Skawinski

I believe doubts on the size might stem the fact that top and bottom parts are of very different length. Decals 12 and 13 are meant to 'wraparound' also on the lower surface of the aileron (angle on the trailing edge). and that's why decals 14 and 15 are much shorter, as their length excludes ailerons altogether. They look right size to me taking the above into account, but I haven't placed them myself yet (and when building I will probably also use an airbrush). As for moving the decals - it will always be related to the setting solution you are using, but someone else might be more knowledgeable than me in terms of best fluids for Techmod decals.

And that's exactly the IBG approach.

I believe the single best reference on Dutch Martins is the 68-page book (not 48-page, as stated in the product description) in the Dutch Profile series. If I've counted correctly, there are 116 photos in it. And it's fully bilingual: Dutch/English: https://www.aviationmegastore.com/en/books/the-battle-of-the-dutch-indies--glenn-martin-139wh-laml-knil-rneiaaf-dutch-decal-9789490092313-182983.html Michal

What I meant as 'a gap in single-letter sprue designations' are sprues N and O. Still not used. The F-4B/N sprues are AA - AD, as you rightly wrote back in November: Yes, my bad. 16 of them did have slats. Still, I don't think it's a blocker to release RF-4E, as large majority of them didn't.

Regardless, RF-4E did not have slatted wing. I'm desperately waiting for FM to release Japanese ones. If I recall correctly there is still a gap in the single-letter sprue designations, what else could it be? M.

Yes, that is correct.

And why do you say it is wrongly added? Have you looked at the photo I linked on the previous page? Aren't rivets clearly visible? I don't think we have any way to say that IBG rivets aren't similar. What we have is a blurry photo of a silver-painted test shot (that by definition is done using lower pressure therefore having softer details). Let's wait for the final product. That's a nice theory, but not supported by facts. While I agree leading edge was sealed with putty, the remainder of the airframe wasn't. Or if it was, they made a very bad job of it even on factory fresh machines And I'd strongly agree with it. It is quite simple. You have 3 options: 1. If you want factory-fresh machine, just don't highlight the rivets on engine panels (they will be almost invisible) of if you really have to - use surfacer. Should be quick job, it's just the engine panels. 2. If you want a well-maintained machine from operational squadron that served some time, use a very delicate, dilluted wash: 3. And if you want a Spitfire that has seen some action, just go ahead with a stronger wash: And that's all. The model is just a canvas for you. And you can work with it in whatever way you like. But we all should remember that other people might choose other path than ours and it's good to show understanding towards their needs.

Just to clarify - by saying 'real thing' you mean engine side panels, is that right?

That's not an album, but a single photo. Even if I click using 'inconito' mode (so not logged in and no cookies) it is presented. Can others see it?

You are really making definitive statements without doing proper research. That is not true, that panels would need to be stripped to bare metal for rivets to be visible. While not always visible or even not very often, as the airframe got used these would be more and more pronounced. https://www.flickr.com/gp/201927204@N06/2M88J03CWi (Photo for research purposes only. Please do not download or share)

Thank you for sharing your suspicions, but that's not actually the case I'm looking at the photos of relatively fresh P7508 and the situation is even worse than in the photos I've linked earlier. But then again, CBAF had initialy more than its share of troubles with production.

Well... it depends. I think you might overestimate the quality of mass production. Definitely the ring was placed on top of the panel sheet and sometimes it resulted in it sitting proud, sometimes flush and actually sometimes recessed. On the same panel, of course. Good examples: IWM TR 18 (for better quality choose 2nd photo): https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205123802 IWM TR 1069 (3rd photo): https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188644 IWM A 9581: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205143393 Obviously there needed to be a decision to do it in a consistent way, otherwise we'd be now discussing the messy approach I'd say making them raised is a way to do them more delicate than otherwise just doing recessed circles.

I think that the visibility of the rivets on this movie is greatly enhanced by the silver paint that put on the model. If you look at 7:15 and 7;55 - just compare their visibility on the silver-painted part of the wing and the one which is not-painted (and I'd expect painted in matt camouflage to give similar effect to the non-painted one). I can think of only some of the Australian Spitfires Mk.Vc being stripped to bare metal. Otherwise extremely rare, I guess.

If the panel is removable that only reinforces the need for internal stiffeners. And in case of Spitfire they were rivetted to the panel.

Sometimes wishes come true...