ICM Spitfire Mk IX

[Sean_M]

I have just stated this kit. Having done the engine and the Frame. I am a little stumped. Instructions say to remove the side panes for an open engine display. I would presume that this will take some patience with a sharp scalpel. Further than that I am at a loss at the best way forward from an assembly point of view. I see this as then having a very week front end to contend with while still getting everything else glued and painted. Does anyone have any suggestions and advice with this kit?

[Troy Smith]

Sean

there are various 'recipies' for dealing with the ICM kit, depending on if you want to correct it's details.

The biggie seems to be test fit and scrape down the firewall, note how it interfers with the filler cap if you don't if can push out the fuselage sides and affect the dihedral.

Other folks recommend attaching upper wings to fuselage before adding lower wing

also http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/spitfireviicbs_1.htm

I've quoted the relevant chunks, but do read the build

Please note that every part of this kit must have mold parting lines and/or flash removed and then it must be carefully test fitted before it is finally glued into place. Many have complained about this part of building the ICM Spitfire series but I find it intriguing and enjoy the concentration on each part. It reminds me very much of working on the real Spitfire.

In Step 9 the cockpit interior is installed into the fuselage halves. I find that the interior parts need some filing and trial fitting till they fit properly. They must not exert pressure on the fuselage sides, as this will affect the dihedral of the wing later.

The wing upper and lower mating surfaces were sanded smooth and extra sanding was required near the joint for the wingtips to get this area to be the same thickness as the wingtips. Then the upper wings were carefully glued to the bottom section.

Next I fit the wing assembly to the fuselage. Since this was my fourth ICM Spitfire kit I knew that the rearmost part of the lower wing, which butts up to the lower fuselage, needs to be filed much shorter to allow the wing assembly to move rearward till the leading edge wing root upper and lower halves line up. When this happens the whole upper wing joint lines up with the “V” shape at the root mating perfectly. I taped this in position and turned my attention back to the fuselage and the cowls. The MK VII Spitfire used the early style carburetor air intake and this is pointed out in the kit instructions. However, the kit parts are undersize and resemble the air intake of the MK V. The MK VII and early MK IX air intake was much larger and had it’s own distinct shape. Ultracast supplies this part that is much improved over the kit part. It is made to fit the ICM kit and does so with no difficulty. The upper cowl has the bulge over the intercooler and needs to be test fitted and filed/sanded to proper fit. The only part used from the forward engine/cowl assembly in step 6 is part “B-25”. I file and sand it down till it is just big enough to hold all four cowl pieces at the front while allowing them to all touch properly. I glued the part “A-21” to rear of this to have a propeller shaft in the proper place. I then glued all the cowl pieces together, using CA on the Ultracast resin part and making sure that they all fit around part “B-25” properly. Now is the time to glue the wing assembly to the fuselage. The dihedral will be set with this so care must be taken to get the upper wing roots solid together. Later I filled the rear part of the underside wing part to the fuselage joint with CA glue. This was the only filler used on the entire kit other than the aileron sink marks. After cleaning up the seams I drilled out the cine camera opening on the starboard wing root and the much larger fuel cooler inlet on the port wing root.

The wingtips were installed next, still watching for proper continuation of the dihedral. The ailerons were shortened accordingly and installed next. This completes the basic structure to which everything that goes on from this point on is a subassembly. I worked on subassemblies all through the main structure assemblies while waiting for glue to dry.

yes, removal of side panels is careful cutting.

It's a tricky kit, suggest dry runs with tape before you even show it glue.

also, have a look at Etienne's flickr

https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=8270787@N07&q=spitfire

a few colour shots of spits with cowls off

eg

I'm sure others, eg Miggers, will chip with some tips...

[Andrew Jones]

I've never built one with the engine in , but even if you leave it out you will still need to slim down the firewall to avoid spreading the fuselage . The engine included by the way appears to be a single stage Merlin not a Two atage as fitted to the MkIX. I believe Edgar pointed this out some time ago, { he will be sorely missed }.

Andrew

[Troy Smith]

I've never built one with the engine in , but even if you leave it out you will still need to slim down the firewall to avoid spreading the fuselage . The engine included by the way appears to be a single stage Merlin not a Two atage as fitted to the MkIX. I believe Edgar pointed this out some time ago, { he will be sorely missed }.

