Jump to content

1:48 Trumpeter Supermarine Spiteful


Recommended Posts

Just finished the build this week. I used the canopy and gear legs from the Heritage Aviation kit, Quickboost wheels and exauhsts, Aeroscale decals for the markings and custom decals for the prop:

spite10a_zps75545c3c.jpg

spiteful14aa_zps2a4233a9.jpg

10464ebb-c8c4-4547-955c-f8a12aa455a8_zps

spiteful19a_zps6577fcb7.jpg

spite18aa_zpsffceae31.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've done a fine model from this turkey of a kit, but there is a problem - which is by no means limited just to your model - that frequently shows up in models and detracts from the final result. I speak of landing gear alignment, perhaps the single most-common mistake made in modeling. I'll mention it here because should you care to fix it on your otherwise-excellent model, the "fix" is easy.

Too often, modelers hang the main gear of tailwheel airplanes perpendicular from the wing. With only a very very few exceptions, this is wrong, and it relates to the laws of physics and vectors. A tailwheel airplane, when landing traditionally, is generally in a full stall, nose up, tail low - a "three point touchdown" is the goal. When that main gear meets Mother Earth, there is a shock of impact, since the landing gear is moving forward while the earth is comparatively stationary. The gear has to be canted forward to a degree in order to absorb that shock without getting knocked off. (This is not a problem with tricycle-gear airplanes because they are not angled up that much and they drop to the nosewheel relatively quickly).

In the particular instance here with this very nice model, the gear should have about a 5 degree forward slant. On this kit, you can bend it to the position without breaking it, and reinforce that with a drop of cyanoacrylate.

I mostly fault the kit manufacturers here, because it is entirely possible to mold the gear so it is keyed to fit correctly. I'll take note of the Hasegawa series of Fw-190s (190 kits are notorious when it comes to alignment, one of the biggest problems with any Fw-190). All of their kits in 1/48 and 1/32 are keyed right, and a modeler will only screw it up with planning and dedication. This could well be done with every kit if the designers so chose.

I can tell you as someone who has judged IPMS contests in the USA, gear misalignment is the single most common way for an otherwise-excellent model - beautiful paint job, superb decaling - to get knocked out of competition. Alignment is one of those small but important details that really separates a modeler and his model from the rest of the pack.

/rant :banghead:

Edited by TCinLA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can see nothing wrong with it. I've compared the build to all the photos I can find in a very quick search with Google and your model looks the same as the real one to me.

Anyway it's a damn nice build and definitely one to be proud of. Great build :clap:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great Job Dave it looks great, I to went and looked at the spiteful pics and I cant see much difference in the gear, I guess anybody can write a book and call themselves an expert.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautifully finished Spiteful and I'm sure the customer is happy.

While I do see the point about the main gear angle, another problem with the kit (that was remarked on when the initial test shots were published here on BM by the manufacturer) is the complete absence of twist to the Rotol prob blades. In fact, judging from the second photo from the bottom, if there is any twist at all, it seems to be in the wrong direction. This should be easy to fix by using an aftermarket prop, though.

Very nice work with a not unproblematic kit!

Kind regards,

Joachim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've done a fine model from this turkey of a kit, but there is a problem - which is by no means limited just to your model - that frequently shows up in models and detracts from the final result. I speak of landing gear alignment, perhaps the single most-common mistake made in modeling. I'll mention it here because should you care to fix it on your otherwise-excellent model, the "fix" is easy.

Too often, modelers hang the main gear of tailwheel airplanes perpendicular from the wing. With only a very very few exceptions, this is wrong, and it relates to the laws of physics and vectors. A tailwheel airplane, when landing traditionally, is generally in a full stall, nose up, tail low - a "three point touchdown" is the goal. When that main gear meets Mother Earth, there is a shock of impact, since the landing gear is moving forward while the earth is comparatively stationary. The gear has to be canted forward to a degree in order to absorb that shock without getting knocked off. (This is not a problem with tricycle-gear airplanes because they are not angled up that much and they drop to the nosewheel relatively quickly).

In the particular instance here with this very nice model, the gear should have about a 5 degree forward slant. On this kit, you can bend it to the position without breaking it, and reinforce that with a drop of cyanoacrylate.

I mostly fault the kit manufacturers here, because it is entirely possible to mold the gear so it is keyed to fit correctly. I'll take note of the Hasegawa series of Fw-190s (190 kits are notorious when it comes to alignment, one of the biggest problems with any Fw-190). All of their kits in 1/48 and 1/32 are keyed right, and a modeler will only screw it up with planning and dedication. This could well be done with every kit if the designers so chose.

