Scale Model Shop

Collapse

Early Mk1 Spitfire canopy question

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Guest

    #1

    Early Mk1 Spitfire canopy question

    Hi all;

    I am doing the old Airfix 1/48 Mk1 Spit, and will being doing it with the Watts 2-blade prop. I have a reference photo that shows a Watts-fitted Spit with the later 'Malcolm' type canopy rather than the flat-topped early one; my question is, if the Malcolm type hood was fitted, did the aircraft also have the armoured windscreen, or the earlier non-armoured (still with the Watts prop). Or did some have both???
  • stona
    SMF Supporters
    • Jul 2008
    • 9889

    #2
    I think it depends very much on the date. I will be able to give a certain answer on Saturday.

    Cheers

    Steve

    Comment

    • Guest

      #3
      Thanks Steve; this is the pic I'm referring to: 2-bladed prop, but blown canopy - I can't see the windscreen![ATTACH]77831.IPB[/ATTACH]

      Comment

      • stona
        SMF Supporters
        • Jul 2008
        • 9889

        #4
        I think that that aircraft is unlikely to have had the external armoured windscreen, but it is very difficult to be sure. The date of it's introduction is not clear. The modification to provide 'defrosting of bullet proof windscreen' was promulgated on 19/10/39 which implies some aircraft may have had the screen then, but it was not implemented until 19/9/40. That's according to information from Edgar Brooks extracted from the Vickers ledgers.

        Operational aircraft seem have been modified before the modification was introduced on the production line. There are pictures of 602 Sqn aircraft complete with external armoured windscreens taken in early 1940.

        I suspect that photograph dates from 1939 as all Spitfires produced post K9960 (first flew 3/5/39) were fitted with three bladed propellers and the fuselage roundel is definitely pre 7/12/39 (AMO A.520/39).

        I think, in the absence of a better image showing the windscreen, that you'll have to take a punt on this one

        Cheers

        Steve

        Comment

        • Dave W
          • Jan 2011
          • 4713

          #5
          When I built this kit I did it as an early 19 Squadron machine serial no.K9795.This aircraft had the Watts two bladed prop and 'flat' canopy, but did not have the armoured windscreen.Hope this is some help.[ATTACH]77967.IPB[/ATTACH]

          Attached Files

          Comment

          • Dave W
            • Jan 2011
            • 4713

            #6
            Have just read your question again and my answer doesn't really help!.Sorry.

            Comment

            • stona
              SMF Supporters
              • Jul 2008
              • 9889

              #7
              Originally posted by \
              Have just read your question again and my answer doesn't really help!.Sorry.
              But it's a good picture of an early Spitfire!

              Cheers

              Steve

              Comment

              • Guest

                #8
                It's one of those minefield questions, I guess! I've gone for flat canopy and un-armoured windscreen. Thanks for your help guys!

                Comment

                • Guest

                  #9
                  The hood wasn't an either/or item; there were (at least) three changes (two pre-war, plus one in 1939,) excluding the addition of the external armour.

                  They all, probably, kept the flat sides, or the break-out panel wouldn't have fitted, but, as early as 22-9-38, there was a modification "Increasing headroom in pilot's hood," followed, three months later, by "Incorporating pilot's domed hood," then, at some time in 1939, "Pilot's new hood introduction."

                  The red/blue roundel predates March 1940, and the "PN" code reportedly predates September 1939.

                  Bob Stanford Tuck said that he didn't get an armoured windscreen until Dunkirk, and it saved his life the same day.

                  Edgar

                  Comment

                  Working...