New Revell 1/32 Spitfire

[MontagueFlange]

So. Did you build the kit after or throw it in the bin and hide under the table ?

[Edgar]

ok so lets try to make this simple

And let's try not to be patronising.

you claimed on LSP that AR213 had a 'MKV' port wing with twin ganged cooler and strakes, and that both strakes and twin cooler proved that therefore the port wing was as you put it a 'MkV' wing

My point is that strakes and or twin oil cooler prove no such thing, and further there is no such thing as a Mk V wing, therefore I was trying to ask you to explain why you said that - especially when in the earlier state of the aircraft - the strakes were on the starboard wing.

Since the overwing strakes modification was for the Va & Vb ONLY, I feel that it should be fairly obvious that any wing, so constructed, could, quite legitimately, be called a Mk.V wing.

Edgar, I just couldn't follow your argument - and it seems sometimes that you follow paperwork without actually looking at the aircraft or the engineering

You're not the first, and do, please, cut out the condescending manner; it does you no credit. Your assumption is way wide of the mark.

Further it makes no sense to me that when a MkIa Spitfire lands at Tangmere in august 1940 and is found to have cracked wing skins over the wheel arches, causing a great deal of work to be done to institute revised internal production line wing stiffening as I have previously shown you photos of - and a field mod [the strakes] - plus everyone working on Spits I have ever spoken to from RAF Hendon to Airframes and Assemblies to the Shuttleworth crew have always said that it was a field mod - would they delay instituting that mod [the strakes] to late 1942 when the C wing was in full production?

I leave others to do the speculating; I'm only interested in what happened, and the strakes were designed for the Va & Vb; the Vc had a completely different style of wheel well stiffening.

Further K9942 and R6195 both have A wings with early internal ribbing structure [ ie 1940 or early 1941 made wings] and strakes on the top surface of the wing.

As leaflets were issued for the mod to be done by the units, C.R.O., and M.U.s, I'd expect there to be several examples of early aircraft being so modded.

but if you have an engine over heating, - and the MkII's Merlin XII engine's clearly were, and I was a Fighter Command pilot, it's the last thing I'd want to have to think about - engines seizing in mid flight with 109s by the hoard trying to get onto my tail

Don't get the point, since a pilot used what he was given, and did as he was told.

plus Edgar, the MkV went into production in 1940

No, it didn't, in fact the meeting, to discuss the introduction of the Merlin 45, wasn't held until 15-1-41, when it was agreed that priority would be given to production airframes, and conversions would follow:-

To return (hopefully for the last time) to the LOX test Mk.II, the trials are dated 1943, so StH got that wrong. The airframe concerned was P8079, delivered in February 1942, used by 303 Squadron then sent to Farnborough after repair. To quote the report:-

"The first ground tests of the system were successfully completed early in August 1941. The initial flight tests showed that even without the use of liquid oxygen, the original oil cooler was inadequate, and this was changed for a Mark III type, a standard item on later Spitfire II aircraft."

So it flew for 6 months with the old cooler. Isn't paperwork (occasionally) wonderful?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Edgar

[cngaero]

I think I too am now loosing the will to live on this one.

Surely AR213 was only a true Mk1A on the day she was built.

Going through her history, there are quite sizeable gaps between 1941 and the present day, where any amount of repairs/modifications could have been carried out.

A little bit like grandfathers axe, 4 new heads and 5 new handles, but it's still the same axe.

With regards to the Revell kit, remember, it's not compulsory for us to purchase it. If what's in the box offends, then we can leave it alone.

I've pursued this hobby for 50+ years now and I don't recall anyone describing any new model as the perfect kit. If it ever does come along especially, in this scale, you can bet your bottom dollar that it won't be less than £20.

Sorry for the rant Mike.

Regards,

[stan]

This is starting to resemble another couple of forums that i would`t post at.

I think a lot of owners of this kit "including me"would now be reluctant to ask for building or painting advice

for fear of criticism.