I can tell you as someone who has judged IPMS contests in the USA, gear misalignment is the single most common way for an otherwise-excellent model - beautiful paint job, superb decaling - to get knocked out of competition. Alignment is one of those small but important details that really separates a modeler and his model from the rest of the pack.

/rant :banghead:

Beautifully finished Spiteful and I'm sure the customer is happy.

While I do see the point about the main gear angle, another problem with the kit (that was remarked on when the initial test shots were published here on BM by the manufacturer) is the complete absence of twist to the Rotol prob blades. In fact, judging from the second photo from the bottom, if there is any twist at all, it seems to be in the wrong direction. This should be easy to fix by using an aftermarket prop, though.

Very nice work with a not unproblematic kit!

Kind regards,

Joachim

thumb_smileyvault-wtfgif_zps684e4666.jpg OK , this is a prime example of what I did a rant about earlier in the year. Why some people feel it is so necessary to boost their own ego's by pointing out a inadequacy on someones build that isn't even the fault of the builder is beyond me. Why would it be necessary to anybody's benefit to say the tail wheel is 5 degrees off ? Only the most anal of builders would even know or even come close to caring. All this type of so called accuracy information does is detract from an otherwise AWESOME build. It behooves no one to point out these flaws in open forum on someone else's build. If you want to point out inaccuries then build it yourself and review your own build to point out the flaws. Great build Dave! It certainly doesn't need to be detracted from by anal-ytical B.S.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong - pointing out flaws is important and this is why others present their models to be critiqued. What is bad is the posters who just comment about how wonderful the model is come what may. The idea of critiquing is to help the modeller improve their technique and maybe their next model. One can call it a learning experience and one should enter this forum prepared to learn. However, for those wanting to critique one should not do so in too negative a way but accuracy issues which aren't addressed should be pointed out. TCinLA produced a very detailed commentary with suggestions on how to improve things. Just the sort of comments we should be seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the kit's issues may be (I don't have enough interest invested in the Spiteful, so wouldn't have a clue on it's inacurracies :shrug:), I think you've turned out a nice looking model there.

Top hole, ole chap. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very nice model.

Now how about this for a plan.

If you want to talk about how accurate the kit is, do that in the relevant discussion forum, and in a RFI look at how the builder has done on the build. That way everyone can play nice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critiquing is limited to the build itself, not the accuracy of the kit or the subject matter.

From the rules of the forum, so make of it what you will.

I personally think you have done a superb job and I myself would love to have the skill to replicate this. If there is a flaw in the kit then there is really no need to point it out and detract from what is a fine bit of modelling.

Marc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and can we get back to taking about the model, rather than the critiquing etiquette please. Polite and constructive is the prime tenet, which Christopher and Stryker would do well to remember. Tom - perhaps your tone was a little ranty, and as it wasn't a critique of the build per se, a separate thread would have been the best place to blow off steam on the topic of gear angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fine model - very well done.

Personally I apperciate it being posted, and I appreciate the technical comments, even though the vector explanation of the 'error' is itself slightly flawed:

If, as described, a tailwheel aircraft performs a 'three point' landing in an almost stalled condition, the u/c legs will still 'meet Mother Earth' in a forward canted manner even if they are mounted perpendicular to the wing...because the wing itself is at an angle to the ground.

Maybe TCinLA's explanation also needs some tweaking and realignment?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great work, looks really nice.

thumb_smileyvault-wtfgif_zps684e4666.jpg OK , this is a prime example of what I did a rant about earlier in the year. Why some people feel it is so necessary to boost their own ego's by pointing out a inadequacy on someones build that isn't even the fault of the builder is beyond me. Why would it be necessary to anybody's benefit to say the tail wheel is 5 degrees off ? Only the most anal of builders would even know or even come close to caring. All this type of so called accuracy information does is detract from an otherwise AWESOME build. It behooves no one to point out these flaws in open forum on someone else's build. If you want to point out inaccuries then build it yourself and review your own build to point out the flaws. Great build Dave! It certainly doesn't need to be detracted from by anal-ytical B.S.

He was talking about the main gear leg angle not the tail wheel's, which wouldn't really be noticeable. I think the point was to try and help people improve their models.

Edited by Tbolt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovelly model, but I was mostly impressed with the realistic qualities of the pilot.

Great Job all round.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...