KingK_series

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. were you sitting on a parachute at the time?

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

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.

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 -

there are 3 different Rotols that were fitted to MkIIs and the CS DH prop

not at all - I totally agree And I came in trying to raise awareness of the major issues - ie the shape of the basic airframe, with the observation that it was very strange [to me ] that people were only taking issue with the oil cooler as a fault - That is in the scheme of things a very very small - and easily changed issue - if people want a height of the Battle of Britain aircraft. the real point is - how accurate is the shape of this kit, dimensionally and in character - and I feel people have not picked up on that for want of oil coolers! to me the real point is that Revell have not met the standard of their previous He111 or Ju88 at all whether that matters to you, is dependent on what you expect from Revell or their kit -

Edgar I apologise if you feel I am being patronising, my point is that others on this forum are 'loosing the w i l ll" - and I really struggle to follow you reasoning, and honestly - I feel that you are extremely patronising, so perhaps we both need to take a look at the colour of our posts? you say that the wing strakes are only for MkVs - I completely disagree, but I wonder if you contradict yourself when I post pics of MkIs with strakes and you write Quote As leaflets were issued for the mod to be done by the units, C.R.O., and M.U.s, I'd expect there to be several examples of early aircraft being so modded." clearly then they were not only fitted to MkVs, - so that is that not a contradiction ? - now more to the point, you and I have discussed the different structures of A./B wings and C wings on LSP As it is the C wing was designed to have a longer fatigue life, it had a much stiffer framing and the sheet gauge went up, as I have previously written, so it makes no sense to factory fit strakes to a C wing, only the Shuttleworth Spitfire Vc Spitfire has them, and the team there are adamant the strakes were a field mod, improbably fitted to their aircraft. the A/B wing went through a series of mods to it's structure which I have also previously illustrated. - Which is my point because the two MK Is with strakes have early - ie not contemporary with MkV or mid MkII production wings - that to me is a salient and clear illustration which lends weight to my point but I guess we will always disagree - ?

What are you trying to say? - as far as the kit is concerned, for those people who want to build a Battle Of Britain MkI or 611 Squadron MkII, you need to make an early single oil cooler fairing, for those who want to build a may 1941 - July built MkII , I say the Revell kit oil cooler is correct, others will clearly not be persuaded - the issue is more between Edgar and myself and our different approaches to research. However the oil cooler issue is very very minor ditto rivets ditto elevator/rudder/aileron surface detail either way the above are very minor issues, the cooler is a detail, very very easily scratch built - what is far far far more of an issue as far as the kit is concerned, - is the fuselage shape, mid fuselage too wide, the nose above the exhausts is much too narrow and doesn't have the right shape as it narrows to the spinner, there are flats on the underside of the leading wing edge at the wing root, and there are three distinct planes in the fuel tank armour which are not correct, all of which make this kit look wrong in profoundly more significant ways than the prop or the oil cooler, etc etc etc etc. these are the issues I have been trying to raise - the oil cooler is a total distraction -

ok so lets try to make this simple Your pic of AR213 is a recent pic taken after a great deal of restoration. my question to you is - you claimed on LSP that AR213 had a 'MKV' port wing with twin ganged cooler and strakes, and that both strakes and twin cooler proved that therefore the port wing was as you put it a 'MkV' wing My point is that strakes and or twin oil cooler prove no such thing, and further there is no such thing as a Mk V wing, therefore I was trying to ask you to explain why you said that - especially when in the earlier state of the aircraft - the strakes were on the starboard wing. Edgar, I just couldn't follow your argument - and it seems sometimes that you follow paperwork without actually looking at the aircraft or the engineering Now I return to the important question which you have not responded to ;- Further it makes no sense to me that when a MkIa Spitfire lands at Tangmere in august 1940 and is found to have cracked wing skins over the wheel arches, causing a great deal of work to be done to institute revised internal production line wing stiffening as I have previously shown you photos of - and a field mod [the strakes] - plus everyone working on Spits I have ever spoken to from RAF Hendon to Airframes and Assemblies to the Shuttleworth crew have always said that it was a field mod - would they delay instituting that mod [the strakes] to late 1942 when the C wing was in full production? makes no sense to me at all. Further K9942 and R6195 both have A wings with early internal ribbing structure [ ie 1940 or early 1941 made wings] and strakes on the top surface of the wing. And Edgar, on 07 Jul 2014 - 5:30 PM, said: that may be so but if you have an engine over heating, - and the MkII's Merlin XII engine's clearly were, and I was a Fighter Command pilot, it's the last thing I'd want to have to think about - engines seizing in mid flight with 109s by the hoard trying to get onto my tail plus Edgar, the MkV went into production in 1940 [being MkI orders and converted to MkVs on the line], and the first deliveries to squadrons was in march 1941 - so if all the ganged oil cooler was available for converted Mk1s for march 1941 delivery, why not on CB MkIIs that were being produced from the same lines? - your claim doesn't make any sense - ?!!!!

With all due respect ---- the older pic is therefore much more relevant to the point in question

Yes She does! AR213

that may be so but if you have an engine over heating, - and the MkII's Merlin XII engine's clearly were, and I was a Fighter Command pilot, it's the last thing I'd want to have to think about - engines seizing in mid flight with 109s by the hoard trying to get onto my tail plus Edgar, the MkV went into production in 1940 [being MkI orders and converted to MkVs on the line], and the first deliveries to squadrons was in march 1941 - so if all the ganged oil cooler was available for converted Mk1s for march 1941 delivery, why not on CB MkIIs that were being produced from the same lines? - your claim doesn't make any sense - ?!!!!