[gingerbob]

Coming back to the kit, I am still hoping for some actual evidence, whether documentary or (ideally) photographic which shows Revell to be correct in providing a late-type oil cooler for P7849, an aircraft delivered on 9 January 1941 to 12 M.U., and depicted in the kit colour scheme and decals as in service in June 1941 with 19 Squadron.

Good question. There's a picture of QVoJ in Price's "Spitfire Mk.I/II Aces" or whatever it is called (I have a different edition) and it clearly has the early type oil cooler and Rotol prop.

the other decal subject, P7665 YToL, was lost on 5 Feb '41, so there's no question of its cooler. It also has a Rotol prop. (photos found on line, but also, I think, in Spit the History)

bob

Edited July 7, 2014 by gingerbob

[KingK_series]

Edgar

I apologise if you feel I am being patronising, my point is that others on this forum are 'loosing the w i l ll" - and I really struggle to follow you reasoning, and honestly - I feel that you are extremely patronising, so perhaps we both need to take a look at the colour of our posts?

you say that the wing strakes are only for MkVs - I completely disagree, but I wonder if you contradict yourself when I post pics of MkIs with strakes and you write

Quote

Further K9942 and R6195 both have A wings with early internal ribbing structure [ ie 1940 or early 1941 made wings] and strakes on the top surface of the wing.

As leaflets were issued for the mod to be done by the units, C.R.O., and M.U.s, I'd expect there to be several examples of early aircraft being so modded."

clearly then they were not only fitted to MkVs, - so that is that not a contradiction ?

- now more to the point, you and I have discussed the different structures of A./B wings and C wings on LSP

As it is the C wing was designed to have a longer fatigue life, it had a much stiffer framing and the sheet gauge went up, as I have previously written, so it makes no sense to factory fit strakes to a C wing, only the Shuttleworth Spitfire Vc Spitfire has them, and the team there are adamant the strakes were a field mod, improbably fitted to their aircraft.

the A/B wing went through a series of mods to it's structure which I have also previously illustrated. - Which is my point because the two MK Is with strakes have early - ie not contemporary with MkV or mid MkII production wings - that to me is a salient and clear illustration which lends weight to my point

but I guess we will always disagree - ?

Edited July 7, 2014 by KingK_series

[KingK_series]

I think I too am now loosing the will to live on this one.

Surely AR213 was only a true Mk1A on the day she was built.

Going through her history, there are quite sizeable gaps between 1941 and the present day, where any amount of repairs/modifications could have been carried out.

A little bit like grandfathers axe, 4 new heads and 5 new handles, but it's still the same axe.

With regards to the Revell kit, remember, it's not compulsory for us to purchase it. If what's in the box offends, then we can leave it alone.

I've pursued this hobby for 50+ years now and I don't recall anyone describing any new model as the perfect kit. If it ever does come along especially, in this scale, you can bet your bottom dollar that it won't be less than £20.

Sorry for the rant Mike.

Regards,

not at all - I totally agree

And I came in trying to raise awareness of the major issues - ie the shape of the basic airframe, with the observation that it was very strange [to me ] that people were only taking issue with the oil cooler as a fault -

That is in the scheme of things a very very small - and easily changed issue - if people want a height of the Battle of Britain aircraft.

the real point is - how accurate is the shape of this kit, dimensionally and in character - and I feel people have not picked up on that for want of oil coolers!

to me the real point is that Revell have not met the standard of their previous He111 or Ju88 at all

whether that matters to you, is dependent on what you expect from Revell or their kit -

[KingK_series]

Good question. There's a picture of QVoJ in Price's "Spitfire Mk.I/II Aces" or whatever it is called (I have a different edition) and it clearly has the early type oil cooler and Rotol prop.

the other decal subject, P7665 YToL, was lost on 5 Feb '41, so there's no question of its cooler. It also has a Rotol prop. (photos found on line, but also, I think, in Spit the History)

bob

there are 3 different Rotols that were fitted to MkIIs and the CS DH prop

[Tim T]

Ok, this thread is only heading one way. It was interesting for a while but the tone has taken a turn for the worse.

[Mike]

Yep... final warning. It is getting silly. Tone it down, and leave all of the attitudes at home, or it'll go the way of the dodo

MontagueFlange - if you joined just to stir the pot, think again.

