Make that one more.

Just paint the bloody thing..

Correction it is British Cockpit Interior Green..Yee gods it,s started… :diablo:

The yellow primer is covered with a layer of interior green now 🙂

Hope it’s the right shade… there’s “Interior Green Police” out there somewhere 😀

Lol

😀 😉 Cheers mate.

So what would the other frame 11 be called now??

On a T.9, Frame 13A (where the ‘other’ person sits)!

Ahhh rgr that forgot about the redefinition of the interior frames…We are still coming to grips with the what pressing drawings to use to make a MkV.So what would the other frame 11 be called now??(Yeah ,yeah I know..Frame 11)

Nice metalwork MkV..Frame 11 always looks impressive on it,s own..With the paint job,is that to make sure the American AAA gunners “not fire at it” or the opposite??

LOL! It is, strictly speaking, Frame 10A (still the pilots seat mounting frame but 13.5 inches further forward). The yellow primer is covered with a layer of interior green now 🙂

Nice metalwork MkV..Frame 11 always looks impressive on it,s own..With the paint job,is that to make sure the American AAA gunners “not fire at it” or the opposite??

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

The more I look at it, the more I like ‘367’s paint scheme…..

Melton/Grace mod.

The fuselage tracks and the canopy rails locally of the Melton/Grace rear canopy mod are as the Vickers type 502/509 two place conversion. The front and rear hoops are unique as is the blown canopy that superficially mirrors the front canopy style. The fuselage of course tapers to the rear but the tracks obviously have to run parallel, resulting in those slight protrusions to the rear of the tracks.

Mark

Would the rear canopy not be slightly narrower towards the rear, due to the shape of the fuselage? :confused:

I am not sure that the rear hood is significantly different but they were ‘tailored’ to fit at DMA.

Yes but the ‘purists’ would say that the front cockpit should stay in it’s original position if done in this scheme.

Length and colour Policeman, Mark?

And the ‘Dick Melton’ type rear hood is actually a different shape to the front ‘standard’ job despite looking similar; while the Russian job was (presumably) a duplicate forced to fit.

MarkV, was the DM Aviation version shorter or longer than the normal Spitfire canopy? I forget, it was 15 years ago I drew ML407… I also presume it’s narrower.

Nice to see such an eyecatching ‘different’ scheme.

I wonder how long it’ll be before some doofus asks him why the ‘P-40’ isn’t painted in Flying Tiger colo[u]rs.

A Spitfire built for two is always going to be popular…

I suppose the only “authentic” schemes for two seat Spits with two standard canopies joined by a clear section would be Soviet red stars as per Spit IX UTIs

Yes but the ‘purists’ would say that the front cockpit should stay in it’s original position if done in this scheme.

Good One!!

Yes, it represents Mk Vb, ER570, flown by Major Robert Levine in Tunisia, June 1943.

There’s a number of photos of the real thing in the book on American Spitfires (by P. Ludwig/M. Laird) published by Ventura some years ago.

Yes, it represents Mk Vb, ER570, flown by Major Robert Levine in Tunisia, June 1943.

This one:

She sure was a long build.

Started in 1990, they all get there in the end. Here is a shot of some of the bits I made back then.

Lovely!

It’s a genuine scheme, but that of a single seater.

Yes, it represents Mk Vb, ER570, flown by Major Robert Levine in Tunisia, June 1943.

Was this the fuselage that was at Dick Melton’s when he was still at Roundwood?

Yep – that’s the one Melv.