Jim Kiker

This is for Tony regarding the shimming, When you described adding shims at the rear end of the cowling and at the rear end of the saddle (for the internal armored windscreen), I am a little unclear. Are you adding these shims around the edges of the pieces in order to lenghten them, or are you adding a wedge, especially on the cowling, in order to make it wider? Thanks, Jim

Hi Stix, After reviewing the later series of posts, I just thought I would chime in and say I admire the quality of the work you are doing on these builds. Well done. And for Troy, thank you so much for the additional data and the tenacity of your work on correcting the Tamiya kit's shortcomings. There is definitely more there that can use improvement that I knew about! I have to admit, it is more work than I am willing to put into it. Still, I really enjoy seeing someone dig deep for the best data and then find a way to put it into a model. +1, sir! Cheers, Jim

For Troy and all, That was an interesting picture of the Tamiya and Airfix fuselages which you posted a bit back. My information on the Tamiya fixes came from information provided by several Spitfire boffins which included measurements of specfic segments and overall dimensions of the Spitfire, then converted and compared to measurement of the kits available at that time. I noticed in your photograph that you lined up the rear end of the cockpits to make the picture, obviously leaving the length mismatch at the nose. Was there a particular reason for that? Based on the information I have, the Tamiya nose section is pretty close to correct back to the firewall. Assuming that is correct, I would have started that comparison by matching the noses. Since I built the last Tamiya Spit, there seems to be further information that the wing or cockpit was located incorrectly; do you know anything along that line? Thanks, Jim

Hi K, I do not know if you have tried it or not, but there are walkarounds out there that are accessible via Google Images. I have gathered some good information for a 1/48 scale build, so drop me a line here via the Personal Messenger and I'll be glad to share what I have. HTH, Jim Kiker

Hi Stix, sorry to have lost track of this for a bit. As I mentioned earlier on, I posted a buid diary a while back that shows the things I did to a Tamiya Spitfire Mk I to accurize it and turn it into a Spitfire PR I. I think you will figure out which, if any of the updates I did to the base kit would be something you want to include in your build. Here is the link: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/48265-148-spitfire-pr-i-build-diary/ HTH, Jim

I dunno DM, it's a little like watching synchronized swimming! Seriously, a fantastic job all around. 1+ Cheers, Jim

Hi Stix, I think you're going to have some fun with these. The Tamiya kit does have some shape issues, one not-so-easy one to fix and a couple of ones that are easy to fix. I have done those fixes a couple of times and if you are interested I can point you to the needed information here on BM. In the meantime I look forward to seeing your progress. Cheers, Jim

Hi Garry, Actually, modeling is pretty much about what each modeler wants out of it, and things like accuracy are not something that many modelers care very much about. I say this with some reluctance because I also do a lot of detailing and accurizing, for the same reasons you do. However, I have come to realize that what I do is not what most modelers do; and that is OK with me because their models are not my models. In the meantime, I would like to know by how much the windows are indented on real airliners? I imagine it varies from type to type, so I would like to know more about the range of the indentation and perhaps a couple of examples by type. Can you fill us in on the actual dimensions? Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi Ivor and all, Not to be too pedantic, but I think what Jennings is driving at is that "font" is the term associated with computers and digital lettering in our more modern times. Therefore, while there were standardized typefaces available during WWII they were not a type of font. In some modeling cases this may make little difference, especially if a modeller is willing to go with something that is "close enough." One thing Jennings knows well, and I have come to appreciate, is that a great deal of aircraft lettering in the WWII era was done by hand, so that there are noticeable differences in size, width of stroke, etc. in the code letters (for example) among different airframes even when painted by the same man. Many modern decal makers make the mistake of creating letter sets in a modern, completely standardized font, even when the hand-painted, non-standard markings they want to replicate is there to be seen in photos. And that's just one of the things the Fundekals guys bring to the decal party that is otherwise quite rare! Cheers, Jim