Shacklady Nuffield Spitfire, list of mods for MkII Spitfire. Additionally RAF Hendon records show MkXII Merlin engines over heating and requesting fitment of twin ganged cooler in early 1941.

AR213 does have stiffeners on the starboard wing , she does not have stiffeners on the port wing. on LSP you claimed that was because she was fitted with a 'Mk V" port wing, which - because it had a MKIII oil cooler and stiffeners - was proof it was a "MkV" wing - ???? just to be clear - why does the port wing have no stiffeners? or were the stiffeners removed? when the starboard wing does have them? Further it makes no sense to me that when a MkIa Spitfire lands at Tangmere in august 1940 and is found to have cracked wing skins over the wheel arches, causing a great deal of work to be done to institute revised internal production line wing stiffening as I have previously shown you photos of - and a field mod - plus everyone working on Spits I have ever spoken to from RAF Hendon to Airframes and Assemblies to the Shuttleworth crew have always said that it was a field mod - would they delay instituting that mod [the strakes] to late 1942 when the C wing was in full production? makes no sense to me at all. Further K9942 and R6195 both have A wings with early internal ribbing structure [ ie 1940 or early 1941 made wings] and strakes on the top surface of the wing.

then why was R6195, K9942? or any other early surviving MkI that I can think of? - most of these served out at OTUs after Squadron service - absolutely!

I have it that the mk III cooler was introduced onto the CB production line for all A and B wings in on April 11th 1941. -IE for all MKII and MkV Spitfires built after that point, production of the MkII ceased on 27th july 1941. Why were the Wing stiffeners removed on the port wing but not the starboard wing on AR213 Edgar? Have you accepted that those stiffeners were a field mod yet ? - I have now loads of pics of MkIIs and MkVs on the production line with no stiffeners, and very very few wartime pics of aircraft at Squadron with them, including MkIIs and MkVs.

Now why use the 'H' word? I haven't - The LSP threads did throw up personal comments against me by just 3 or 4 individuals, and whilst I got massive support on that forum from so many others in PMs, I did complain privately about the abuse in PMs about that, and then - got banned, which was galling and totally biased - but that is their problem as far as I am concerned. - this thread is about the kit and the Spitfire, it is not about you or me, and I really would appreciate it if it could remain about the kit and the Spitfire and all personal correspondence kept private and for no one to sink to personal comment, or abuse. to that end if you have anything to say about the kit, it's accuracy or otherwise do post, if you have any pics or technical information about the Spitfire that can contribute to a better understanding of this iconic aircraft, please please do post it, -

Well I am doing that, and all the props, rad ducts, oil cooler ducts, cockpits etc etc etc - but for myself I never thought of selling them.

I totally agree - the trouble is - as I have heard it from an insider, is that Revell no longer has the master who made the tooling for their Ju88 and He111 in 1/32, so they have contracted out to an Italian CAD designer who has absolutely no interest in modeling or aircraft - it's just a job to him. To that end one of the best and well known modelers who has his own company supplying model parts and tools was contracted to Revell to advise and support the Italien with advice. In the event said expert fell out so badly over the CAD designers arrogance and lack of interest on the 109G - ie getting the nose right, that the Spitfire was done with no expert help at all - clearly!

Well a correction kit would need whole new wings and fuselage - !! to be honest I think there is far far less work in converting the Tamiya MkIXc.

AR213 a late MkI as she is today, - and was when built in 1941 and AR 238, similarly a MkI and a MkII

Sorry didn't mean for anyone to think I was shouting, I really wasn't, just bewildered by all the talk about the coirrect oil cooler being "a MkV oil cooler" and no one picking up on how inaccurate the basic shape is - after all people were very quick to spot how wrong the Revell Bf109G nose is, and the nacelles on the Revell UHU. however I have to disagree with your conclusion, - to correct this kit means, completely remodeling the top engine cowl, the fuel tank [less difficult] and then thinning the fuselage all the way back to the radio access hatch, with a great deal of work to reduce the wing fillet to anything like the right shape. Then there is the wing leading edge. As I see it this is the worst, most inaccurate kit out for a very long time, worse still it is a very big step back in quality from the standards already achieved in this scale by Revell with their Ju88 and He111. The Spitfire is by far trhe most beautiful and important aircraft ever designed, it has uniquely exquisite lines and this kit is a travesty of them -

NO NEED - can you not see the Revell kit just looks really wrong? the fuselage does not take the shape of the real aircraft as it narrows below the midline, and while it is too wide at the cockpit, it is much too narrow over the top of the engine, all in all the shape does not reflect the shape of a Spitfire, it looks crude and clumsy - - note also the three planes in the fuel tank armour on the Revell kit, which are completely out of character from a Spitfire, and the flats undr the wing leading edge at the wing root, - I find it very strange some have identified the oil cooler as an issue, when it is not - and have not picked up on the basic shape of the main parts -

you are right! ... it's not as bad as 3mm. and here is the Revell taken at the front of the door, thats just 1.7mm too wide in the Revell at the widest point, but the trouble is that the Revell doesnt narrow below this, which means the kit loses that beautiful gull wing shape around the wings and fuselage, AND the Revell is too narrow in the nose around the Merlin's cam covers - so the Revell kit looks porky in the middle. All in all it has nothing of the delicacy of the Spitfire's elegant lines -