Ray_W

Hi Charlie, Red is a bit of artistic license although from this artist's impression in the pilot's notes it could of been anything. The safe bets are black (it does appear darker) or natural metal. The N3200 restoration was in natural metal. Ray Ray

Edgar later corrected himself. "A visit, yesterday, to our National Archives, revealed another file on the seats, and also that I was wrong about the recess ... The recess was nothing to do with the dinghy, but to stop damage happening to the area of the parachute which carried the ripcord mechanism. This square caused problems, of its own, since the corners were prone to cracking, so the "sides" were elongated to make this less likely. Sorry for the duff information." Ray

Yes I recall another mention of this dark shade somewhere. I'll get into that when I do my early version.

Hi Peter, Thanks for the compliment. Historically correct? With so much change going on with Spitfire variation due to manufacturing and combat experience I think you're safe with Eduard recommendations with seat and belt location. The seat thread I quoted previously talks about the lozenge pattern in the composite seat coming in 1941. This is the fIrst I had heard of this so thought I'd hide the pattern anyway. Another each way bet. There is an image of a lozenge pattern with leather piece so I added it. Also an interesting read here: https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/39906-spitfire-seats-same-for-all-versions/ As to the belt location, mine could well be wrong. You may have the elusive picture that confirms this showing the harness between the back armour and seat. I remember Edgar Brook's comments regarding through the hole "only from Mk VII" and his one sure thing of not through the back rest on the Vb. If nothing else, doing it this way, will better show off an excellent job doing the leather upholstery. More interesting discussion here, sadly many of the pictures are no longer supported: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/spitfires-and-sutton-harnesses-t172581.html I am very interested if you have evidence supporting either way. Ray

Bob, Your cockpit looks very nice indeed. From my research the buckles were steel. An example from this site. https://www.historicflyingclothing.com/en-GB/raf-aircraft-parts/raf-aircraft-sutton-harness/prod_10252#.X2S6lT_itD0 I do not think this is a replica. If so it's a good one and they have got the corrosion and wear just right. The buckles may of been blued when new so a darkish more blue-black colour may be more appropriate - I think unlikely nickel or chrome coated. I always have a concern using copper based materials during war time for applications unless mandatory. Copper and its alloys are much better being used in ammunition so if you can get away with steel then use it. This is another reason why I have a concern using copper for the undercarriage hydraulic piping although workability and possibly a reduced likelihood of stress cracking (post anneal after bending or start with a temper allowing some but not excessive work hardening) may of been a good reason to stay with copper. Anyway I tone my belts down with a brown wash. Buckles included. A two-way bet. Ray

Read this, the chemistry is quite a bit different and this is for Mr Color Thinners. Mr Color Levelling Thinners has an added retarder reducing tip dry and enhancing the self levelling properties of the normal Mr Color Thinner and why it is the go to thinner for so many spraying, not only the acrylic lacquers (Mr Color), but, also the Tamiya aqueous acrylics which have an ethanol/alcohol solvent base and wash out in water. Mr Color Levelling Thinner gives me the best airbrush results without doubt spraying Tamiya and Gunze Aqueous. Better than with their own Tamiya X-20A thinner, which is alcohol based. I suspect denatured alcohol will work as a thinner with Tamiya aqueous acrylics but I'll guess tip dry may be a problem and you may not get that thin, lovely smooth, tough finish like with Mr Color Levelling Thinners. Check for dusting. However, like Dave @Rabbit Leader said, give it a go and publish the results. Ray

Thanks Dave, it is a great little kit. Worth the extra effort.

