Spitfire Mk.XIX - Airfix 1/72

[monica]

nice look spit there Francesco., looking good

[Guest]

Rudder and elevator: on

Propeller: on

Landing gear: fixed and on (dry)

Exhaust pipes: on

Smoke: on

[ATTACH]84176.IPB[/ATTACH]


[ATTACH]84177.IPB[/ATTACH]


Thank you mates for your comments,

Francesco

[Guest]

Everyday is looking better Francesco. I like the exhaust pipes colour

Great build: on

[monica]

Everyday is looking better Francesco. I like the exhaust pipes colour Great build: on

as Polux said these exhaust pipes, look great do like the colors, that deep rust ,

[Guest]

Dear mates,

I just received the ziperboost's slipper tank, painted it in medium grey and now is ready for wash.

[ATTACH]84344.IPB[/ATTACH]


Here's how it looks on the model

[ATTACH]84345.IPB[/ATTACH]


I gave the model another layer of gunze clear but surface is still not as smooth as I expected.

Hooks for tank release still to be done. Then I just have to glue the herls and decide if I mount the tank.

Francesco

[Guest]

Looking real good but didn't you say at the start it would be pretty much oob, I can't imagine what you would consider heavily detailed. Really well done and in that scale great eyesight, I could only dream of that.

[Guest]

Very nice Francesco. What are the white inserts in the wheel bays ?

Is this the Spitfire with the twin props ?

Laurie

[monica]

looking good Francesco, do like it ,keep up the good work,

[Guest]

Hello mates,

Thank you very much for your comments.

@Laurie,

The white bits on the bulges (fuel booster pumps) are the draining pipes, did forget to paint them.

The XIX had a single propeller.

Francesco

[flyjoe180]

Looks great Francesco.

Increasing the number of blades on a propeller is one way of improving power absorption through propeller solidity (the solidity of the spinning disc). When you consider that the Griffon 65 as seen in the Spitfire Mk.XIX could put out almost 2,000HP, that is nearly twice what the early war Merlins could produce. That is why you see an increase in blades as the type developed with more powerful engines. Later, contra-rotating propellers did the same thing, but also reduced torque effects as they turned in opposite directions. An interesting fact is that many pilots struggled to control the later aircraft on take off due to the massive torque produced from these enormous engines. More than one experienced Spitfire pilot came to grief because the Griffon actually turned the propeller the opposite direction to the Merlin (anti-clockwise as viewed by the pilot). Wrong pedal and full power = significant loss of ground control.

[Guest]

Every day is looking much better!!

You have nearly finished

[Guest]

Every day is looking much better!! You have nearly finished

Not yet Polux, not yet ...

But now yes, it's done.

The target (clean build) has not been fully achieved but at least it took less than 8 work sessions to complete it and I'm overall satisfied.

Since last time you've seen it I just glued the slipper tank, wheels and antenna, plus one layer of matt clear.

Here are the pictures.

[ATTACH]84537.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84538.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84539.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84540.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84541.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84542.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84543.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84544.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]84545.IPB[/ATTACH]

[Guest]

Great stuff. Love the cockpit especially, in the original set of pics!

[Guest]

Looks great Francesco.Increasing the number of blades on a propeller is one way of improving power absorption through propeller solidity (the solidity of the spinning disc). When you consider that the Griffon 65 as seen in the Spitfire Mk.XIX could put out almost 2,000HP, that is nearly twice what the early war Merlins could produce. That is why you see an increase in blades as the type developed with more powerful engines. Later, contra-rotating propellers did the same thing, but also reduced torque effects as they turned in opposite directions. An interesting fact is that many pilots struggled to control the later aircraft on take off due to the massive torque produced from these enormous engines. More than one experienced Spitfire pilot came to grief because the Griffon actually turned the propeller the opposite direction to the Merlin (anti-clockwise as viewed by the pilot). Wrong pedal and full power = significant loss of ground control.

[Guest]

Looks great Francesco.Increasing the number of blades on a propeller is one way of improving power absorption through propeller solidity (the solidity of the spinning disc). When you consider that the Griffon 65 as seen in the Spitfire Mk.XIX could put out almost 2,000HP, that is nearly twice what the early war Merlins could produce. That is why you see an increase in blades as the type developed with more powerful engines. Later, contra-rotating propellers did the same thing, but also reduced torque effects as they turned in opposite directions. An interesting fact is that many pilots struggled to control the later aircraft on take off due to the massive torque produced from these enormous engines. More than one experienced Spitfire pilot came to grief because the Griffon actually turned the propeller the opposite direction to the Merlin (anti-clockwise as viewed by the pilot). Wrong pedal and full power = significant loss of ground control.

I came across the principle of reverse torque (could that be the correct technical name?) last year in single-engined planes. On a rapid opening of the throttle while taking off, the whole plane (fuselage) could roll violently. This presumably is due to the sudden high torque applied by the engine to the spinner. Because of Newton's third law "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body", the spinner exerts a huge torque on the fuselage in the opposite direction. The pilot must counter this quickly.

But during normal especially high constant speed flight at full throttle, why doesn't the fuselage permanently spin (roll) in the opposite direction to the spinner? Could the answer be that the pilot has to keep the ailerons always adjusted in a position to counteract that roll? If so, the added air drag must slow the plane down considerably.

Added:

Also, I would think that despite counter-rotating props, the torque applied by the engine to the spinner (and the reverse reaction torque by the spinner) would still be there unchanged.