New Revell 1/32 Spitfire

[Edgar]

In the light of further research, I'd like to amend the following, in that list:-

4/. The gun button was brass, but the surround was (often worn) red.

8/. Part 40 appears to be the lever for operating the landing lights, and should be fitted to the bottom edge of the arch above the pilot's left leg.

10/. It seems that some rebuilds have stiffening plates, there, but wartime airframes wouldn't.

19/. Judging by photos the "lumps" are the labels fitted on early spinners, denoting where a screw is locked/unlocked, hence Revell's removal order.

20/. Thanks to Nick Millman, it seems that Revell's Sky Blue is a match for Sky.

Edgar

Edited July 8, 2014 by Edgar

[tempestfan]

It was 455 (which covered the I, II, & V) only, 456 was on a completely different subject. I've never found a copy of 455 "To stiffen wing skin in region of wheel well," but, as it says it was cancelled by 529 & 532, one can only guess that it died on the days they were "cleared" for production. It's entirely possible (going by my experience) that drawings were altered, and old ones, plus old instruction leaflets, were ordered destroyed.

Edgar

Thanks Edgar - 532 says it cancels a 45something, I read it as an 8. I will get me one of thos (plus a 48th Tornado) to add to the nevertobebuilt-stash and support local industry.

Edited July 8, 2014 by tempestfan

[gingerbob]

It's just an out of proportion '5', because the entry for Mod 455 says cancelled by both. LTC date was 10/10/41, "Cleared" date was 19/11/41. Mod 529 is first mentioned 16/12/41. It must have taken them a while to work out just how they were going to take care of this one!

bob

[Edgar]

529, for the Vc, needed 102 parts, and 532 needed 116 for the Ia, IIa, & Va, or 115 for the IIb & Vb (Ok, that includes washers, nuts and screws, but they were allowed 100 man-hours to do the work.)

Edgar

[tempestfan]

Thanks Bob and Edgar - to read that one as another "5" from the scan takes some imagination.

[Max Headroom]

Sorry for butting in here but which is more accurate outline wise, the Hasegawa V or the new 'II'?

Trevor

[gingerbob]

I can't answer that, myself, until I get the new kit.

bob

[chuckb1]

Got my kit on Monday, give it a go over summer leave, purchased some Eduard brass for it and different decals. I will put it all together try and make some of the changes, make a hash of them then post up the resultant bodge fest on here in about 3 weeks for vernier caliper wielding scorn.

Or it may quite well received ............ or a rivet counter will scream Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Max Headroom]

I'm just thinking that perhaps the Revell kit could be a donor for the Hasegawa example. I'm guessing that subbing the Revell cockpit is cheaper than an aftermarket set?

Just thinking feel free to poke holes in my theory

Trevor

[VonkeyVong]

I'm just thinking that perhaps the Revell kit could be a donor for the Hasegawa example. I'm guessing that subbing the Revell cockpit is cheaper than an aftermarket set?

Just thinking feel free to poke holes in my theory

Trevor

Hello Trevor,

Well they do say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating so why not have a go at one and see what you think.

Mine will probably be my next build, but I am putting the finishing touches to an ICM 1/48 Dornier 215 at the moment and I then need to build a Tamiya Citroen 11CV and a couple of figures to go on the base with the Do 215.

Edited July 9, 2014 by VonkeyVong

[KingK_series]

Disagreeing with me is immaterial; it's what Vickers' own ledger of modifications to the Spitfire says that matters, and, as you'll see, mod 532 was for the Va & Vb only, and was cleared for production 16-7-42:-

Not if you read the leaflets issued by the Air Ministry (this is why I spend so much time scouring paperwork, since, at times, it can be most rewarding); after mod 532 was put into effect, leaflets for other Marks were issued later (I have copies for both the Mk.I & Mk.II., dated December 1942) As the Mk.I & II production lines had closed down, any training unit, needing replacement/strengthened wings would either have to do it themselves, or order new (Mk.V standard) parts.

Note the "class 2" modification, which were:-

"Modifications of operational or safety urgency to be included in the production lines as soon as practicable" Note the emphasis on production lines, and not just field mods.

Mod 529, for the Vc only, which had internal stiffening only, was a "Class 4 & on repair" mod, which covered the production line and repair units.

True, and as I keep repeating, there was no "C" wing; it was the universal wing which was built to take the weight of up to 4 cannon + 4 Brownings.

Yes but Edgar - that does not say what the stiffening modification actually was -

Now my research has shown that there were a whole series of different modifications made to A/B wings which I have previously discuuseed with you on LSP - modification that could only be implemented on the production l;ine -

do I need to post up the pics again?

Now you have never provided any written photographic proof or drawings that link this above note with strakes as opposed to the significantly more significant ribbing architecture changes made to A/B wings which as I say - could only and clearly be made on the production lines.

Further you have not produced any photographic evidence of Spitfires on the lines with strakes on them

- I on the other hand have in my possession a number of pics of MkII and MkV Spitfires on the lines with wings assembled but no strakes - therefore I see no evidence what so ever that the strakes were any thing other than a field mod, occasionally fitted, for want of the significant internal mods made to A/B wings and fitted to MkIIs MkVs and possibly - as replacement wings - to Mk Is though I have never found an example on an surviving Mk1.

Quite apart from your assertion that this Air Min modification is for MkV Spitfires in 1942 when the problem was clearly an urgent one from when MkI Spitfires were found to have cracked wings in august 1940, and the implication is therefore that no effort was made to do anything this problem until the massively stronger C wing was in production is impossible to believe, plus I have posted pics of two surviving MkIs with early A/B wings and strakes - hard evidence that your paperwork refers to internal modifications to the wing of which we are well aware, and not to strakes above the wing -

If you have proof that these notes refer specifically to the strakes and not to the very considerable internal wing modifications - please show it -

Edited July 9, 2014 by KingK_series

[Nick Belbin]

I would suggest that you go by your evidence and do whatever you want - you originally started on this thread by criticising the fuselage dimensions that everyone else had missed - now you appear to be just picking arguments . . .

