New Spitfire conversion

[jknaus]

A gentleman on Facebook has been working on creating a new conversion to change the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire Mk XVI to a Griffon engined Spitfire Mk XIVe. It will be printed in 3D and should be available soon. It looks like he will follow with a low backed version on the Mk XIV and is also working on a conversion for a Mustang B/C. I am hoping to get a copy as soon as it is available The name of the company will be Laminar Flow Design and the website is currently being created at https://laminarflowdesign.com

James

 

[moon puppy]

Those are some great looking parts. For those of us who are google impaired what is the Griffon powered Spitfire?

 

[jknaus]

Those are some great looking parts. For those of us who are google impaired what is the Griffon powered Spitfire?

From Wikipedia"
The Rolls-Royce Griffon engine was designed in answer to Royal Navy specifications for an engine capable of generating good power at low altitudes. Concepts for adapting the Spitfire to take the new engine had begun as far back as October 1939; Joseph Smith felt that "The good big 'un will eventually beat the good little 'un." and Ernest Hives of Rolls-Royce thought that the Griffon would be "a second power string for the Spitfire".[1] The first of the Griffon-engined Spitfires flew on 27 November 1941.

Although the Griffon-engined Spitfires were never produced in the large numbers of the Merlin-engined variants they were an important part of the Spitfire family, and in their later versions kept the Spitfire at the forefront of piston-engined fighter development. "

 

[moon puppy]

So the Griffon is larger than the Merlin?

 

[Sharkmouth]

Spitfire looks nice but the fuselage of the earlier Mustangs was deeper. Will need to check on that and ensure I have condiments if I need to eat my words.

 

[moon puppy]

Answering my own question, the Griffon was much larger, 37 liter vers 27 liter for the Merlin.

 

[Heavens Eagle]

I really love this stuff. Thanks for the heads up and photos James!

 

[paddy]

The RAF memorial flight had 3 Griffins PR XIX spitfires but sold one to Rolls Royce. they were the last Spitfires in the RAF and were used as weather check aircraft for temperature and humidity. they were retired in the mid to late 50's
Bigger faster and sleeker than the early Spitfires, so much so that the memorial flights Mk II is known as the "baby" Spit because of its size

The MkII with a Merlin had about 1100 HP
The Mk XIX with a Griffin had over 2000HP

 

[Sharkmouth]

Spitfire looks nice but the fuselage of the earlier Mustangs was deeper. Will need to check on that and ensure I have condiments if I need to eat my words.

Well, it didn't take long for me to realize the deeper fuselage affected the P-40 variants and not the Mustangs therefore:

 

[centaur567]

Wow!! Gary S

 

[jeaton01]

Saul, the Merlin did require a deepening of the Mustang fuselage. That's why Allison powered Mustangs used the top surface of the wing as a cockpit floor and the Merlin powered variants had a flat plywood floor with peek holes for the fuel gauges. The difference is about 4 inches vertical height. The P-40 F/L was the same as the E and later, as the difference in the P-40 came about due to the higher thrust line of the V-1710F and later Allisons because they had a spur gear prop reduction which placed the prop shaft well above the crankshaft, while earlier V-1710's had planetary or epicyclic gear reduction, which kept the prop shaft in line with the crankshaft. Only the lower cowl on the Merlin P-40's was different, not the fuselage. I have read that some Merlin P-40's were actually converted to Allison power in the field due to shortages of the Merlin.

 

[Sharkmouth]

Saul, the Merlin did require a deepening of the Mustang fuselage.

Too late, words have been eaten! Thanks @jeaton01, I should trust my instinct.

 

[Greg Kimsey]

Those are some great looking parts! I figured 3D printing models was right around the corner. I wonder what was the need to enclose the parts in a resin cage. Seems like a waste of resin! That stuff is not cheap, nor is a printer that will create that quality.

 

[jknaus]

Sorry for not getting back to this.

Those are some great looking parts! I figured 3D printing models was right around the corner. I wonder what was the need to enclose the parts in a resin cage. Seems like a waste of resin! That stuff is not cheap, nor is a printer that will create that quality.

I've seen that in a number of 3D models. Its for protection of the parts so they dont get marred or knocked off their supports. Looks like it makes it much easier to box up the cubes as well rather than trying to wrap the parts in bubble wrap or something else that may be bulky and less secure. I wonder if they use it as an indicator of a failed print if it didnt print properly?
James

 

[Greg Kimsey]

That makes sense. Better to secure the part for shipping rather than it arriving broken and have to make it twice.