Hi Bob, Just posted and you will see I went the other way with the "back of seat" harness. For the Bowden cables I used stretched sprue and glued the two short ones and two long ones to the 4 tabs that Eduard has on the corners of the controller. Not strictly true, as you are right the cables should go through the top and bottom of the unit, but, it is close enough to represent this. Copper wire would of been un-manageable. Lead wire too flexible and will not look like a Bowden cable. So it was stretched sprue. I used the smallest amount of Tamiya Thin to hold each then wicked in some thin CA around the joint to strengthen it. Ray

A few pictures of the finished cockpit with some comments. In the end, I decided to stay with my usual harness through the seat option. I went back over the old threads and the often passionate views and still came away with no definite decision. The clincher for me, was the recent thread where Peter @Basilisk posted the seat drawing. It's a 300 series drawing, so it is for the Mk I and the metal seat if I am not mistaken. The seat hole is titled "for safety belt". It is a drawing for the cartridge rack so I put that back on. Sadly the list of amendments and dates are not clear. I would have liked to be able to read these. Some pilot's may of preferred the over the seat option, but, I'll stick with my original view that if you go over the seat you cannot lean forward using the release lever unless the belts attached to the rear of seat slip either side of the seat (maybe this is what they did). I'll correct this with the metal seat early version build that is coming up next if the evidence is strong. For this build it's through the seat. Here's the link to Peter's post: The final result: Another peculiarity is the recess in the bottom of the seat. The later lozenge pattern is provided in the kit (in hindsight, easier to use the metal seat and alter for the paper/resin composite seat and paint in the appropriate colour), I decided to hide the triangular ends as best I could rather than fill, file and reshape. I put in the leather protective strap as fixed to the left hand side of the seat (painted Tamiya tape) and then laid the belts as best as I could, to hide those ends of the recess. I think it's OK for 1/48. I'm sure my family are not going to say " Dad, you have the wrong seat installed! It's totally ruined!" or these days probably a suitable list of emoji's showing shock then crying. The Eduard IP comes up real nice. Note that I let the black wash tone down the brightness of the white and yellow features. Careful though not to get it in the dials. @Greg Law Greg, Well spotted! The seat is painted with acrylics. I get a little Tamiya Yellow XF-4 and Mr Hobby Aqueous Hobby Color Red Brown H47 (I don't think the brands matter) and mix and adjust on a palette. Get a base colour I like and then start painting with some adjusted more yellow and more red brown tones. I use Mr Color Levelling Thinners to keep the brush, paint and application area dilute and workable. Once dry, I do dry brush slightly with a flat yellow brown (Tamiya Yellow Brown XF-60) on the wearing edges - this effect seems to have disappeared in the photos. Before jumping into joining the fuselage halves, I removed the leading edge rivetting with Mr Surfacer 500. Chemical mask mandatory - my this stuff is on the nose. Sorry Eduard, I like the rivetting just feel it is a tad overstated on that leading edge. I decided to give my Spitfire an extra 15 knots. I kept most of the underside detail. I'll now give this at least 24 hours to dry before some gentle wet sanding. Ray

At least with the double kit boxing you have a second one to lose or not and choose the other build as an early version where you do not need it.

The old chestnut - harness straps through the hole or over the seat? Eduard show the harness going over the top of the seat. Time to re-visit the old threads. Typically, I prefer to portray the harness through the seat hole. I can then understand how a pilot can lean forward by releasing the retractable top straps using the catch on the starboard sill and pivoting at the waist. Over the seat seems to defeat the purpose. I know Edgar's famous drawing shows the over the seat install. More research before I commit. Here are some cockpit status photos to pass the time while I've hit the research trail. I still have to add the throttle operation cables. I could not be bothered with the note pad holder under the throttle quadrant. Also, in this build, I did not add the pneumatic piping and valves installed at the bottom of the air cylinders. I must be getting lazy or pragmatic. On the next build I might add some of the piping visible through the bulkhead at the rudder pedals - just for fun! Eduard PE Instrument Panel done my usual way with some Tamiya Black Panel Liner used to tone down the vinyl between the dials. I added the Landing Lamp Controls (thanks Charlie @Johnson) and Fuel Cock Levers. Other additions per earlier posts. Whether the hydraulic lines from the U/C operation are steel, aluminium or copper/brass I am not too sure. Safest way is to paint in IG. I like the copper to jazz it up a little. I did not add the hand computer storage under the Remote Contactor. Not enough room as the supplied Remote Contactor may be a little oversize (like the Indicator Light Morse Key). Here is the stalled seat waiting for harnesses. I used the kit's plastic rudder pedals. They're not too bad. Scribed some grooves. I'll save the PE version for a more needy kit. Tamiya tape straps suitably stained. Added the hoses and retaining clips to the joy stick. So on to other things and make a decision on that harness. Ray

Great choice. Just Google Des Sheen 72 Squadron and look at Images. If you want to cut out a lot of the recent guff. Select Black and White photos. It's a start.