You could have built this kit with all your suggested improvements in the time you've spent on here and shown us all how it should be done.

Nick

[KingK_series]

Sorry for butting in here but which is more accurate outline wise, the Hasegawa V or the new 'II'?

Trevor

The Hasegawa has much more of the character of the shape of a Spitfire, than the Revell - it's lean, a fighter, the Revell is a porker, and so the work to make it look good is detailing rather than structural.

[KingK_series]

I would suggest that you go by your evidence and do whatever you want - you originally started on this thread by criticising the fuselage dimensions that everyone else had missed - now you appear to be just picking arguments . . .

You could have built this kit with all your suggested improvements in the time you've spent on here and shown us all how it should be done.

Nick

I wish I could - I think making the Revell look as if it had any of the character of a Spitfire is weeks of work.

best wishes simon

[Nick Belbin]

The Hasegawa has much more of the character of the shape of a Spitfire, than the Revell - it's lean, a fighter, the Revell is a porker, and so the work to make it look good is detailing rather than structural.

No it isn't - it's no better. It's very slab sided forward of the cockpit and has an almost egg shape section behind . . .

[Work In Progress]

It's very slab sided forward of the cockpit and has an almost egg shape section behind . . .

You sound like the doctor who did my last aircrew medical.

[Nick Belbin]

Nah - not me. I'm just a humble graphic designer

Nick

[KingK_series]

No it isn't - it's no better. It's very slab sided forward of the cockpit and has an almost egg shape section behind . . .

The

Spitfire is egg shaped [as you put it] as you put it behind the cockpit, in fact all the way through the fuselage, and the wing fillets should follow this line wifore widening to meet the wings - that is part of the shape that gives this beautiful aircraft it's shape - the complexity of the curves.

the Hase has a correct rounded fuel tank Armour section in front of the cockpit, unlike the Revell which has three planes in it, and the Hase is a bit narrow over the nose, but this doesn't look as bad as the Revell - because the very narrow nose on the Revell has the excessively wide fuselage behind that to make the Revell kit look porky.

the Hase also has the chin of the Spit rounding nicely and the Engine top cowl above the exhausts has a better shape - it's not perfect, but its much much better than the Revell and it has muchj more of the character of the real aircraft because everything is in correct proportion.

You sound like the doctor who did my last aircrew medical.

were you sitting on a parachute at the time?

[Nick Belbin]

So Tamiya, Eduard and recently Airfix, and Arthur Bentley have all got the section of the frame aft of the canopy wrong.

Ok, I'll defer to your superior knowledge . . .

Have another look at the sides of the fuselage - on my Revell kit, they do undercut back in beneath the cockpit to the wing root - if yours 'fall' straight down, perhaps you have a duff example.

What's your opinion of the nose on the original 1969 Mk1?

Nick

[Edgar]

Yes but Edgar - that does not say what the stiffening modification actually was -

If you have proof that these notes refer specifically to the strakes and not to the very considerable internal wing modifications - please show it -

Now you have never provided any written photographic proof or drawings that link this above note with strakes as opposed to the significantly more significant ribbing architecture changes made to A/B wings which as I say - could only and clearly be made on the production lines.

This is from page three of the leaflet, issued for mod 532; note the "external stiffeners"; the RAF Museum has a drawing of the wheel well modification, which shows the stiffeners in place, and gives part nos.

Normally, I offer my entire findings ( in this case a four-page leaflet) to anyone genuinely interested, but, in your case, I suggest you do it yourself; there are only about 1000 files, in the National Archives, to search through.

Now my research has shown that there were a whole series of different modifications made to A/B wings which I have previously discuuseed with you on LSP - modification that could only be implemented on the production l;ine

Very true (e.g mods 113, 167, 455 - which was cancelled by 529 & 532,) and they were followed by the modifications listed above (and, no, 529 makes no mention of external stiffeners, since the mod, for the Vc, was all internal to the wheel well.)

do I need to post up the pics again?

Only if you can provide proof of the dates on which they were taken.

Further you have not produced any photographic evidence of Spitfires on the lines with strakes on them

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (see, I can repeat myself, too.)

- I on the other hand have in my possession a number of pics of MkII and MkV Spitfires on the lines with wings assembled but no strakes - therefore I see no evidence what so ever that the strakes were any thing other than a field mod, occasionally fitted, for want of the significant internal mods made to A/B wings and fitted to MkIIs MkVs and possibly - as replacement wings - to Mk Is though I have never found an example on an surviving Mk1

The evidence that the mod was also for the production line comes in the large, encircled, "CLEARED" with the date, and the "CLASS 2" which means that it's a production-line mod (more evidence of what each of the four classifications meant is also available to genuine researchers in the National Archives.)

Quite apart from your assertion that this Air Min modification is for MkV Spitfires in 1942

It's Vickers' assertion, in their modifications ledger, not mine, which you are choosing to ignore, and therein lies the difference between us; I find new evidence, and try to find out why, while you prefer to airily dismiss it, if it doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas. That is not research.

when the problem was clearly an urgent one from when MkI Spitfires were found to have cracked wings in august 1940, and the implication is therefore that no effort was made to do anything this problem

Only if you want to see it that way, since there were (as I've shown above) earlier mods to strengthen the wings.

[hacker]

[Greg B]

Closed