Question about the Airfix 1/48 Seafire XVII

[Seawinder]

I know this technically belongs in the Cold War section, but it's borderline, so please forgive me. I'm in the late stages of building this kit and just discovered two parts I had overlooked in an earlier step: They're two, small, cylindrical plugs that the instructions would have one insert in the two holes in the mid-rear fuselage -- the ones that have "JACK HERE" stenciled above them. The Airfix parts don't fit in the holes flush with the fuselage since they have a wider diameter bit at the outer end that causes them to protrude noticeably. I can't find any photographs, besides completed Airfix models, that show these protrusions. Should they be there? If so, what do they represent? Or should they be cut off flush with the fuselage surface? Are they the same color as the surrounding fuselage (in my case Sky)? Thanks in advance for any light anyone can shed on this.

 

Cheers,

Pip

[Plasto]

Parts A49??

 

I left em off on my build and no one has noticed... 

 

I thought they might be something to do with the catapult set up on the  seafire. But I'm probably wrong..

 

Have fun with the build. Is it wings folded??

 

cheers

Plasto

[Seawinder]

Hi Plasto. Yes, A49. I'm thinking of leaving them off too, unless somebody can explain what's up with them.

 

It has been a pleasant build. I'm just finishing the decals. Wings not folded. I'm currently debating whether to use the kit propeller blades or some Aeroclub ones I purchased. The kit blades are too narrow at the base; the Aeroclub blades will require some surgery to fit in the Airfix spinner -- I don't like the look of the Aeroclub one.

 

Cheers.

[Plasto]

Ok,

 

I used resin prop blades from barracuda the prop is designed for the spitfire xix but the blades can be easily adapted to fit the Airfix spinner....

 

That might be an option for you..

 

Herecis a link to my build with the resin prop blades.

 

https://gadflymodels.blogspot.co.nz/?m=1

Since PB broke the web the images I had here no longer work.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Plasto

[gingerbob]

Shooting from the hip, that sounds like slinging lugs (Edit: catapult spools), which I believe were made removable to avoid the Frankenstein look (or possibly to reduce drag!)  I'd look at some Seafire 17 photos, and if they aren't always there, then do what you prefer.

 

bob

Edited October 3, 2017 by gingerbob

[Giorgio N]

Those parts represent the rear catapult spools. They were sure detachable on the Seafire XV (as were the front ones) so I guess that they'd have been detachable on the XVII as well.

If you want to use them, then they correctly protrude from the fuselage, if you represent an aircraft on a carrier they should be there

[Seawinder]

Thanks, gingerbob and Georgio, that definitely clarifies it. Since I'm doing the kit's third option, a plane based at RNAS Culham in 1950, I think I'll leave them off.

[Work In Progress]

Just out of curiosity, why *didn't* you put this in Cold War? Afraid we'll bite you there, but not here??

[Seawinder]

9 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Just out of curiosity, why *didn't* you put this in Cold War? Afraid we'll bite you there, but not here??

Well, let's see ... force of habit -- I come to this subforum 95% of the time; the time period 1946-50 seems kind of transitional, and I tend to think of the Cold War as 1950s and beyond; the plane in question is WW2 technology, and Cold War more suggests jets to me. As I said in my OP, it seemed like a borderline case.

 

I wasn't anticipated being bitten at either location, but perhaps I'm just naive. 

 

Cheers, Pip

[Work In Progress]

I think my old airline chums who cut their teeth on the Berlin airlift in the late 40s were well aware they were involved in a Cold War

Anyway, if I had a point to make, it's really just that the Cold War forum is a good place, and definitely the place where we cover piston-engined things like Sea Furies and sharp-nosed Fireflies, so do give it a try if you're interested in post WW2 military aviation. Anything FAA in an EDSG over Sky scheme will get answers and debate on there.

[Seawinder]

29 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

I think my old airline chums who cut their teeth on the Berlin airlift in the late 40s were well aware they were involved in a Cold War

Anyway, if I had a point to make, it's really just that the Cold War forum is a good place, and definitely the place where we cover piston-engined things like Sea Furies and sharp-nosed Fireflies, so do give it a try if you're interested in post WW2 military aviation. Anything FAA in an EDSG over Sky scheme will get answers and debate on there.

Good to know, thanks! Maybe I'll move the other Seafire thread I started yesterday to the Cold War. There's been no response here so far.

[Giorgio N]

4 minutes ago, Seawinder said:

Good to know, thanks! Maybe I'll move the other Seafire thread I started yesterday to the Cold War. There's been no response here so far.

 

There's no response yet, but I started looking into the matter of the glossy paint. Unfortunately I found that I have much more relating to the development of RAF camouflage schemes than on the FAA side, I hoped to find some answer in a magazine article but no luck

[Seawinder]

1 minute ago, Giorgio N said:

 

There's no response yet, but I started looking into the matter of the glossy paint. Unfortunately I found that I have much more relating to the development of RAF camouflage schemes than on the FAA side, I hoped to find some answer in a magazine article but no luck

Thanks, Giorgio, I appreciate that. I have in fact moved the thread to Cold War. In the meantime, for the Seafire XVII I'm working on, I mixed my favorite flat coat (Micro Flat from Microscale) 4-to-1 with their clear gloss. It's yielding a smooth finish with some sheen. Whether or not it's historically accurate, I like the way it looks.

[Giorgio N]

On 4/10/2017 at 6:02 PM, Seawinder said:

Thanks, Giorgio, I appreciate that. I have in fact moved the thread to Cold War. In the meantime, for the Seafire XVII I'm working on, I mixed my favorite flat coat (Micro Flat from Microscale) 4-to-1 with their clear gloss. It's yielding a smooth finish with some sheen. Whether or not it's historically accurate, I like the way it looks.

 

IMHO a sensible choice, even nominally gloss finishes in any case don't look too realistic on a model if represented using gloss paint.