Rabbit Leader Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Just looked at Italeri's website an saw their rendition of three Maltese based Spitfires. Although one cannot be sure what is "correct", these options look somewhat really odd to me? Any thoughts? http://www.italeri.com/scheda.asp?idProdotto=2239 Cheers.. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Eisenman Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 601 Sq; 3*M; BR344, Cauchi's guesstimate is EDSG and DSG. Bowery delivery. There is a contrast between two colors on the top. 249 Sq; B; BR246, the guesstime is over paint of Op. Bowery, a USN color. Photo shows an over-paint with the serial number having been masked and left on the original camouflage. Wing Commander Hanks; PP*H; BR498, the Cauchi guesstimate is Dark Gren Dark Earth and Azure. Original spinner was all red, later white added. So, you pay your money and you can paint according to...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 601 Sq; 3*M; BR344, Cauchi's guesstimate is EDSG and DSG. Bowery delivery. There is a contrast between two colors on the top. 249 Sq; B; BR246, the guesstime is over paint of Op. Bowery, a USN color. Photo shows an over-paint with the serial number having been masked and left on the original camouflage. Wing Commander Hanks; PP*H; BR498, the Cauchi guesstimate is Dark Gren Dark Earth and Azure. Original spinner was all red, later white added. So, you pay your money and you can paint according to...... As to PPH, it seems that it was sometime repainted. Some of the Photos in Cauchi show a very light coloured PPH, but also a much darker, the one with the red/White spinner. Rising Decals has both versions included (RD 48-013). NPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Eisenman Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 On page 118 Cauchi shows a "lighter" but still two color camouflaged PP*H. He attributes it to weathering. He has most likely rejected other theories as shown on page 119. But it is not the blue as shown on the Italeri sheet. If there was good evidence that it had been, Cauchi, it seems, would have brought that into his discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 On page 118 Cauchi shows a "lighter" but still two color camouflaged PP*H. He attributes it to weathering. He has most likely rejected other theories as shown on page 119. But it is not the blue as shown on the Italeri sheet. If there was good evidence that it had been, Cauchi, it seems, would have brought that into his discussion. If the colour Photo on the front page is genuine, it is datk green / dark earth, with azure beneath. If it Same period as the top on p. 117, I must say that the dark arth paled much faster than the dark green. The contrast between the colours is less pronounced on p. 118 (with the red / White spinner). The light blue of Italeri is free fantacy. A misinterpretation of the yellow X on the Beach? NPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 The photo on the cover of Cauchi's book is a colourised one, I am afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioN Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 The photo on the cover of Cauchi's book is a colourised one, I am afraid. Not sure. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188641 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 The IWM photo of Keith Park's Spitfire is well known and has nothing to do with the cover of the book. It is the only known color photo of a Spitfire actually taken in Malta and the only other colour photo of a Malta Spitfire is the one from the beach at Scoglitti. Wouldn't life be boring if we actually had more colour photos of those machines...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Well, if the second on this link is indeed from Malta in May 1943, it shows a Mk.Vb in desert cam. I gues that this does not say much about how it looked the year before. On the other hand, in his discussions of PPH, Cauchi does not Refer to this foto as evidence which indicates that it was origially in B/NPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Eisenman Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 You mean this one? http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188644 Could be a wrong caption. See for correct picture. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188643 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 You mean this one? http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188644 Could be a wrong caption. See for correct picture. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188643 Could be, and I suppose it is. Anybody WHO knows more? NPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 It could be a wrong caption or it could be a right one: by the time the photo was taken, the Malta Spitfire units were being built up in view of the invasion of Sicily. Not sure about safi being inaugurated: it should have been there and in use from earlier times, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 The caption, for the photo of Park's aircraft, usually says it was the first flight to inaugurate a new airfield, which could be the one the Americans built on Gozo. Incidentally, don't assume that every Spitfire V, with a single gun barrel, is automatically a Vb; there was a fairly short-lived 1942/3 mod, which removed the outer cannon fairing from the leading edge casting (and it applied to the IX as well,) so, if you can't see an underside bulge, it might well be a Vc, not a Vb (it could explain some of the adamant sightings of a "IXb," too.) Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Aereo Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Very interesting info on that mod, Edgar: I have often wondered about the missing stubs on some Mk.IX's. I would not think it was Gozo, though: another photo in the series (TR 745) purports to show Keith Park's spitfire overflying the RAF flag just after take off and the USAAF perhaps would not have hoisted the RAF blue ensign under the Union Jack on one of their bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aero Imageworks Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Cauchi book is worth getting not so much because it answers your questions but rather it makes you think about the puzzle in a different way. btw the photo on the front cover is a colorized, composite. cheersy http://www.aeroimageworks.com/spitfiresintheantipodesblog.htm Prof-meisterrrrrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 The caption to the photo llinked to in Claudio's post #7 says the new airstrip was at Safi. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 The caption, for the photo of Park's aircraft, usually says it was the first flight to inaugurate a new airfield, which could be the one the Americans built on Gozo. Incidentally, don't assume that every Spitfire V, with a single gun barrel, is automatically a Vb; there was a fairly short-lived 1942/3 mod, which removed the outer cannon fairing from the leading edge casting (and it applied to the IX as well,) so, if you can't see an underside bulge, it might well be a Vc, not a Vb (it could explain some of the adamant sightings of a "IXb," too.) Edgar Both of the aircraft shown here ARE 'b's, though. In addition to the underside bulge on the 'b', the 'c' without a stub has more raked-forward gear legs, which from some angles is readily discernable, and the cannon sticks out farther and has a "straight" cylindrical section before it tapers down toward the front, whereas the 'b' cannon starts tapering almost immediately. From head on, the different location of one of the .303s can be a clue, also. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 (edited) So the Italeri kit is showing as out now at the Big H, the question is, whose mould is it? Is it an Italeri original? If it is somebody else's how does it fare? Wez Edited June 14, 2013 by Wez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 It's the Classic Airframes/Eduard/Special Hobby plastic. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 It's the Classic Airframes/Eduard/Special Hobby plastic. bob Thanks Bob, I'm afraid that leaves me none the wiser though as I've no experience of any version of that kit, is it any good, a pig to build, grossly inaccurate? Wez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Thanks Bob, I'm afraid that leaves me none the wiser though as I've no experience of any version of that kit, is it any good, a pig to build, grossly inaccurate? Wez It could be worse. Eduard added a lot to the basic Special Hobby kit. But it is not Tamiya ... NPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aero Imageworks Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Thanks Bob, I'm afraid that leaves me none the wiser though as I've no experience of any version of that kit, is it any good, a pig to build, grossly inaccurate? Wez it's basically accurate but not one for the novice modeller. You need to do some work to shoe horn the cockpit into the fuselage, the wing parts need work to fit together, the fuselage-wing join is a bit ordinary requiring some care to get the dihedral about right. FYI, ZP_X above is the Special Hobby kit with aftermarket decals (mine) . I made a few comments about this kit on my blog as well. Cheersy http://www.aeroimageworks.com/spitfiresintheantipodesblog.htm Prof-meisterrrrrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramedic Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Is it like their 1/72 Spitfire Vb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Is it like their 1/72 Spitfire Vb? Totally different design. None is the easiest of builds, but at least the 1/48 kit can be excused because of its initial "short run" nature. The 1/72 kit is just a poorly designed and not well executed kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramedic Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Agreed.. Built the 1/72 not too long ago and three times was about to bin it.. Thanks for the info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now