Andrew

Hi Andrew

I believe Sean already knows this, as he asked in this thread

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234966385-painting-a-merlin-engine/

as he wants the engine exposed then enlarging the width of the slots for the firewall should have the same effect, or scraping down the back edge...

rather than talkin out my backside, I just pulled one out, and it may well be if you are building it cowling off the firewall is OK as it is, with the cowling on it makes the cowling stick up, but the ICM cowling is too slim on top anyway,by about 2 scale inches eg 1mm on the model.

Iain Wyllie pointed this out in this thread.

see here

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234920273-aeroclub-148-spitfire-conversions/

specifically

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234920273-aeroclub-148-spitfire-conversions/#entry1054258

With reference to the ICM Mk IX, the top of the engine cowling is far too narrow in width. Most people seem to quote from the instruction sheet for the Falcon canopies about the top of the fuselage behind the canopy being fractionally too narrow but completely miss the far too narrow cowling. I posted about this a long time ago but it does not appear to have registered. The kit measures 0.6" in width which is 28.8" full size. The actual width (according to the Monforton ordinates) is 30.6" . In other words the kit is a scale 1.8", or a tenth of an inch, too narrow according to the ordinates for WL 3 at station 48, or .042" wider than the kit - makes the fractional error behind the cockpit pale into insignificance. It makes the whole area around and including the spinner look wrong and is hard to correct. Small differences in width show up quite a bit in the width of the cowling.

It was so obvious when I first assembled the kit years ago that I thought that it must be mentioned in reviews and critiques but, to date I haven't seen any that point this out. I could have missed it, of course, as I don't spend a massive amount of time on the web.

The other easily seen error is in the undercarriage, the legs of which are much too long and the hinge points too close together. Correcting these two dimensions make a big difference to the appearance of the finished model.

I often wonder why reviewers miss such obvious inaccuracies while pointing out tiny dimensional differences in panel lines. I would prefer a basically accurate outline with accurate cross-sections than a mass of tiny detail on an glaringly inaccurately shaped model.

I just dug out some rescaled to 1/48th Peter Cooke plans [noted as being accurate except for a couple of points] and the gear leg holes match up to those BTW. Not checked the leg length.

note also Bruce Archer's build comments

Shape wise the ICM kit is the best for overall shape. It does need some extra care in building, but I think people talk themselves out of doing it. What you do need to look for are:

Do not use the engine, just assemble the cowl without it. It is not hard at all (easier than the AMT P-40s!

Assemble the wings, and test fit them to the fuselage with the cockpit and front bulkhead dry fitted. It there is not enough dihedral, decrease the width of the cockpit and bulkhead until there is enough dihedral

Those are the two major areas which need attention. The fuselage behind the cockpit needs to be a bit wider, but if the hood is open you can ignore that,

HTH?

[Sean_M]

Thanks. I think 1 I am going to leave the engine out. That avoids the firewall issue. Canopy open - should avoid the fuselage behind the canopy. The front cowling and the undercarriage have me thinking perhaps I put this away for another day, I have a number of eduard spits to choose from and of course the new Airfix Vb. Right now I need a build that will boost confidence and get me over my 3 problem areas:

1. Clear Canopy

2. Dihedral

3. Undercarriage

PS I have sone Brasin Engines on order so I can at a future date do a proper job of it on one of my Eduard IX's

[Iain Wyllie]

.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Iain Wyllie

[Work In Progress]

I didn't see whatever argument tipped him over the edge but apparently his tolerance for being disagreed with ran out, and he announced his departure. He also seems to have deleted the pics he'd posted.

[Iain Wyllie]

.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Iain Wyllie

[Troy Smith]

Thanks. I think 1 I am going to leave the engine out. That avoids the firewall issue. Canopy open - should avoid the fuselage behind the canopy. The front cowling and the undercarriage have me thinking perhaps I put this away for another day, I have a number of eduard spits to choose from and of course the new Airfix Vb. Right now I need a build that will boost confidence and get me over my 3 problem areas:

1. Clear Canopy

2. Dihedral

3. Undercarriage

PS I have sone Brasin Engines on order so I can at a future date do a proper job of it on one of my Eduard IX's

Sean

one possible solution for a closed up build to the too narrow cowling top is use one of the spare upper cowlings in every Eduard kit. A quick test fit with one I was sent shows with some work, and a gap in the fuel tank, that it would fit, with the flex in the engine panels.

