"Dagwood" Phillip's Spitfire

[Seawinder]

I just finished the Eduard 1:48 Spifire Mk. IXe as an early Mk. XVI (DN-P) piloted by R.D. "Dagwood" Phillip in Belgium, December 1944, using decals from the Xtradecal XVI sheet. It now appears that I was burned by an error they made with the serials: they provided SM311, but various online sources I just discovered last night give them as SM331. I know it's my own fault for trusting the decal manufacturer, but I had been under the impression that Xtradecal was trustworthy. Can anyone confirm that the serial should indeed be SM331? If so, I've got to decide whether or not to try to fix it, at least on the port side where it's not obscured by the codes.

[LDSModeller]

2 hours ago, Seawinder said:

I just finished the Eduard 1:48 Spifire Mk. IXe as an early Mk. XVI (DN-P) piloted by R.D. "Dagwood" Phillip in Belgium, December 1944, using decals from the Xtradecal XVI sheet. It now appears that I was burned by an error they made with the serials: they provided SM311, but various online sources I just discovered last night give them as SM331. I know it's my own fault for trusting the decal manufacturer, but I had been under the impression that Xtradecal was trustworthy. Can anyone confirm that the serial should indeed be SM331? If so, I've got to decide whether or not to try to fix it, at least on the port side where it's not obscured by the codes.

Found this on the Web, you may have seen it?

 

If not, it seems to confirm your discovery (scroll down about 3/4 page or so)

 

Re Spitfire Mk XVI SM331

 

Make of it what you will.

[Seawinder]

47 minutes ago, LDSModeller said:

Found this on the Web, you may have seen it?

 

If not, it seems to confirm your discovery (scroll down about 3/4 page or so)

 

Re Spitfire Mk XVI SM331

 

Make of it what you will.

Yes, that's one of the references I found. It's also borne out in the production list at airhistory.org.uk/spitfire.

[Tom R]

It's been said before - "Never trust a profile without a picture".

[Seahawk]

11 hours ago, Seawinder said:

.. I had been under the impression that Xtradecal was trustworthy. 

As V. I. Lenin so rightly said (though possibly in a different context), "trust - but verify!"

[Graham Boak]

Xtradecal are generally good  (as good as almost anyone else, I'm inclined to say) but are dependent upon the accuracy of their sources.  Which are not always reliable.  I also suspect that they will avoid the use of more exotic colours to reduce the cost of sheets.  I recall an example of a 607 Sq aircraft where red and yellow had been used for the squadron colours rather than the correct mauve and stone.  At about the same time they reprinted part of one sheet (some then-current US modern jet) because of an error, so I had the cheek to ask if they could reprint the offending 607 Sq example,  I received the answer that sources quoted 607's colours as red and yellow - not something I've seen in print.  (I've removed my actual response as not all readers may be fluent in Anglo-Saxon.)  I believe this error came from a Richard Caruana profile, but memory could be playing tricks.

[Seawinder]

11 hours ago, Tom R said:

It's been said before - "Never trust a profile without a picture".

Well, partially in my defense, there isn't a photo that I've found of the plane that shows the serial: the only one I've seen is the starboard side with a big hole torn in the rear fuselage (right where the serial would be) by a flak hit during a sortie on Dec. 24, 1944. The apparent fact that it was SM331 and not SM311 is only shown in the inventory list of the squadron. I just wish I had found that sooner.

[gingerbob]

"Fighter Command Losses" and the Spitfires' individual records also confirm SM331. 

[Seawinder]

Yeah, I'm afraid there's no doubt. Wonder if Xtradecal is aware of the mistake. I'm leaning towards leaving the serial as is for the moment. I can always fix the port side if it proves to keep me awake night after night.