Hi G.B., Yes, both the gray lower wing and the tan upper wing pieces are from Tamiya. When I took that picture I had already corrected the Mk I kit's upper wings, so I checked the dimensions of the Vb wing and used it to show where I took material off. For everyone, here is a link to the "build diary" I posted on the PR I conversion. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/48265-148-spitfire-pr-i-build-diary/ Another part of the updates I did was to lengthen the Tamiya fuselage with ICM pieces. I mention this mainly because I found the lower Tamiya fuselage just behind the wing root was almost 1/32" larger than the ICM pieces. If you scroll about one third of the way down, I have a picture showing this mismatch. While I do not know if this corresponds directly to the "fat lower fuselage" issue others have raised, I do think thinning down the fuselage in this area helps the look whether you lengthen the fuselage or not. Your mileage may vary... HTH, Jim

Hi Sean, I posted an "build diary" here on BM some time back in the Work in Progress forum, showing how I turned the Tamiya 1/48 scale Spitfire Mk I into the PR I. Making corrections to the wing shape was part of what I did. The gray lower wing above is from the Mk I kit, while the tan upper wing piece is from a Tamiya Mk Vb kit for comparison. I measured about 1/32" in on the trailing edge of the wing at the inboard end of the ailerons and reshaped the trailing edges, leaving the wing root and the outer end just inboard of the wing tip where they were; this improved the trailing edges without disturbing the fit of the wing to other pieces at either end. Of course the trailing edges will need to be thinned down. For the leading edges, starting just inboard from the line of the wing tip, I slowly removed some of the bulge you can see in the picture above, being careful not to sand through the thickness of the plastic at the wings' leading edges. A bit of CA glue added behind the leading edges would keep the stiffness, just don't add so much that it interferes with the fit. Small-ish tweaks, but they really add to the appearance of the finished model. HTH, Jim

For Gruffy and all, The short answer to the question about hacking off the original wingtips is, no. If I remember correctly, Blackburn ran a modification center somewhere near the Vought factory to install/swap out certain things to make the planes ready for FAA service. One of these items was to remove the original wing tips at that closest panel line (they were made to be removable in the first place), then install the clipped tip. I'd bet that included the wing tip lights as well. HTH, Jim

Hi Will, In a manner of speaking, I cheated! To be specific, I chose to scribe the whole vehicle instead of using the kit-supplied decals. I was careful to use a straight pin in a vice to start the panel lines, then deepened them with my .005" razor saws. During painting, I only added a wash to the main flight control lines on the wings and to the moved/rescribed entry door on the right side of the fuselage. All the rest of the panel lines are just the cut-in lines with nothing in them. We only see the shadows created by the fine lines. For this piece, it worked out well but it's a real pain to do it! HTH, Jim

Nice looking Clipper you have there. She does indeed look better in her new, more finished state! Cheers, Jim

Hi Gordon, Whoops, my mistake; I hadn't put 2 and 2 together... in any event, nice work mate! And while it's understandable, I will agree with your latest assessment. She does indeed look better with the markings complete! So perhaps we'll have an updated picture after you've had a go with the Pan Am markings! Cheers, Jim

Yeah, baby! Hope you share some pics when you get to work on her! Cheers, Jim

Hi Gordon, Interesting about the Comet decals. If my memory serves, the Airfix kit is physically a bit bigger than the old Aurora kit was. As you may know, the Moebius kit is based closely to the Aurora kit, so I would assume (but would verify) that the "Aurora" decals should fit the Moebius kit very well. HTH, Jim

Hi Gordon, Actually, I used the TSDS decals for the Pan Am lettering. They are the right height to my eye, but a bit too close together when you compare them to the film model pictures. They are also (in this case at least) not the best examples of the decal maker's art; they wanted to stick at the first placement and were difficult to move around. They also took more than usual to get them to snuggle down. I am not familiar with the Comet decals, but it sounds like they should work fine; I would think that Comet would be willing to give you a measurement if you asked them. HTH, Jim Further note: The blue Pan Am "world" symbols came from a fellow modeler, and were sized to 3/4" for printing. This is slightly larger than the ones found of the TSDS sheet, and were printed in a slightly darker blue than most sheets (matches the shade of blue in use by Pan Am into the early sixties; they went lighter in the mid-'60's I think).

