Building a specific Spitfire, Mk.XVI - help appreciated!

[Flyingdutchman]

Small intro to the question:

I live in Doorn (Netherlands) and I recently read that a spitfire crashed in 1945 not far from my house. The crash was tragic because it was a two ship bombing a house where the Germans were stationed. The first Spitfire dropped bombs but on of the bombs exploded too quick, the second Spitfire flow by Flight Sergeant Cees Kooy crashed because of the blast and debry. FS Cees Kooy died. The Spitfire was a 322sq based at Woensdrecht AFB.

 

Now I want to build this specific Spitfire in 1/48 scale. So I need some help regarding the best kit around. I found a few boxings for the Mk. XVI

- Eduard 

© Emodels.co.uk

- ICM

© Cybermodeler

- Revell

 

The decals I need are made by FlevoDecals so that's sorted out

 

I have never build a Spit before so your help is much appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Evert

Edited May 18, 2017 by Flyingdutchman

[Troy Smith]

If you want an accurate OOB build,  Eduard wins hands down.   It can be fiddly in places,  but is overall very accurate.

You might  need to check the exact details, IIRC the Profipack can be built as wartime and post war (as on box) which has small wheel bulges on upper wing, so  has two wing types, the Weekend edition will only have one, and IIRC,is the post  war  version.

The Eduard site has full box contents illustrated,  Not  got time to check this for you now.

 

The ICM  is tricky  to  build, and has  some small accuracy issues.  Again,  have a search.

The Revell is a rebox of the ICM kit.

HTH

[Don McIntyre]

I think Italeri has a Mk.XVI also, that is from the Occidental molds. 

[Seawinder]

What Troy stated is correct: The Eduard Weekend Edition XVI kit has only the postwar wings with the bulges above the wheel wells, while the Profipack provides both bulged and unbulged wings. For a plane in 1945, you almost certainly want the latter.

 

I highly recommend the Eduard kit(s). They're complex (Eduard's philosophy seems to be 'why mold it in one part when you can mold it in four?'), but they fit astoundingly well. For me (as with others), the most significant nit to pick is the two-part engine cowling, for which eradicating the seam is a real pain. Thankfully, two aftermarket companies -- BarracudaCast and Ultracast -- produce resin, one-piece cowlings; I strongly suggest you invest in one. Both Barracuda and Ultracast do both the unbulged and bulged cowling; you want the bulged one, which was found on all XVIs. Here are links to the two products -- take your pick:

 

http://barracudacals.com/proddetail.php?prod=BR48192

http://www.ultracast.ca/products/48/265/default.htm

 

BTW, I'd stay away from Italeri/Occidental: it's got significant shape issues in the nose. The ICM isn't bad, but the Eduard blows it away in engineering, detail and accuracy.

 

Another thought: I don't suppose you know the serial number of the plane? It's possible, although not likely I suppose, that it could have been an early XVI without the cut-down rear fuselage, in which case you'd want the Eduard Spitfire IXe boxing.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Seawinder

[gingerbob]

According to Fighter Command Losses, this happened on 28 Jan, and Kooy was in RK840, which they've got as 'VLoM' [Edit: should be '3WoM'].  They also have it as a IX, but I think that's wrong- I believe that it is a XVI, but would definitely be a high-back.

 

That being the case, you want an Eduard 'IXe' (don't remember if they have a high-back that they call a XVI).  [Note: in case you are unaware, there's almost no visual difference between a XVI and a IXe, basically an access hatch and US versus British-built Merlin.]

 

bob

Edited May 18, 2017 by gingerbob

[Seawinder]

24 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

According to Fighter Command Losses, this happened on 28 Jan, and Kooy was in RK840, which they've got as 'VLoM'.  They also have it as a IX, but I think that's wrong- I believe that it is a XVI, but would definitely be a high-back.