[The Crusty one]

well this is almost as much fun as the eduard 109 thread!:-D i think im going to buy one of these kits because

a) i love spitfires

b)its bloody cheap

c)its like almost every other model kit it is not perfect ,but hey with a bit of work i bet you see quite a few of these in the wip and people like me will be amazed at what the truely talented modellers on here can produce

d) no matter what anybody says i want one

e) its a plastic kit worth 23ish quids!!! it really aint worth falling out with anyone over!

regards

T

[Edgar]

you say that the wing strakes are only for MkVs - I completely disagree

Disagreeing with me is immaterial; it's what Vickers' own ledger of modifications to the Spitfire says that matters, and, as you'll see, mod 532 was for the Va & Vb only, and was cleared for production 16-7-42:-

but I wonder if you contradict yourself when I post pics of MkIs with strakes and you write

Quote

As leaflets were issued for the mod to be done by the units, C.R.O., and M.U.s, I'd expect there to be several examples of early aircraft being so modded."

clearly then they were not only fitted to MkVs, - so that is that not a contradiction ?

Not if you read the leaflets issued by the Air Ministry (this is why I spend so much time scouring paperwork, since, at times, it can be most rewarding); after mod 532 was put into effect, leaflets for other Marks were issued later (I have copies for both the Mk.I & Mk.II., dated December 1942) As the Mk.I & II production lines had closed down, any training unit, needing replacement/strengthened wings would either have to do it themselves, or order new (Mk.V standard) parts.

Note the "class 2" modification, which were:-

"Modifications of operational or safety urgency to be included in the production lines as soon as practicable" Note the emphasis on production lines, and not just field mods.

Mod 529, for the Vc only, which had internal stiffening only, was a "Class 4 & on repair" mod, which covered the production line and repair units.

- now more to the point, you and I have discussed the different structures of A./B wings and C wings on LSP

True, and as I keep repeating, there was no "C" wing; it was the universal wing which was built to take the weight of up to 4 cannon + 4 Brownings.

[gingerbob]

Well, the Mk.V when fitted with the Universal wing was designated Mk.Vc, so I think it is just as reasonable to refer to a 'c' wing as to a 'b' wing. The tricky part is that it doesn't actually refer to a particular armament installation, we just do so because that was usually the one used. Actually, it refers to the type of wing fitted, now that I think about it.

[hacker]

Yep... final warning. It is getting silly. Tone it down, and leave all of the attitudes at home, or it'll go the way of the dodo

MontagueFlange - if you joined just to stir the pot, think again.

It is a plastic kit people! Not worth the duel. Nothing in life is perfect and neither are kits. I am inclined with Mike but l do not want shut it down only because of two particular members want to fight.

[venomvixen]

The upshot of this thread is if you want accurate information backed up with facts on the Spitfire then you need to ask

Edgar who never hesitates to deliver like the proper gent he is. Bob knows his way around a Spitfire as well.

Heresay and wobbly verniers just doesnt cut it.

[Edgar]

no longer relevant

Edited July 8, 2014 by Edgar

[tempestfan]

When were mods 455 and 458 (cancelled by 529 and 532, resp.) introduced/cleared, and how did the mod states differ ? Probably a question that has been asked before, but (semi-)relevant to this thread, I think.

[Adats-Coyote]

Ok I didn't read ALL the posts.

But: I know and agree about getting it right the first time, etc.

Well guys, Revell has made a new tool of this legendary aircraft with faults/errors.

What is done, is done.

Revell will NOT retool the whole thing.

So let's accept it as it is: a flawed but inexpensive kit.

My suggestion:

IMHO, instead of wasting time with negative comments or condemning this kit as "unbuildable",

do like Ian did on the Revell 1/32 UHU: Suggest "possible" errors and find or propose fixes and apply them! Look at his results! All the power to him!

We are all modelers so:

1- do some research

2- point out the issues

3- do a tweak list

4- apply our skills to fix the issues and have a good time doing it.

Isn't that what we are all about???