Hi Chris, Back when this kit came out I did some comparisons as many Mossie fans did. One thing to note about the wheels is that the landing gear are too short, if memory servies around 4mm. We cannot replace the wheels without extending the gear. There were at least a couple of build articles done on-line which featured ways to make this kit's main gear longer. You should be able to search for them. As for the spinners, I am not sure if any other kit's spinners will fit or not, but I know I have some ancient Monogram spinners in my part stash. I would suggest you measure the diameter of the Revell of Germany kit's spinners and make a request for someone's spares to match and see what people come up with; I'd bet there are a lot of Mossie spinners lying in stashes which will come to light. HTH, Jim

Hi Ben, Well, I am not a Boffin but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night (U.S. advertising tag line). That looks to me like a metal Rotol prop since it is wider that the de Havilland prop near the hub, but the base of the prop right next to the hub is not cut straight, as the Rotol wooden Jablo prop would be. As for the upper cowl, in my experience an antiglare panel is quite rare on Spitfires. I also note that the tip of the vertical fin has some extra paint on it, and the tone of it in the photo looks about the same as the tone of that upper cowlilng. There is also a small spot of the same tone on the rudder itself. I also see that the left side engine cowling looks to have only one color on it, which is again unusual. I would have a look at the camouflage scheme in use for the location and time frame and compare it to what's in this picture. You may be looking at some replacement of engine panels, some fresh paint for touch-ups or for painting over repairs, things of that sort. Are we looking at a field-modified two seater? The forward canopy does not seem to have a sliding canopy/upper fuselage, which we would see if a second Spit were sitting just behind this one. An intriguing picture to be sure. HTH, Jim

Hi all, Thanks for the responses! Rene- I am working up a build article, but I take so long that I generally do not do the Work In Progress entries as I build. So more will come a little later. Chris- I used some of the Paragrafix set, mainly on the outside. I found some nice plastic model railroad figures that I really liked in "N" scale, which the railroad modellers tell me is 1/160 scale. That was important, since the model seems to scale out to 1/160 based on the available information, expert analysis, and my own Mk I eyeball. Result- the figures were too big for the PE seats and too small for the JAI resin seat set. I scratchbuilt my own interior, both the passenger cabin and the cockpit, among a number of other additions. A simple kit that turns into a project five minutes after you start dry fitting parts! HTH, Jim

Hi all, Here are some pictures of my Pan Am Space Clipper from the Moebius kit. Lots of work done, but I think it turned out pretty well. An extra shout out to Marty Hobkirk, Ian Gazeley, Kevin Foss, and others who have worked long and hard to amass and share the data that we can use to do the subject justice. Thank you kindly, gents! And finally, a beauty shot... Cheers, Jim

Hi S.A., In general I agree with your comments. We should also keep in mind that aircraft like the Spitfire carried different types of propellers at different times and among the different marks. The Vb is a good example; I think I am right in saying that the earlier Vb's flew with "thinner" De Havilland props, while desert versions are often seen with either metal or Jablo (wood) props. Each of these propellers had different diameters, structure, blade width and taper, and twist. And that's just one Mark of Spitfire. As a modeler, I really have to keep a sharp eye towards these details and compare to photographs just to get the type of prop correct, let alone a correctly molded one. That said, I have no problem going with resin parts for things like props, wheels, exhausts, and such. But then again, I do not make bulk numbers of any particular type (with a couple of exceptions) and I'd rather use good resin for my few Spits in order to get really good looking, fairly accurate models. But that is my own modelilng bliss, and I consider it money well spent. Your mileage may vary... Cheers, Jim

Hi Peter, Well done and many thanks for all the comparison shots you have posted. I am glad to know where I went a bit off and where I had the right idea when I modified the Tamiya fuselage for my PR I. I did not have the information about the error in placement of the Tamiya wing, but at least by lengthening the fuselage a bit it does look pretty good as a half-arsed way to "fix" the perceived length issue. Still, I was surprised to see what the real issue with the Tamiya turned out to be! Nice to know too that the Tamiya wing fixes I did worked pretty well. So now I am wondering, what would a lash-up of the new Airfix Mk Vb fuselage to the Airfix Mk I wings look like? What are we learning about the shapes/dimensions in the new Vb kit? Inquiring minds want to know! Cheers, Jim

To Troy and all, Well, duh! I've got John's article on the Airfix kit saved and safe yet I managed to completely forget about it here! Troy, glad you like my PR I as well! Cheers all, Jim P.S. If you find you want more information, feel free to ping me here on the PM board. I am at your service.