 

That being the case, you want an Eduard 'IXe' (don't remember if they have a high-back that they call a XVI).  [Note: in case you are unaware, there's almost no visual difference between a XVI and a IXe, basically an access hatch and US versus British-built Merlin.]

 

bob

Hi Bob. Glad you were able to clarify that. I'm going to be doing a high-back XVI from the Eduard IXe kit. Is there somewhere I can go that shows the access hatch location?

 

... Never mind -- I think I found it at the Spitfire site. We're talking about the small hatch forward portside, yes?

 

Pip

Edited May 18, 2017 by Seawinder

[72modeler]

According to the text and photos I was able to find, RK840 was a Mk XVIe and was fitted with the bubble canopy; it also had Polly Grey artwork on the LH engine cowling below the exhausts. Codes were 3W-M. There is one photo on Pinterest that shows the artwork and is captioned as being RK840 3W-M. but neither is visible in the photo. A search using' Spitfire XIV RK840' will give you some useful references. Hope this helps!

Mike

 

Also just found out that this same aircraft is one of the markings choices in the 1/72 CMR Spitfire XVIe resin kit, 72-169. You can go to CMR's website to see color photos of a finished model as well as the camouflage and markings diagram. It's a pretty Spitfire with that blue spinner!

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by 72modeler
found additional information- corrected spelling

[gingerbob]

I found artwork, and one photo (on Pinterest) with the nose art, but it does not show a serial, just an 'M' under the spinner.  I think somebody has likely made a mistake, along the lines of "322 Squadron letter 'M', therefore it must be..."

 

As far as I've been able to determine, the first RV (rear view, aka 'low back') XVI- and for that matter IX- was completed in early February.  I've seen no evidence that they were released to squadrons (for operational use) until late Feb/early March at the earliest.  I'm happy to be corrected, because this has been an ongoing investigation for me, but I'm going to need more than a photo captioned with a particular serial or decal sheet artwork to be convinced.

 

I do note that the squadron code changed to 3W by 1945- Fighter Command Losses' error!

 

bob

 

p.s. Eduard did do a "double kit" boxing with high and low-back XVIs, I've since remembered.  And the visible difference I was thinking of was a hatch atop the cowling- there's a drawing floating around here somewhere showing the two positions.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by gingerbob

[Seawinder]

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

According to the text and photos I was able to find, RK840 was a Mk XVIe and was fitted with the bubble canopy; it also had Polly Grey artwork on the LH engine cowling below the exhausts. Codes were 3W-M. There is one photo on Ptinterest that shows the artwork and is captioned as being RK840 3W-M. but neither is visible in the photo. A search using' Spitfire XIV RK840' will give you some useful references. Hope this helps!

Mike

 

Also just found out that this same aircraft is one of the markings choices in the 1/72 CMR Spitfire XVIe resin kit, 72-169. You can go to CMR's website to see color photos of a finished model as well as the camouflage and markings diagram. It's a pretty Spitfire with that blue spinner!

 

 

If the serial is correct, RK840 was unquestionably high-backed. It was built (CB) in October 1944 and is, in fact, the first XVI listed on the Spitfire Production pages at the airhistory.org web site. Going by Xtradecal's research for their XVI sheet (X49-128), SM309 (built November 1944) was also high-backed. The widely distributed photo of the nose of a 322 Sqn. plane with "M" beneath the cowling (pretty clearly a bubble-top) is not identified as Kooy's, and I'm guessing it was a different plane given the M identifier after Kooy's loss.

[Flyingdutchman]

6 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

If you want an accurate OOB build,  Eduard wins hands down.   It can be fiddly in places,  but is overall very accurate.

You might  need to check the exact details, IIRC the Profipack can be built as wartime and post war (as on box) which has small wheel bulges on upper wing, so  has two wing types, the Weekend edition will only have one, and IIRC,is the post  war  version.

The Eduard site has full box contents illustrated,  Not  got time to check this for you now.

