The later version. As far as I know only DP851 had the high altitude wing, as a lot of combat was at high altitude in 1942. And the 'standard wing' isn't standard, it was extensively redesigned although the span was the same; it was clipped for the later 22s and the 24s, the way it was clipped shows the different structure.
New Hi-Poly Spitfire in the works
- Thread starter lythronax
- Start date
The later version. As far as I know only DP851 had the high altitude wing, as a lot of combat was at high altitude in 1942. And the 'standard wing' isn't standard, it was extensively redesigned although the span was the same; it was clipped for the later 22s and the 24s, the way it was clipped shows the different structure.
The first F 21s were constructed with the extended wingtips, with the service trials being performed with them fitted, but by the time No. 91 received their first examples in January 1945 they had the standard tips. They were fully equipped and operational with F 21s throughout April and May of 1945; I'm not sure what modifications their aircraft had as they appear to have had the earlier unmodified elevator with the full balance horn, going off photos, plus the fact the modifications were not officially enacted until March. Despite the handling problems reported by the evaluators the pilots of No. 91 were delighted with the new marque, which leads me to think the aircraft used in the trials (LA187) was a "dud" with particularly bad handling.
I'm including both extended and standard wing variants for completions sake!
Alfred Price (The Spitfire Story) explains the F.21 problems as being of over-control:–
LA187 was the first production F.21 and its problems were common among the early aircraft, including LA201 which the AFDU tested in November & December 1944: their report was scathing and recommended withdrawing the F.21 from operations. The modifications were incorporated on LA215, the aircraft tested by the AFDU in March 1945: they recommended these modifications be incorporated immediately in all production models, including the squadron equipped with F.21s and the aircraft to be cleared for operational flying.
The best answer to the F.21's handling was the enlarged tail fitted to the F.22 and F.24: it was enormous compared to the Mk.I's. IIRC it was fully twice the width and height of the original, but the rudder hinge line was the same distance from the firewall (frame 5?) as all Spitfires.
gecko
Charter Member
Looking good! (all the pics are showing now)
Hang on, what? A single magneto? It must be a dual magneto (two magnetos sharing a drive and case) since there are still two ignition switches. I can't imagine they would only give it a single source of ignition. I always that the bulge was where they put the Coffman starter.
Hang on, what? A single magneto? It must be a dual magneto (two magnetos sharing a drive and case) since there are still two ignition switches. I can't imagine they would only give it a single source of ignition. I always that the bulge was where they put the Coffman starter.
IIRC the starter is in the same place as in later dual-stage Griffon Spits (lower starboard cowling). I had read that the reason there is no bulge on later Griffon Spits is that the two smaller magnetos could be cleared with a continuous upper surface no problem; though bear in mind I could be completely wrong!
EDIT: You're right! It used one large dual mag.
sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Stunning ! Great to see the wonderful progress ! Thanks
gecko
Charter Member
This is exciting.
I am surprised about the dual mag, since the two magnetos' circuits are not fully independent and share common points points of failure. I know designing redundancy into aircraft has become a lot more intentional since then, but this surprises me for a combat aircraft even at that time. Really interesting.
I am surprised about the dual mag, since the two magnetos' circuits are not fully independent and share common points points of failure. I know designing redundancy into aircraft has become a lot more intentional since then, but this surprises me for a combat aircraft even at that time. Really interesting.
The goal with the Griffon originally was to run as many ancillaries up front near the gearbox as was possible; the Griffon and Merlin are almost exactly the same physical dimensions despite the 10L increase in displacement - thanks to a lot of clever engineering.
A single dual magneto? Errr… The Griffon used a BTH CSH12-12S/4 dual magneto which afaik has each magneto on a separate drive shaft. Rolls-Royce for some reason forgot that precaution with a later engine fitted to the early Westland Wyverns where the two magnetos were on a common drive shaft, so shaft failure knackered both mags.
The Wyvern’s 3500hp Eagle engine is in the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton, fitted to the prototype aircraft on exhibition. It’s a monster.
The Wyvern’s 3500hp Eagle engine is in the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton, fitted to the prototype aircraft on exhibition. It’s a monster.
What's all this then?
The panel lines match up exactly!
If I had known mapping was so simple I'd have attempted it much earlier! This is just a test of course; in the final model the vertices at the top and bottom will be mapped separate so as to remove the distortion - as will it all be of a higher resolution. I am very glad with how the fuselage sides are looking however!
The panel lines match up exactly!
If I had known mapping was so simple I'd have attempted it much earlier! This is just a test of course; in the final model the vertices at the top and bottom will be mapped separate so as to remove the distortion - as will it all be of a higher resolution. I am very glad with how the fuselage sides are looking however!