steh2o

Hello! lately I had a very tiresome work period and couldn't advance that much on the Spitfire. Moreover I tend to be distracted by other projects and can't keep myself focused on the Spit: you'll recognize: IBG Fw-190D9 Cottbus: fuselage lengthened 0.3mm, tail still needs some reshaping in section at the plug and fin Brengun Typhoon (late): major adjustment of the tail (length, fin height) and recontouring of the fuselage at the cowling and cockpit area Sword Fiat G-55 serie I: wing moved forward, fin moved forward... this is a tough one! Coming back to the Spitfire, yesterday I decided it was time for a big step forward... toward the unknown: I glued the chassis legs to the wing bottom half The chassis legs need to be precisely aligned to the wing undersurface, both in rake and camber. I have built a jig using the Monforton's plans scaled to 1/72. The side view provides the two lateral elements of the jig, obtained by gluing a scaled profile to styrene sheet then cutting out the wing profile and the chassis leg profile (x2). The two elements have been glued to a central beam (carved in styrene sheet from a front view) providing the correct camber the jig is centered then glued with CA to the top surface of the lower wing through the two tabs near the leading edge. Small wedges of styrene sheet between jig and chassis well walls ensure that the jig adheres well to the lower surface of the wing. The legs are loosely held by the undersized brass trunnions (which tough are precisely spaced in gauge according to Monforton's reference) and can now be precisely aligned with the leg terminal in the slot provided by the jig- that is the raison-d-étre of the jig itself: provide a reference in space for the position of the wheel trunnions Everything is freezed in place by abundant CA with flour filler; the legs are fixed to the trunnions just with liquid CA. The jig is easily removed and... ...and here I am! Now the chassis legs are fixed in place, even before the topside of the wing is glued to the bottom!They have the right Spitfir-ish (Spitfir-esque?) look! It is a big risk considering how much handling the model will undergo before it's finished. Now it'is time to add details. You will notice that the radiator housings are all in place, and the panel lines and rivets have been restored to the final configuration Ciao! Stefano

Hello Stonar would it be possible for you to send a PM to me too? Out of luck in finding Crandall's book at a reasonable price

Hello gentlemen, I see now these recent posts and -embarassingly enough- I can't see the pictures too with my mobile's Chrome! Sorry if there is trouble with the pic hosting service- please let me know. Hope to publish something new in week or two. Thanks everybody

The P-38 looks 1/72 EDIT: no 1/48 it is the same scale as the Chally 2 and Tiger in front, so possibly it is a 1/48 p-38j

Thanks Laurent I save pictures and don't take notes whom they belong to.

Here's a picture of the above, sorry I can't trace who published it firstly

Mike, there is a slight but visible profile difference between -B/C and -D noses, C.J.Neely was the first to find evidence of it; it depends on the -B/C firewall being slightly taller than -Ds, and it produces a different upper line of the cowling, flatter up to the firewall, with a distinct "kink" at the firewall in the B/C, This particular is present also in the -D prototypes. I would trust Airfix, Meng, or Tamiya (1/32) for the -D cowling. Slightly less Eduard (there is an odd discontinuity between fuselage and cowling lines just in front of the windscreen)

Aircorps library has the original NAA drawings, they can be purchased on the website. The first set of very accurate P-51B scale drawings belongs to C.J.Neely who used original NAA microfiches to have a very correct shape ( he was the first to underline the cowling line difference between -B and -D f.a.e.). Jumpei Tenma has very good P-51B profiles on his website, reportedly derived from Aircorps documents.

Great find Jackson! Thank you!

Hello, I would like to share a couple of observations now that I have this new kit in my hands. First of all: perhaps someone is curious to see its profile compared to plans, I did-scaling the two best plans for the -B/C version, namely: Charles J. Neely Jumpei Tenma Please note that there is a slight angle mismatch in the JT comparison, I moved the setup inadvertently. The fuselage and plans are aligned at the firewall line. The results can be summarized as follows: Arma-Neely: almost perfect match, just the tail seems 0,2-0,3mm short Arma -Tenma: again almost perfect match, same discrepancy for the tail (0.3mm short) but a small discrepancy on the cowling lenght too, again 0,2-0,3mm. Small mismatch of the radiator opening depth too. I scaled the drawings for 32' 2,97" without tail-light fairing in both cases; Neely's profile could have a slightly shorter cowling because he depicts the spinner assy slightly longer than Tenma whose spinner length is correct, but leaves no gap between cowling and baseplate. The tail length mismatch seems to be consistent but acceptable I checked the position of wing leading edge and trailing edge and it matches well with both plans (this being the main shortcoming of the Tamiya 1/72 P-51D). A comment about the wheels: in my sample they definitely have the tread slippage problem, and this seems a mould design issue. This is a message for Arma: they are about to release a P-51D, so please take care of the differences between Ponies: they had different hats and shoes. With the P-51B/C they addressed the different canopy styles (birdcage and Malcom) but really they didn't pay attention to the tread patterns. The diamond style (as the failed one in the kit) is just one. Yes, DING HAO had it. But KH716 WC-F and F-6C 'AZEL had the so-called cross-pattern. Cripes A'Mighty had cross (IIRC) and the most iconic of them all, Shangri-La had block-pattern The cross-pattern and oval- are perhaps the most diffused and there is no aftermarket for them (that I'm aware of). For diamond- there are excellent Brassin, Reskit, SBS, CMK, for block there is luckily SBS.