 

The ICM  is tricky  to  build, and has  some small accuracy issues.  Again,  have a search.

The Revell is a rebox of the ICM kit.

HTH

 

Thank you for your help, I will look for the Eduard boxing

 

4 hours ago, Seawinder said:

What Troy stated is correct: The Eduard Weekend Edition XVI kit has only the postwar wings with the bulges above the wheel wells, while the Profipack provides both bulged and unbulged wings. For a plane in 1945, you almost certainly want the latter.

 

I highly recommend the Eduard kit(s). They're complex (Eduard's philosophy seems to be 'why mold it in one part when you can mold it in four?'), but they fit astoundingly well. For me (as with others), the most significant nit to pick is the two-part engine cowling, for which eradicating the seam is a real pain. Thankfully, two aftermarket companies -- BarracudaCast and Ultracast -- produce resin, one-piece cowlings; I strongly suggest you invest in one. Both Barracuda and Ultracast do both the unbulged and bulged cowling; you want the bulged one, which was found on all XVIs. Here are links to the two products -- take your pick:

 

http://barracudacals.com/proddetail.php?prod=BR48192

http://www.ultracast.ca/products/48/265/default.htm

 

BTW, I'd stay away from Italeri/Occidental: it's got significant shape issues in the nose. The ICM isn't bad, but the Eduard blows it away in engineering, detail and accuracy.

 

Another thought: I don't suppose you know the serial number of the plane? It's possible, although not likely I suppose, that it could have been an early XVI without the cut-down rear fuselage, in which case you'd want the Eduard Spitfire IXe boxing.

 

I was hoping to find this kind of specific details about the Spitfire on this forum :)! Thank you very much for pointing out, I'll definately get an aftermarket cowling.

 

 

3 hours ago, gingerbob said:

According to Fighter Command Losses, this happened on 28 Jan, and Kooy was in RK840, which they've got as 'VLoM' [Edit: should be '3WoM'].  They also have it as a IX, but I think that's wrong- I believe that it is a XVI, but would definitely be a high-back.

 

That being the case, you want an Eduard 'IXe' (don't remember if they have a high-back that they call a XVI).  [Note: in case you are unaware, there's almost no visual difference between a XVI and a IXe, basically an access hatch and US versus British-built Merlin.]

 

bob

 

I also found out (later during my search) that it must have been 3WoM. The Flevo Decal sheet does have the 3W code but not the M. I think I'm able to mask it and spray it.

 

 

2 hours ago, 72modeler said:

According to the text and photos I was able to find, RK840 was a Mk XVIe and was fitted with the bubble canopy; it also had Polly Grey artwork on the LH engine cowling below the exhausts. Codes were 3W-M. There is one photo on Ptinterest that shows the artwork and is captioned as being RK840 3W-M. but neither is visible in the photo. A search using' Spitfire XIV RK840' will give you some useful references. Hope this helps!

Mike

 

Also just found out that this same aircraft is one of the markings choices in the 1/72 CMR Spitfire XVIe resin kit, 72-169. You can go to CMR's website to see color photos of a finished model as well as the camouflage and markings diagram. It's a pretty Spitfire with that blue spinner!

 

 

 

My girlfriend has a Pinterest account so I might wat to (ab)use that!!!!

 

 

1 hour ago, gingerbob said:

I found artwork, and one photo (on Pinterest) with the nose art, but it does not show a serial, just an 'M' under the spinner.  I think somebody has likely made a mistake, along the lines of "322 Squadron letter 'M', therefore it must be..."

 

As far as I've been able to determine, the first RV (rear view, aka 'low back') XVI- and for that matter IX- was completed in early February.  I've seen no evidence that they were released to squadrons (for operational use) until late Feb/early March at the earliest.  I'm happy to be corrected, because this has been an ongoing investigation for me, but I'm going to need more than a photo captioned with a particular serial or decal sheet artwork to be convinced.