Good place to start. https://www.battleofbritainmemorial.org/squadron-logbook/australias-few-and-the-battle-of-britain/ Interesting that they were British. Australian passports did not come in till 1947. This site kicks off the subject. Ray

I would of guessed. 😄

Yes, I would of for sure. Anyway, to satisfy my penchant for filling sink marks Eduard has provided a decent one in the 12 V Voltage Regulator. Should be a flattened dome. 😁😁

I have to agree with Stew on this one. Great result and looks wonderful. Ray

Hi Merlin, Few thoughts: Glued in place the wrong way around - front to rear. Everything you say is correct. I'll post a cockpit complete image tomorrow. I have adjusted it slightly. Shortened it's length, reduced the bead and slightly indented. only time I would like a sink mark and didn't get one. These dug up remains of X4593 may interest you: Here is a picture of mine. Tomorrow the fuselage halves will go together properly and be a better indicator. Any flattening ahead of the mast is probably a sacrifice by Eduard to accommodate an open canopy. Which I will do, so, in my case it is not a problem. Also it does not look as pronounced as your photo. Spitfire nuances. I feel in 1/48 it really is not too bad. Some swear by the Gunze H72. The only image I have is this photo I took of my then part finished Tamiya of one year ago done in Gunze H72 and Tamiya XF-81. Thankfully taken in natural light. Yes maybe a little orangey brown. Interestingly Gunze now offer in their lacquer range C369 Dark Earth where they have shifted it more to the brown. I do not have painted test samples but here are the pot content photos. C369 on the left. I should receive their C361 Dark Green soon as well. Might be a good match. As mentioned in my earlier post, I do like their C368 Sky out of the same series. If you're doing some desk top research checking out reasonably accurate restored aircraft check out N3200. It looks more like H72. Ray

Exactly 👍 I do the same.

Hi Dennis, I think after a while you get your CA technique working for you and find little need for accelerator. I have accelerator and just never use it. It's in the same category as my tube of putty. Still in the box. Maybe if I had a stack of long ship railing to do it may be necessary. Then again, maybe not. Ray

Good call. Not much to see.

Merlin, Thank you. I'll definitely follow up on that. I had decided on hard edge camouflage for Pat's aircraft. Yes Sovereign has a great reputation. In my case, it is a matter of what I have or can easily source. I'll probably stay with my old staples of Gunze H72 Dark Earth and Tamiya XF-81 Dark Green although the latter is very low in the pot and I may have have to adjust Gunze H73 slightly to match. Underside will be something different. I intend to use Gunze's C368 Sky from their lacquer range. Seems more a light Sky Type S than their Aqueous Sky H74 which, I think, gives a great representation of Eau de Nil. I did not find Eduard's head rest rendition too bad for 1/48. Maybe a little long and/or not sufficient diameter but should paint up rather nice. Hand brushing will add some texture. If so then it is very subtle. The kit top is curved (same as their Mk IX and VIII). Is it enough? I do not know. Seems to capture the look. Certainly not a deal breaker. I'll be posing the canopy open so that area forward of the mast will be largely hidden. Thanks for the feed back. Greatly appreciated. Ray

Greg, Excellent result. Looks great in the gallery. Ray

Peter, Excellent report on the use of the Archer Rivets. I'm interested to see what thy look like under a coat of paint. Ray

Hi Greg, Yes you are correct on the prop markings. You could easily have no prop markings or just use the rectangle part under the VDM triangle. There is that excellent image of a 110 at the gun butts that shows it. I took a little artistic license to jazz up the props. Ray

At least I'm in 1/48 so not as noticeable as your big bird. I'm still not certain I have the throttle and prop pitch controls right. I will make this my mission on the next one - the early Mk I version I'll build outside of the BoB GB. Ray