the models, check it for yourself.

Right now I'm LMAO, falling over LMAO!!!!!   I've just twigged what the Spiteful fuselage is ---- my thoughts above about it being a converted Mk.XIV is closer to the truth than anything else.  Why ? because the ""whole"" rear fuselage is a Mk.XIV.  The Spiteful fuselage is a Mk.XIV fuselage with a raised cockpit and a new top profile over the engine.  The thought kept bugging me last night so this morning I measured the 3-Views I have of all the Spitfires and Spitefuls, the depth of the fuselage just behind the Spiteful's seat is exactly the same as the depth of the fuselage of the Mk.XIV taken at the same postion.  The statements that the Spiteful has a brand new fuselage has been a smoke-screen since the war .  Help! I just fallen off my chair again ---- so obvious you can't see it ---- Ha Ha Ha Ha ---- sorry I find this so funny ---

[andrewj]

and in my view it was a converted Mk.XIV fuselage and not a converted bubble top type.  The lower half is Spitfire.  But don't take my word for it, you have the models, check it for yourself.

Right now I'm LMAO, falling over LMAO!!!!!   I've just twigged what the Spiteful fuselage is ---- my thoughts above about it being a converted Mk.XIV is closer to the truth than anything else.  Why ? because the ""whole"" rear fuselage is a Mk.XIV.  The Spiteful fuselage is a Mk.XIV fuselage with a raised cockpit and a new top profile over the engine.  The thought kept bugging me last night so this morning I measured the 3-Views I have of all the Spitfires and Spitefuls, the depth of the fuselage just behind the Spiteful's seat is exactly the same as the depth of the fuselage of the Mk.XIV taken at the same postion.  The statements that the Spiteful has a brand new fuselage has been a smoke-screen since the war .  Help! I just fallen off my chair again ---- so obvious you can't see it ---- Ha Ha Ha Ha ---- sorry I find this so funny ---

But surely sir, you jest !
        Even if a draftsman started with a Spitfire fuselage ,by the time you arrive at a Spitfeful so many things will have changed, ie. cockpit ,cowlings, wing pick up points ,internal formers , etc, that apart from a superfical resemblance ,there will be almost no commonality at all.

Andrew

[kitnut617]

But surely sir, you jest !
        Even if a draftsman started with a Spitfire fuselage ,by the time you arrive at a Spitfeful so many things will have changed, ie. cockpit ,cowlings, wing pick up points ,internal formers , etc, that apart from a superfical resemblance ,there will be almost no commonality at all.

Andrew

Andrew, all you have said is 'it had a brand new fuselage'.  What do you have to offer to counter what I have discovered.

But here's something to ponder, the Spiteful looks like it was a radical redesign, but actually it wasn't.  Why do you think the laminar wing was designed in the first place ? hint: it wasn't so Supermarine could design a brand new aircraft --

Talking about the wing, the wing pick-up point is exactly the same and exactly in the same spot as the Mk.XIV Spitfire.  This is because of where the wing spar is located in the wing.  Both the Spitfire and Spiteful had single spar wings, the Spitfires spar is at about 1/4 chord, the Spitefuls on the other hand is somewhere about 1/3 chord.  If you attach the Spiteful wing at the normal Spitfire pick-up point it will appeart that the wing has moved forward because the leading and trailing edges are in a different position.

Have a look at this pic of the two wings here and you can see quite clearly what I have just said.  Also note the points of the little arrows which are pointing to the rear end of the intake fairings, they are both about the same distances 'from the wing pick-up point (should actually be the same) which should tell you something ---




But here's another thought for you to ponder, when I was doing my comparisons I was using the bubble top Spitfires as the base, but when Supermarine started the design of the Spiteful wing, there wasn't any bubble tops being produced.  In fact the Mk.XIV was just coming into mainstream production which is why one was pulled from the line and used to create the first Spiteful prototype.

[Daryl J.]

It was pointed out in the early days of modeling Internet discussion boards that there is more parts commonality between the Porsche 944 and the original Beetle than there is between the Spiteful and the original Spitfire.   But the argument that the Spiteful/Seafang being the 'last Spitfire' is a discussion for historians much more qualified than I.     

[PR19_Kit]

It was pointed out in the early days of modeling Internet discussion boards that there is more parts commonality between the Porsche 944 and the original Beetle than there is between the Spiteful and the original Spitfire.   But the argument that the Spiteful/Seafang being the 'last Spitfire' is a discussion for historians much more qualified than I.     

A 944? That was front engined, water cooled and didn't have swing axle rear suspension. Surely the comparison should have been with the 911?

[jcf]

A few points Robert, if I may:
The Spiteful/Seafang wing is a two-spar design and wing-fold provisions were designed in
form the start;
the Morgan and Shacklady book relates the design history via the various iterations of specification
F.1/43, which originally called for the prototype fuselages to be based upon that of the F Mk VIII,
this was in turn changed to a Mk XIV fuselage for the first prototype, the second was to have the
standard production fuselage;
the Spiteful/Seafang chapter of Supermarine Aircraft since 1914 by Andrews and Morgan
relates that among the requirements of F.1/43 was that "the view over the nose was not to
be less than eight degrees."