I suggest that we should restart a new thread with all the good info provided (item 1 and 2)

and do that tweak list (item3)

and show our results (item 4)

Does this sound reasonable to you?

Edited July 8, 2014 by Adats-Coyote

[Airgunner]

The upshot of this thread is if you want accurate information backed up with facts on the Spitfire then you need to ask

Edgar who never hesitates to deliver like the proper gent he is. Bob knows his way around a Spitfire as well.

Heresay and wobbly verniers just doesnt cut it.

Couldn't agree more. Edgar has also generously given me time to answer schoolboy questions, and I am happy to go into bat here for him, everything he has posted in this discussion he has backed up with official paperwork, which I find hard to argue with. All KingK has posted is opinion and conjecture, and conveniently ignored any evidence.

On to the kit, I don't have it in hand so will reserve judgement until I pick one up, along with an Eduard Mark IX, at Flying Legends on Saturday.

[Greg B]

Not at all. If the designer had done *all* his homework the kit would cost a penny more. The old axiom is as true now as it's ever been: it doesn't cost any more to do something right.

Yes it does, it costs far more to do something right than to sling something together without confirmation. Research, checking, verification and repeats of same to ensure something is 100% correct, fits and meets the specification and aesthetics takes time and time is £. You would have to be lucky 100% of the time to get that CAD line in exactly the right place with exactly the right dimensions, radii and vector. Something that any engineer involved in manufacture or construction knows and understands implicitly. Assuming otherwise is very naïve.

[Iain Wyllie]

Yes it does, it costs far more to do something right than to sling something together without confirmation. Research, checking, verification and repeats of same to ensure something is 100% correct, fits and meets the specification and aesthetics takes time and time is £. You would have to be lucky 100% of the time to get that CAD line in exactly the right place with exactly the right dimensions, radii and vector. Something that any engineer involved in manufacture or construction knows and understands implicitly. Assuming otherwise is very naïve.

All the more reason to enlist the help of amateur (in the true sense) specialists from the various forums who would give their input in the hope (possibly forlorn) that the resulting kit would be as accurate as economically possible. There are a lot of knowledgable people out there who would be only to willing to provide input to the accuracy of proposed kits; the only snag is that the company researcher would have to be able to pick the right people and that would require a familiarity with the content of various forums. Hmmm, that might prove to be the fly in the ointment of this idea.

From my own experience of being in charge of the drawing office at Spot-On Models who produced 1/43 diecast vehicles, most of the money went to tooling, etc., and what was left over went to design time so that we had to do our best in the shortest possible time. That was long before the invention of the internet, of course.

[AndyL]

Well, I have bought three of the kits, and have one on the bench now. Edgar has provided valuable information ( and not for the first time ) on what's amiss, and I'm quite happy to correct it. Thank you Edgar, your input is always appreciated by me.

[Edgar]

When were mods 455 and 458 (cancelled by 529 and 532, resp.) introduced/cleared, and how did the mod states differ ? Probably a question that has been asked before, but (semi-)relevant to this thread, I think.

It was 455 (which covered the I, II, & V) only, 456 was on a completely different subject. I've never found a copy of 455 "To stiffen wing skin in region of wheel well," but, as it says it was cancelled by 529 & 532, one can only guess that it died on the days they were "cleared" for production. It's entirely possible (going by my experience) that drawings were altered, and old ones, plus old instruction leaflets, were ordered destroyed.

Edgar

[hacker]

The upshot of this thread is if you want accurate information backed up with facts on the Spitfire then you need to ask

Edgar who never hesitates to deliver like the proper gent he is. Bob knows his way around a Spitfire as well.

Heresay and wobbly verniers just doesnt cut it.

Did not Edgar already done that?

I've been loaned one, for a couple of hours, so have had a chance for a quick assessment:-

1/. it needs a "Mk.I" oil cooler.

2/. it needs the crowbar deleting, unless your model dates after January 1942 (the fit was retrospective.)

3/. 2-bar rudder pedals are o.k., but need the fabric straps over the top.

4/. gun button was brass, with a silver surround, not red (post-war elfin safety?)

5/. Very pistol cartridge rack was normally left off, and Castle Bromwich had (red) plastic seats, not (green) metal.