Thank you Jackson very kind words!

I checked, it was Antoon van Dyck! Thanks Charlie and Wikipedia!

Gosh! I'm editing this! I have a Rembrandt-brand tube and is marked as "Brun Van Dyck", the W&N you cited should be totally equivalent. It's ideal for weathering, is sort of a black-brown, neither green-tinged like Raw Umber nor red like Burnt Umber. I always thin it with white spirit, which gives a matt finish to it. And yes, Vallejo Modelcolor 70.883 Silver-grey is an off-white with nice covering properties

Just a couple of pictures of the (now) painted radiator housing, ready for installation: It is airbrushed with my MSG Gunze Mix, shadows/dirt with Van Dyck Brown oil, highlights with diluted Vallejo SilverGrey

Thank you Roland and Steve you are very kind. @Steve 1602: I believe you have the same skills as me, it is just a matter of feedback theory, if you have a refined sensor (read: big magnifiers) the enslaved actuator (those big fingers) works very accurately. Have a try! Thanks again

I hope so! If I don't sc@#w up everything with those big fingers!

I confirm that in my kit the misalignement is present, so I'd say this becomes the major shortcoming of the kit. I hope that Arma will address the issue in a future release, perhaps adding a new frame with a couple of different (correct) tread patterns!

Nice idea the oversized fingers! Thanks for the comments but @elger and @Jochen Barett you should consider that I'm spending a significant part of my life putting together this tiny piece of plastic and sometimes this seems quite absurd!

Stunning build Matthias, every inch of it a Phabolous Phantom!

A small update. I have finished painting the elements of the main undercarriage. To assemble the undercarriage to the wing I must before install the radiator housings. I published before the work on the enlarged oil coolant and here is the glycol radiator housing. First of all I have built the radiator faces starting with styrene sheet cut to size... ...and painted black I superglued a very fine stainless steel mesh (from The Mesh Company)... ...and trimmed it to the right size with simple scissors This picture also shows the general look of the undercarriage leg well, with new stringers and formers, and the hole for the actuating rod. Masking and painting with my own Gunze Mix for Medium Sea Gray I'm happy because the underwing work blended very well and there are no noticeable gaps. A small success. Recently I acquired a lot of Sovereign Hobby Colourcoats for RAF airplanes and while progressing with this work, I'm creating reference color chips with them and adjusting my own Gunze mixes for a better similarity. As explained in my Spitfire XIV WIP I matched my mix to a color chart in a Model Art volume on the Spitfire, and I have to say that the Model Art chips and Colourcoats are quite similar! So I just added a drop or two of green and blue to my original mix (which was just a tad too red-tinged) Here a more refined stage: I added a central element which simulates the split radiator configuration (should be the same as in the Mk.Vc trop) and added the small vent with its square base and peculiar supporting arm (see above in the discussion). For this element I used the measurements in Monforton's book. The L shaped tubing is 0.23mm-diameter lead wire with a 0.08mm bracket. Having used an out-of-the box radiator housing, I discovered a flaw of the Eduard Spitfires: the radiator flap is too narrow so I decided to build a new correctly shaped one, and enlarge the opening by scraping away the sides of the housing. Here a fuzzy view of the new flap (should have been 8,46mm) built as a sandwich of two 0,1mm skins and an aerofoil-section 0.23 layer. A panel line and rivets added... side walls, reinforcing arms, actuating arm added helping myself with Monforton's information (also notice the side element: scraped to enlarge the flap opening) Here is what it looks like before painting Sorry all of this is quite boring... Ciao

Reskit has them!

Hey I did't see word about the Tempest, am I wrong?

Yes, it is the over-weight old tooling. The Mk.XVIII is a nice addition though... it is for sure a development of the very nice Mk.XIV

Lovely choice, bravo Airfix!

Interesting , I must check my kit and verify if the sculpting is salvageable. As for the sink marks, my kit has only a very very slight mark on the fuselage side in correspondance wit the map case all the rest is perfectly fine.