Jon

[Daryl J.]

Digressing....yes indeed, the 924/944 series.  Some of the American auto journals gleefully pointed it out.     The 911 took its own course as we all know. 
Thanks, John, for the Spiteful facts. 

[kitnut617]

A few points Robert, if I may:
The Spiteful/Seafang wing is a two-spar design and wing-fold provisions were designed in
form the start;
the Morgan and Shacklady book relates the design history via the various iterations of specification
F.1/43, which originally called for the prototype fuselages to be based upon that of the F Mk VIII,
this was in turn changed to a Mk XIV fuselage for the first prototype, the second was to have the
standard production fuselage;
the Spiteful/Seafang chapter of Supermarine Aircraft since 1914 by Andrews and Morgan
relates that among the requirements of F.1/43 was that "the view over the nose was not to
be less than eight degrees."

Jon

Hi Jon, thanks for that.  Looking at my 3-Views and the model itself, I can now see where the second spar would be, the main spar though is still where I said it is.  There's a couple of photos of Spiteful RB515 in the Alfred Price book, which shows it after it had crashed following a catastrophic engine failure. The engine covers are all off and you can see that the engine mounts are exactly the same as any Griffon engined Spitfire which doesn't allow for any other structural mount under the engine should the Spiteful wing have its front spar installed in front of the wheel bays.  My pic of the two wings still stands as being where the spars are in their respective wings.  Another reason why there wouldn't be any other structural attachment point under the engine is because the engineers were continuously swapping the air intake duct from the standard one to the extended one.  You can see it in photos of one particular Spiteful where in one photo it has the standard air intake, then in another pic, the extended one.

I would be interested in what else the Morgan and Shacklady book says about the 'standard production fuselage' as once again this is all very vague in it's description.  This book is one I don't have in my collection but will soon be.

Robert

[kitnut617]

It was pointed out in the early days of modeling Internet discussion boards that there is more parts commonality between the Porsche 944 and the original Beetle than there is between the Spiteful and the original Spitfire.   But the argument that the Spiteful/Seafang being the 'last Spitfire' is a discussion for historians much more qualified than I.     

In appearance it does look totally different, but all those different parts are all superficial stuff, the non-structural bits like wing root fairings and flares etc. You could put a Spitfire wing on a Spiteful fuselage using the right fairings and flares.  Structurally though, the two aircraft are very similar because where the engine mounts connect to the main bulkhead/firewall and the main spar also connects to this bulkhead, they're in the exact same location on both aircraft.  I've measured them on the 3-Views and they correspond to what's on the models

[andrewj]

Agreed, the new wing was originally to be fitted to the Spitfire not a completely new aircraft ,but this idea soon fell by the wayside. to quote from specification 470 ,issued on 30 november1942
" the new wing was designed to be fitted to the Spitfire 21, it is not possible to make it interchangeable with the existing wing as some modification of the front and rear attachment points is necessary for reasons of balance ".
The inference is that the wing mounting points were difference to those of the standard Spitfire.

[Daryl J.]

This gives some fodder for ideas.   Like hanging a fabric Spiteful wing onto a Spitfire Mk.V.   

Daryl's JMN moment:  I'm rather disappointed with the shape of the new Spiteful kit.   
Thread hijack over, back to regular programming.   

Looking forward to the next installation of this build up.

Cheers, (Pepsi Throwback, chilled to ice cold on a rainy chilly day)
Daryl J.

[kitnut617]

As Jon pointed out to me, there is a second spar so this would have made it difficult.  But the front spar connection would have been adaptable to what was there.  It fitted on the first prototype using a Mk.XIV fuselage with no problem and was successfully flown like that ---

edit
" the new wing was designed to be fitted to the Spitfire 21, it is not possible to make it interchangeable with the existing wing as some modification of the front and rear attachment points is necessary for reasons of balance ".

actually that doesn't make a lot of sense does it considering my above comment ---

What I've read in all that has been published in books so far is that it would have a 'brand new fuselage' or 'standard production fuselage', there are no details given what these would have been like other than what we see in photos.  And in photos it looks pretty much as I've worked out.  No one has come up with anything to actually describe what was done, like all the info you can find out about how Hawker modified a Typhoon into a Tempest for example.

[kitnut617]

Agreed, the new wing was originally to be fitted to the Spitfire not a completely new aircraft ,but this idea soon fell by the wayside. to quote from specification 470 ,issued on 30 november1942
" the new wing was designed to be fitted to the Spitfire 21, it is not possible to make it interchangeable with the existing wing as some modification of the front and rear attachment points is necessary for reasons of balance ".
The inference is that the wing mounting points were difference to those of the standard Spitfire.

I think Andrew that report would be a tad out of date, the first prototype flew in 1944 and the second one in 1945, they must have found away around it.  But are you sure they're actually talking about the Spiteful wing, it would seem to be the 'Tempest' style wing that it is actually referring to.