6/. seat armour is missing.

7/, seat backrest has an odd depression moulded in, which I've never seen.

8/. I have no idea what part 40 is, and 41 (oxygen bottle) should be black, not green.

9/. part 42 (compressed-air bottles) was silver, not green.

9/. rudder and elevators' "stitching" is overdone.

10/. I have no idea what the two "lozenges" (on the top of each wing) are.

11/. unless your Mk.II dates from 1940, the rudder "prong" shouldn't be there, neither should the aerial.

12/. post 1940, IFF aerials were fitted, and the position of the discs is marked.

13/. if you drop the flaps, the door, in the top of the wing, needs to be cut out, and opened.

14/. 50B is/are/were "station keeping lights," which might have been coloured like the navigation lights, but that remains a mystery, for now.

15/. while over-prominent, the "rivets" are nowhere near as bad as the photos appeared to show.

16/. the fuselage is about 2mm shorter than the Hasegawa Vb (all at the spinner end,) but it doesn't "shout," and it appears to have better curvature than the (somewhat slab-sided) Hasegawa fuselage.

17/, wingspan and chord (minus wingtips) are identical to the Hasegawa Vb.

18/. Revell have matched Tamiya, in the wheel wells, by providing back-sloping walls - very well done - but the "orifices" are too oval.

19/. there are three oblong "protuberances" on the spinner, but Revell do tell you to file them off.

20/. Revell have confused Sky with Sky Blue (oh, yes, they have.)

21/. instrument panel is fixed, but is missing the landing lights control.

Sorry, the owner wants it back, so any further "conversation" will have to wait.

Edgar

here it is again in case you missed it

Edited July 8, 2014 by hacker

[stan]

Did not Edgar already done that?

quote name="Edgar" post="1661247" timestamp="1403105300"]I've been loaned one, for a couple of hours, so have had a chance for a quick assessment:-

1/. it needs a "Mk.I" oil cooler.

2/. it needs the crowbar deleting, unless your model dates after January 1942 (the fit was retrospective.)

3/. 2-bar rudder pedals are o.k., but need the fabric straps over the top.

4/. gun button was brass, with a silver surround, not red (post-war elfin safety?)

5/. Very pistol cartridge rack was normally left off, and Castle Bromwich had (red) plastic seats, not (green) metal.

6/. seat armour is missing.

7/, seat backrest has an odd depression moulded in, which I've never seen.

8/. I have no idea what part 40 is, and 41 (oxygen bottle) should be black, not green.

9/. part 42 (compressed-air bottles) was silver, not green.

9/. rudder and elevators' "stitching" is overdone.

10/. I have no idea what the two "lozenges" (on the top of each wing) are.

11/. unless your Mk.II dates from 1940, the rudder "prong" shouldn't be there, neither should the aerial.

12/. post 1940, IFF aerials were fitted, and the position of the discs is marked.

13/. if you drop the flaps, the door, in the top of the wing, needs to be cut out, and opened.

14/. 50B is/are/were "station keeping lights," which might have been coloured like the navigation lights, but that remains a mystery, for now.

15/. while over-prominent, the "rivets" are nowhere near as bad as the photos appeared to show.

16/. the fuselage is about 2mm shorter than the Hasegawa Vb (all at the spinner end,) but it doesn't "shout," and it appears to have better curvature than the (somewhat slab-sided) Hasegawa fuselage.

17/, wingspan and chord (minus wingtips) are identical to the Hasegawa Vb.

18/. Revell have matched Tamiya, in the wheel wells, by providing back-sloping walls - very well done - but the "orifices" are too oval.

19/. there are three oblong "protuberances" on the spinner, but Revell do tell you to file them off.

20/. Revell have confused Sky with Sky Blue (oh, yes, they have.)

21/. instrument panel is fixed, but is missing the landing lights control.

Sorry, the owner wants it back, so any further "conversation" will have to wait.

Edgar

here it is again in case you missed it

I was happy with the information that Edgar gave me in this post.

Marked the instructions.

Many thanks to Revell for producing this, keep them coming.