Thank you for this Chris. It is similar to the one that Peter Green drew for Scale Aircraft modelling and although I’ve seen few photos I’m not happy with the flat deck behind the gun ring also the fin has some of the usual errors.
Cheers
John
Chris
Is this a official drawing or is it from the Peter Green plans in a model magazine. If it’s an official Canadian source I’d be most interested.
John
The Bristol Jupiter shaft is 3.543″ dia which could be common to other Bristol engines and the Napier Lion shaft is given as 2.953″ (75 mm) on what little info I have. It’s looking to be off a Bristol donkey.
John
Bristol Jupiter’s such as the VIII had a boss that could take a max 7.75″ thick prop and a bolt PCD of around 9″. I’m sure that someone can come up with the PCD’s for the Peggy and Mercury. The Gladiator prop had a boss built up of wooden fillets and Plywood skirt onto the base prop.
John
The pitch spacing of the holes appears different on Wyvern fans boss and appears to me to be 10 holes where as the Lion would be 8 holes. Bristol engines used 10 holes and the prop on a Pegasus 1.M3 is approx 11″ wide by 11″ deep.
John
PM sent
Cheers
John
Thank you. I enjoyed your story very much. A look back to an air force that was fast disappearing when I joined in 1960.
John
Thanks Dave.
John
Jagan
Yes I’m happy for the latter posts to be combined.
The wing stagger changes (from 16″ to 20″) were due to the need to compensate for the extra weight of the geared Jupiters (VIII, IX). The main wing struts remained the same but new centre cabane struts of different lengths were introduced as were new shorter front radius struts for the undercarriage which raked the main wheels a further 3 inches forwards (13″ instead of 10″ at full oleo extension). The combined stagger and u/c changes restored the aerodynamic balance and ground handling of the aeroplane.
The wings were, the original DH.9a Wooden wing, the Steel built replacement and finally a Dural wing. The Steel wing is the most common IMO. I think the Dural wing is sometimes referred to as the ‘B’ wing.
There were supposedly only 10 Mk II Wapitis built but the AP suggests that the RAF (in my 1929 issue) identified all Jupiter VI aeroplanes as Mk II’s and all the geared Jupiter aeroplanes as Mk II.A’s. which makes sense as the rigging wires all changed. All the wires for the Mk II with the exception of the centre section wires were labelled DH 9.A. Many RAF Home based Auxiliary Sqn’s flew the Jupiter VI which are often labelled MK II.A by authors.
Cheers
John
Ps I’d love to see the Wapiti in India but my long range expeditions these days are limited to New Zealand where my son and his family live.
Jagan
Thank you for getting back to me. I’m at the moment I’m working on a new set of scale drawings for the Wapiti and Wallace. The Wallace was my initial interest as the only drawings published are very poor and then noticing that the Wapiti drawings had some indifferent shaped fins and rudders when compared on a light board I set to analyzing them using everything I could find.
I have pretty much all the reference stuff on the Wapiti including the AP (and your own book) and over time I’ve been able to measure up the Wallace through the good offices of the RAFM.
I’ve used the Wallace as my basis as many Wallace’s were rebuilt Wapitis and had virtually the same structure as the Wapiti up to frame 10 and utilizing the same wings, struts and empenage as the all metal Mk IIa (Jupiter VI) version including the 16 inch wing stagger. (Mk IIa Jupiter VIII aircraft had a 20″ stagger plus a more raked u/c). The ‘missing two foot’ by the way is the distance between the fin and tail plane leading edge fittings at frame 10 on the Wapiti and those of the Wallace at the new frame 11 and not in overall length between the two aircraft.
One problem with the Air Publication handbook, is that many of the frame illustrations are not those of production Wapitis but the Martlesham prototype.
All of the model purpose Wapiti drawings are wrong as not only are the fin/rudders misshapen but the rudder chord is some 4.5″ too short and the fuselages are drawn too long. The metal built empenage’s of the Wallace are the same as those of the Wapiti IIa. The fin and rudder did not change from the revised prototype Wapiti. The Wallace introduced trim tabs. The metal elevators have a greater chord than the DH 9a wooden ones of the early Wapitis.
There are also three sets of wings on production Wapitis and the tip curves radii stay the same which is another model drawing inaccuracy.
The Wallace drawings are hopeless as the most glaring error is that the canopies are in the wrong place and over wide among other things.
It’s been an interesting voyage.
Regards
John
Thank you Jagan, I was just about to do the same but you have kindly done so. My connection apart from a tenuous family one is that I identified most of the aircraft subjects for Liz. I too would like to see the book on my shelves.
Its not in the usual run of War memoirs but that of man who found himself in North East India (initially) a backwater of the war on a repair and servicing route station. Cpl Walker had a passion for photography and recorded the aircraft passing through and the many journeys he made through an India he grew to love. His war finished in Burma with 31 Sqn during the final bloody days of that campaign.
By the way I’ve been conducting a lot of research on the Wapiti and Wallace and I’m firmly of the opinion that the Wapiti V’s in the batch J9708 to J9759 and those from J9725 annotated as Mk V’s were simply all short fuselage IIa’s which had been differently equipped as Army Cooperation machines (hence the Mk number change).
The only long fuselage so called Mk.V was the makers own aircraft G-AAWA which had been used for development trials including that of the message hook fit which was later given the serial J9728 when it was handed over to the RAF engine testing establishments fitted with the Bristol Draco.
IMO it has been wrongly called the prototype MkV because it introduced and tested the Army Co-op equipment on the Wapiti. The only series production long fuselage Wapiti variant was the Wallace.
John
Just to bring this thread up to date re Jagan’s inquiry about the length of the Wapiti V. I’ve been carrying out further research and I can say that the standard Wapiti V in RAF and IAF service did not have the lengthened fuselage of the Wallace and they were 32′ 6″ long the same as the IIa’s. The Wallace was 34′ 2″ long
I have had the opportunity to measure up the Wallace in the RAF Museum collection and I am currently doing a comparison of the Wallace and Wapiti structures.
John
The best coverage of this aircraft is probably in the 1970’s German language magazine LuftFahrt International, numbers 19 and 20. This covers many external and interior and construction photos as well as drawings for the crane and catapult of the ships installations. Mostly covered in Duggy’s post
John
I hope that the “just another Spitfire” really isn’t the case, because a similar thing happened to a well known British plastic model company a few years ago, when it changed over to yet another owner and had a lady CEO appointed. When looking to save money she questioned why did they have to have three Messerschmidt’s in the range until someone pointed out, one was the most famous German WW.2 fighter, the second was the first combat Jet fighter and the third was an equally famous twin engined WW.2 fighter. I believe the reply was “does it really matter”.
John
I’m a little unhappy to see this particular airframe depart our shores. For years it was on a pole on the parade ground at RAF Cosford until the authorities were alerted to the fact that it was a rare surviving FR.14e Spitfire. It was restored and after Cosford it went up to Manchester for many years until it went to Hendon. There it would seem that someone has decided that it’s just another Spitfire and loaned it abroad. This was the aeroplane I was able to measure, when I was researching the Griffon Spitfire broad chord rudders for modelling purposes and later involving much discussion with the late Edgar Brooks. In my opinion this is one Spitfire because of it’s rarity which should be displayed here.
John