Basilisk

Boy what have I done Let me say that we are all individuals and are entitled to our opinions and what I presented here is just how I see it. But I enjoyed reading all your comments. The colour pictures in the comparison are all taken by myself and NOT dragged of the web And red arrows do help in pointing to issues. Thanks Ray to point this out - it helps looking more closely through the instructions. But I am not sure if using PE is the best way to go. At least Eduard gives us a choice as rescribing these lines is not a big deal. So how would you point out discrepancies? Scale drawings open another can of worms, Manufacturer drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale (if they still exist). So aren't pictures the next best thing? I spent some time this afternoon with Photoshop trying to show more clearly how I see the issue. Here the Eduard fuselage over a period picture of a Mk.I And here over a picture of a Mk.IX The Eduard shape is a very close match to the Mk.IX contour but doesn't match the Mk.I shape well which is straight. This is a minor detail but I still feel a hallmark of the Mk.IX Spitfire shouldn't be on the Mk.I Better get back building the kit as it IS a great kit. Cheers, Peter

Correct, and yes it can be taken from the Airfix kit or the new tool Tamiya kit, but as Eduard has several BOB decal options, it is an omission and should be there considering all the other option they provide. Here are some clearer pictures. It is maybe not as bad as on the Tamiya kit, but it is not as it should be. Maybe a small issue for most, but it bugs me seeing a Mk.IX stile nose shape on the Mk.I. Fortunately it shouldn't be too difficult to correct. Another comparison of the Mk.I from the Imperial War Museum London with a Mk.IX nose contour from the Technical Museum in Prague. Don't get me wrong, I like the kit a lot and it is the new standard for an early Spitfire - and where is the fun in building models if there is nothing to correct Cheers, Peter

In this post linked previously, gingerbob had this to say in regards to the early hand pumped hydraulic undercarriage selector: While my original interpretation was NOT that the hand pump was replaced around April '40, the fact that the manual was not updated until then implies (to me) that it wouldn't have been much before that. (That would put the serial somewhere, very roughly, around P9440 (or, about 600 Spits built), but don't put any faith in that estimate.) In regards to the fuselage without the fuel tank armor, Eduard's representation lacks the additional panel lines near the front of the cockpit. An easy fix, but when already making a separate fuselage it is a bit of an oversight. And the upper nose contour just doesn't looks right to me as it has a bit of a Mk.IX look to it with the hump after the fuel tank armor. This is a picture of the Tamiya kit, but the Eduard offerings looks very similar. Compare this to this picture from the Spitfire Mk.I at Hendon. More information on this topic HERE and HERE. Cheers, Peter

I had a closer look and compared the kit with the Tamiya and Airfix offering. Scale wise there is basically no difference between the three in length and wing span and the nose shape looks much better than the Tamiya version. Looks to me this kit is the new leader of early version Spitfires in 1/48 scale as it offers lots of alternative parts to build all the Mk.Is It is also the first kit containing the metal seat and it can be built with and without leather covering on the seat back. But It is surprising that with all the alternative parts on offer the kit only comes with the early hand pumped hydraulic undercarriage selector and not the later automated version which would have been fitted to most BoB Spitfires. Like with most kit, construction starts with the cockpit and the Eduard cockpit is a beauty containing lots of delicate parts. I don't like "tub" stile cockpit constructions so I assemble the parts the conventional way which in my view makes adding scratch parts and painting much easier. The kit comes with the head armor as a PE part or cast with frame. Unfortunately the PE part is next to useless as it has no holes to attach to the frame and is paper thin. So I decided to use the PE part as a template and make my own from 0.2mm plasticard. The instructions are a bit confusing and contain some errors. Here is the selection of the rear frame options. Choices are no head armor (R23) casted head armor (R24) or PE head armor (R26) and it is all a bit confusing when it comes to fitting the voltage regulator. Also the wheel well assembly has some mistakes. Parts R18 and R19 are shown upside down in the instruction and they also have to be swapped as Part R19 is fitted on the right side and not the left as shown (it has a small cutout for the oil radiator casting which is slightly recessed). I know this is nit picking but shouldn't happen. Still a bit more work on the cockpit assembly to be done. Cheers, Peter

I will certainly use chipping fluid again in the future as it can be very effective. Finished the painting and detailing of the cockpit. And a test assembly. The IP is from Yahu and the rest is mostly from the kit. But I decided to not use all the PE parts and go with the plastic version as it gives more of a 3D effect. Also built the HWG harness which is a bit fiddly in 1/48 scale. But I found keeping the PE parts on the fret when attaching the harness keeps the assembly more manageable. And here the finished harness compared to the Eduard PE version from the kit. Of interest is also the scale length of the Harness compared to the PE version. The HGW harness still needs some filters to make them look "used". The next step is to get it all together. Cheers, Peter

Nice progress Pat and a great cockpit you made. Your painting steps look like a lot of extra work. What is the reason you don't paint the whole upper surfaces brown first and then add the green camouflage? Why didn't you use metal tubes on the rear of the radiator like you did on the intake side? Just looks a bit too clunky. I used Albion tubes on my build as they stay straight. Cheers, Peter

Thanks Mark for this great info and I did find your mentioned post on Britmodeller which makes interesting reading. Also many thanks to point out the smaller Q which is indeed noticeable smaller than the Squadron code! As I won't use the decals for this build as I prefer to paint the markings with masks (as I did on my 75th anniversary BOB build) I hope I have no problem to represent the correctly sized Q Looks much better than decals I think. That is if I actually manage to finish the build and my track record is miserable in this regards Cheers, Peter

