The Spitfire Blues (Mk XIX)

[inkworm]

One for the weekend, still a fair way to go with this one and if anyone has a good detailed shot of the lower tail it would be handy. And the blisters for the undercarriage. The rivets are there, just not showing up when the whole lot is flattened which is odd.

But more a concern that the over all shape is right

[inkworm]

Well if no one cares about it it must be right

Anyway more details and a top view

[x4btr]

Greetings IW,

Well... I can see you might think 'who am I to comment on a Spit?', but... To my eye, the shapes just do not look right. From either view, top or port.

I am struggling to put it into words. From port, perhaps the fuselage looks flat, or squashed somehow. The fin shapes seems not be to be correct to my eye, as well.

From the upper view I am certain that the fuselage is by far too 'slab sided' (if one may say that). The Spit's fuselage is a quite complex shape with much more taper than this. And the wings... are they too narrow (not enough span)?

I realise that this machine is a Griffon aircraft and based on the later fuselage (Mk.XIV, etc), but have a look at the photos here of P.T.'s Spit Mk.XI:

Hangar 11 Spitfire - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

I know this machine rather well, having spent many hours scraping, cleaning and prepping the surface! Glamorous job... not. Sorry I could not be more specific; I'll try think more on this....

[Jesters-Ink]

We all care Inky, its just a question of what we know.
I was asked to do the old PRXIX a while back and even with a load of photographs I was handed, I still couldn't nail it to my satisfaction.

The one thing that does stand out to me is I think the prop/engine had a downward droop, (something to do with torque)? Its only off the top of my head, but you might want to check it out.

To me your drawing looks fine, but its been 4 or more years since I last looked at the 19.

[inkworm]

I've had a look at some other photos and doing a bit of a hack job on the fuselage spine which does seem a bit out, annoyingly I don't have any really good photos of the tail end of the XIX.

And X4btr, I don't wonder who you are as I know there are a lot of people out there who know a lot more about this than me, the whole subject is a complete minefield, a bit like tackling a BF-109 when Otterkins is here, just wish you'd told me sooner.

Was the prepping not a glamorous job or my artwork? If the prepping, well rest assured that we do appreciate the efforts, if the latter, well I just need to do more homework.

On the plus side I've got 24 hours to sort it all.

[x4btr]

Was the prepping not a glamorous job or my artwork?

Oh, scraping PL965! There is nowt wrong with your artwork, mate...

Now, have a look at this photo montage.

I know these are not the correct mark of Spit, and there is some perspective going on, but I reckon that the rear fuselage is similar (enough). I think you will agree that the fuselage is very heavily tapered back to the fin. To my eye, I reckon the drawing's fuselage should be a bit thinner amidships, and tapered more towards the tail. I am sure the cowling is not thinner than these earlier versions (likely fatter, no?)

Any road, that is what I see. I could be utterly wrong, of course... see what your eye tells you.

[Supah]

And X4btr, I don't wonder who you are as I know there are a lot of people out there who know a lot more about this than me, the whole subject is a complete minefield, a bit like tackling a BF-109 when Otterkins is here, just

Just do modern planes mate, I'm the worst you will have to deal with

[JMSmith]

earwiggo earwiggo,

better late than never yes i know PS890 is a contra prop job

[JMSmith]

and more

[JMSmith]

second one is almost perfect for profiling

consider yourself Dragonised