The ICM spinner is a touch short, so is not wide enough.

An Aeroclub replacement prop fits the this modified nose better. The ICM blades need work or replacement as well.

I think you will the basic engine block to mount the propeller though.

An opened up build avoids the cowling width issue.

Another useful Eduard spare is the wheel hubs, you can drill out the ICM hubs,[ which are bulged out], with a 6mm drill bit and then replace them with Eduard hubs, or just use an entire set of spare wheels.

The other ICM error is the too narrow cannon bulges, again replacements are available.

I'm trying to do while explaining it to my nearly 4 daughter.... whose playing with the above taped together ICM Spit.... so not the easiest post

cheers

T

[Doug Rogers]

She'll probably figure it out for us Troy and come up with a marvellously simple solution.

[gingerbob]

Wait a minute Troy, why isn't she playing with a Hurricane?

bob

[Troy Smith]

Wait a minute Troy, why isn't she playing with a Hurricane?

bob

Come on bob, She's not yet 4, so not ready for the proper stuff yet....

More seriously it was just I'd dug out the ICM box and found the Eduard spares I'd been sent, so was actually test fitting the parts as opposed to armchair theorising of possible cross kitting.

While even from the bits of the Eduard kit I have I can see it's a major advance on the ICM, there are lots of those about, they are cheap, and are much more amenable to doing multiple variants, so the thought of 'free' aftermarket for them is well worth investigating.

Plus the Eduard is covered in recessed rivets, and it's cross kitting partners are not....

cheers

T

[Seawinder]

Thanks. I think 1 I am going to leave the engine out. That avoids the firewall issue. Canopy open - should avoid the fuselage behind the canopy. The front cowling and the undercarriage have me thinking perhaps I put this away for another day, I have a number of eduard spits to choose from and of course the new Airfix Vb. Right now I need a build that will boost confidence and get me over my 3 problem areas:

1. Clear Canopy

2. Dihedral

3. Undercarriage

PS I have sone Brasin Engines on order so I can at a future date do a proper job of it on one of my Eduard IX's

As one other poster above said, I think you're better off using at least part of the engine for the sake of mounting the propeller shaft and the exhausts. What I did on the two ICM Spits I've built was to assemble just enough of the engine parts to mount those items. Then I simply hung the engine in place on the exhausts -- absolutely don't try to use the mounting rods for a closed-up build. It didn't even need any cement once the rest of the cowling was attached.

I believe the firewall issue may be present whether or not you install the engine. It's probably less problematical without the engine/mounts attached to it, but you still will want to do some test fitting (and probably a bit of trimming) to make sure the firewall doesn't compromise the wing dihedral.

HTH.

Pip

[Miggers]

Troy has called it pretty much right Sean.

Here's a build up of the ICM IX by the same Bob Swaddling:

http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/spitfireixconstructionrs_1.htm

However,two very recommended builds from Plastix and Dreamcatcher of the

Revell Spit XVI(ICM kit re-popped,decalled and boxed by Revell)on here both have

their full engines fitted with removable cowlings.

Just for you mate:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234959134-spitfire-mkxvi-revell-icm-molds-148/?hl=%20spitfire%20%20xvi

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234959134-spitfire-mkxvi-revell-icm-molds-148/?hl=%20spitfire%20%20xvi

[Andrew Jones]

I wouldn't worry too much about the top cowling , there's only 0.6mm difference between this and the Eduard cowling which is itself slightly too narrow, in fact the parts are virtually interchangeable between the two kits. In my opinion the ICM Spitfire still has a lot to offer the builder.

As a comparison the Eduard Cowling is 16mm in width at the midpoint of the exhaust slots , the ICM is 15.4mm at the same point.

As a comparison the old Airfix MkIX's cowl is 17mm wide , which I believe is nearer the scale figure, indeed for overall accuracy of dimensions the Airfix kit is the best , but of course lacks some of the finesse of the Eduard and ICM kits.

Andrew