You are a interfering busybody - Just kidding For whatever reason, I had the end of November in my mind, so you are correct in pointing out that this aircraft is just outside the BOB period Unfortunately most BOB Spitfire have not very interesting marking options compared to Spitfire prior the BOB and even after. But not all is lost as I found something a bit unusual on the excellent fündecals on early Spitfires. So I now build R6623 from 64 Squadron flown by Flight Sergeant Jack Mann, RAF Kenley 12 of August 1940 This is what fündecals has to say about this aircraft: "R6623 has absolutely the most bizarre fuselage roundels and fin flashes we have seen yet! Both are painted in multiples of 4 1/2'' The center spot is 9" and the rest of the rings are 4 1/2'' widths. giving an overall diameter of 36". The fin flash is also 4 1/2'' stripes. We have never seen this on any other Spitfire. but it was simple to verify using known dimensions from the photos on the following pages. We're not 100% certain. but we believe this is Flight Seargent Jack Mann. He flew R6623 on 12 August when he shot down a Bf 109E and again the 14th when he damaged another. We are at a complete loss to explain SH-Q's odd roundel and fin flash colors. We admit to having missed that detail when we did the art - the odd proportions attracted our attention. But they are clearly a lighter color of blue than the companion aircraft in the background. This was the 712th Spitfire built, delivered on 22 May 1940. She is very much a standard looking aircraft with the exception of the rear view mirror as noted above. Her lower surfaces were painted Sky. most likely obliterating all stencil data. This aircraft survived the Battle of Britain to eventually become an advanced trainer. and was lost in a mid-air collision in 1944." To me it looks the person who repainted the markings on this Spitfire repainted previously Hurricanes using paint used on Gloster build Hurricanes! Cheers, Peter

Indeed, and I guess more of the Eduard kit build will show up in this GB. I did notice that Eduard only has the hand pumped hydraulic undercarriage selector in the kit when preparing the parts and I too intend to use the spare from the Tamiya kit. Also the rivets on the wing leading panels can do with some filler as on the real Spitfire. I wouldn't be surprised I come across some other issues during the build. Cheers, Peter

Unfortunately there isn't a perfect 1/72 Typhoon kit and the Academy kit has lots of issues. I have a comparison build on the Airfix and Brengun kit HERE As mentioned in my build, here is the list of the kits shortcomings. Brengun: - No Fishplates - Radiator Air Filter location looking odd - Cockpit vents on the large side - Representation of engine panel fasteners too large - Many panel lines need to be re-scribed - No navigation lights Airfix: - Wings too thin - Fit not the best - Cockpit vents too small - Representation of engine panel fasteners at wrong places and too many. - No landing and navigation lights - Radiator opening too small The biggest issue for me is the thin wing on the Airfix kit which looks more like a Tempest wing and is nearly impossible to correct. This makes the Brengun kit more accurate but but is a more difficult build. Cheers, Peter

Yes this is the rear main spar on your picture and the front spar is indeed in the same relative location as you can see here. This is how I added the two spares to my build of the RS Model build. Cheers, Peter

When opening my Eduard Spitfire Mk.I kit which I received today, I just have to get it built and there is no better place than doing it in this GB But I will build it as a Mk.IIa as the blunt spinner and Rotol propeller are in the kit and I only have to make the small bulge for the Coffman starter. Now there aren't too many pictures of Mk.IIs during the Battle of Britain. But one scheme I always wanted to do is the mount flown by Flight Lieutenant Charles Green, Commanding Officer 421 Flight out of RAF Hawkinge, Kent during November 1940. I will NOT build this Spitfire as it was pointed out, November 1940 is after the BOB. See post seven for more information on the Aircraft I build instead. 421 Flight was formed for the purpose of tracking and reporting on incoming raids approaching the UK. The Flight's aircraft retained the LZ code of 66 Squadron from whom it was formed, but added an additional small dash between the two letters, hence the reference to this aircraft as L-Z-I. Having originally served as part of dive testing at RAE Farnborough and then as L-Z-I as represented here, P7531 was passed to 91 Squadron in January 1941 when 421 Flight was expanded to become a full Squadron. Unfortunately only a rather poor picture exists of P7531. And the cover of the Eduard kit. I intend to build the kit OOB with resin exhausts and wheels and a fabric harness and maybe a Yahu IP. Cheers, Peter

Nice tidy work Pat. Thick trailing edges are unfortunately a "hallmark" of most new tool Airfix kits. A scraper definitely works better for larger areas than a scalpel, but you have to burnish an edge to the scraper with a burnisher (or you can use a screwdriver shaft) With a burnished hook on the scraper you get nice shavings. I make my own scrapers to different shapes as I find the carpenter scraper a bit too large. Another way to deal with the ailerons is to cut them in half. They are so thick that it is easy to do and this will preserves the casting detail on both sides. Cheers, Peter

Nice start Paul. Yes it should over the wheel well (later marks had larger ones for the canons). Cheers, Peter

This is my first Eduard 109E build as well and I looked through some builds on the web which does help in knowing the pitfalls. I made a start on this build getting the cockpit together. First a coat of black primer, followed by silver, chipping fluids and RLM 02. It was the first time I used chipping fluids so I tried it first in the wheel wells. Even though I used lacquer paint, the chipping worked reasonable well. And the cockpit after chipping. The chipping may looks a bit heavy handed, but after applying washes, filters and some weathering, I think it will blend in nicely. Cheers, Peter