 

I do note that the squadron code changed to 3W by 1945- Fighter Command Losses' error!

 

bob

 

p.s. Eduard did do a "double kit" boxing with high and low-back XVIs, I've since remembered.  And the visible difference I was thinking of was a hatch atop the cowling- there's a drawing floating around here somewhere showing the two positions.

 

 

 

What I read is that VL (Woodvale) was replaced by 3W as soon as the squadron moved to Woensdrecht AFB in the Netherlands.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Seawinder said:

If the serial is correct, RK840 was unquestionably high-backed. It was built (CB) in October 1944 and is, in fact, the first XVI listed on the Spitfire Production pages at the airhistory.org web site. Going by Xtradecal's research for their XVI sheet (X49-128), SM309 (built November 1944) was also high-backed. The widely distributed photo of the nose of a 322 Sqn. plane with "M" beneath the cowling (pretty clearly a bubble-top) is not identified as Kooy's, and I'm guessing it was a different plane given the M identifier after Kooy's loss.

 

Thank you for your confirmation about the high-backed Spitfire.

 

With all your help I think I've found the most important parts needed for my build. Question that raised was...what ordnance would be used back in the days? I will try to find that out.

As soon as I have all the infor, kit, goodies and decals I'll post a WIP.

 

Cheers, Evert

 

[72modeler]

2 hours ago, Seawinder said:

If the serial is correct, RK840 was unquestionably high-backed. It was built (CB) in October 1944 and is, in fact, the first XVI listed on the Spitfire Production pages at the airhistory.org web site. Going by Xtradecal's research for their XVI sheet (X49-128), SM309 (built November 1944) was also high-backed. The widely distributed photo of the nose of a 322 Sqn. plane with "M" beneath the cowling (pretty clearly a bubble-top) is not identified as Kooy's, and I'm guessing it was a different plane given the M identifier after Kooy's loss.

Good observation, I hadn't thought of that possibility, but it makes sense, given that the photo of the XVI that is captioned as RK840 in the Pinterest photo is definitely a bubbletop. I have also learned to take the captions for some of the photos out there in cyberspace with a jaundiced Mk 1 eyeball!

Mike

[Tbolt]

6 hours ago, Seawinder said:

What Troy stated is correct: The Eduard Weekend Edition XVI kit has only the postwar wings with the bulges above the wheel wells, while the Profipack provides both bulged and unbulged wings. For a plane in 1945, you almost certainly want the latter.

 

I highly recommend the Eduard kit(s). They're complex (Eduard's philosophy seems to be 'why mold it in one part when you can mold it in four?'), but they fit astoundingly well. For me (as with others), the most significant nit to pick is the two-part engine cowling, for which eradicating the seam is a real pain. Thankfully, two aftermarket companies -- BarracudaCast and Ultracast -- produce resin, one-piece cowlings; I strongly suggest you invest in one. Both Barracuda and Ultracast do both the unbulged and bulged cowling; you want the bulged one, which was found on all XVIs. Here are links to the two products -- take your pick:

 

http://barracudacals.com/proddetail.php?prod=BR48192

http://www.ultracast.ca/products/48/265/default.htm

 

BTW, I'd stay away from Italeri/Occidental: it's got significant shape issues in the nose. The ICM isn't bad, but the Eduard blows it away in engineering, detail and accuracy.

 

Another thought: I don't suppose you know the serial number of the plane? It's possible, although not likely I suppose, that it could have been an early XVI without the cut-down rear fuselage, in which case you'd want the Eduard Spitfire IXe boxing.

 

Just to add, Eduard themselves also do resin one piece cowlings for their kits and here in the UK are less than half the price of the Baracuda ones.

[Seawinder]

2 hours ago, Tbolt said:

 

Just to add, Eduard themselves also do resin one piece cowlings for their kits and here in the UK are less than half the price of the Baracuda ones.

Good call, thanks. Being American, I never got further than the two producers I mentioned above.