spitfire lower cowling panel color demarcation line

[72modeler]

If this topic has been asked and answered, please forgive me. I have noticed, looking at original wartime photos as well as restored aircraft, that there is a variation in the demarcation between the upper and lower colors between the lower cowling panel and the rest of the nose. In some cases, the demarcation line curves gently from the leading edge of the wing to the spinner backplate about 1/3 of the distance down from the upper edge of the cowling panel line. In other cases, the demarcation between the upper and lower colors uses the upper edge of that same cowling panel as the border.

Question being: Is this related to versions, early vs.late; is it related to which plant or MU applied the paint; is it related to simplifying and speeding up production, due to the lack of masking needed if the cowling panel line was used for the demarcation? I have seen restored Spitfires treated the same way- some use the cowling panel line as the demarcation and some juse the gentle curving demarcation that splits the cowling panel. I do know to try to find an actual photo and not rely on a color profile or drawing to do the version or individual Spitfire I want to build, but I have always been curious about this issue and have not been able to find anything definitive despite a lot of 'net surfing.

Help me,Obie wan, you're my only hope!

Mike

P.S. Are we ever going to get a definitive Mk XIV or XVIII? C'mon, Eduard, Sword, or Special Hobby, you can do it! Of course, an Airfix kit would be the best!

[Graham Boak]

AZ already do Mk.XIV and Mk.XVIII. How definitive is definitive?

[72modeler]

Well, unrelated to my original question, but after examination of my AZ XVIII, Fujimi XIVe, and Ventura XVIII kits, it appears to this untrained eye and lack of Spitfire expertise that the AZ radiators are too shallow, the cylinder head fairings are too angular and begin too far back from the spinner backplate, which is also a well-known fault of the Fujimi kit; the rudder on the AZ kit looks like a Mk XIV unit, and does not have the extended horn at the top (It looks to me like the rudder balance line was scribed further down to make an extended horn.)ior the extended section at the bottom that is parallel with the line of flight and not the lower fuselage line. I have the Freightdog XVIII fin/rudder, and while it is a lot better, and does depict the split trim tab very well, it also lacks the extendede bottom, as seen on so many XVIII's.Ventura nailed the radiators, which are much deeper on the 18's thru 24's. None of these faults are deal-breakers, but disappointing in a state-of-the-art kit that costs a pretty penny, at least here in the Colonies! I have been up close to the beautifully restored TP280 and am waiting for somebody to do this version justice. I know CMR did a very nice resin XVIII, but it has been OOP for a while; When I queried Petyr about the possibility of a new-tool XVIII, I was told it was under consideration, but with so many other kits of the XVIII already out there, good, bad , or indifferent, it wasn't likely in the forseeable future.

Call me crazy, but IMHO, the Mk XII and Mk XVIII are the meanset-looking of the genre!

[Edgar]

With the lower top-to-bottom demarcation, manufacturers were supposed to use the following template to set the line. Due to the curvature of the Spitfire "chin," the line followed a curve, which Supermarine dutifully also followed. At some time this became a total chore, especially in units and M.U.s, so the company apparently got permission to simply follow the (straight) line where the two items met. I have no idea when, and it might simply have been done via the R.T.O.'s good auspices:-