1/48 - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.I to Mk.V by Eduard - Mk.I/Ia/IIa/IIb/Vb/Vc released

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Johnson said:

Do you think that this may be R6691 Troy? Would be great for me as this is the plane I'm modelling.

 

It maybe a 2+2=5 moment....

 

A guesstimate based on 609 getting 3 Spitfires on 7th June, as we have identified R6692,  we have a two left.   I have not done the A/B camo as yet (as I need to look that up!) and looked like it was perhaps a painted out 1,  on a new plane.  My main point was about the freshly applied 'sky'

 

A quick look shows both planes in reel 5 are the same pattern, as is R6692  in the other reels.  To determine if they are all the same,  or not will be tricky.   There maybe quirks in the PR letters which would show up.

 

The other possibility is R6692 had been repainted during the filming.   

 

The IWM site says it was shot on 35mm film, and a high res version could show the serial,  a screen grab at 2.52 on reel 5 is just not clear enough.

 

I'm sure there was film showing more Spitfires from this film as well...  now where was that....

 

 

 

 

[Johnson]

14 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

The other possibility is R6692 had been repainted during the filming. 

I think that may be the case Troy looking at the plane in the hanger and outside for testing.

 

And its not R6691 if Fl Lt Howell is sitting in it -

 

 

'B' camo pattern.

 

Not to worry, R6692 would be an ideal subject for a build, no shortage of reference material!

 

Cheers,

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, JackG said:

There's also a Hurricane in the background when the Spitfire was being pushed out of the hanger in that fifth film.   Very small squadron codes JX and regular size individual letter Z.  No.1 Squadron was stationed at Northholt from18-23 June 1940 - so maybe a very specific time frame for this clip?

 

regards,

Jack

Did you think I missed the Hurricane

I was doing screen shots as soon as I saw it... I mean, Spitfires, all well and good but Hurricanes, now we talking.....

Think I have serial as well, just enough visible on an enlargement to narrow it down and using Air Britain ....

Need to do some more checking, one possibility, 1 Sq came back from France on the 18th June apparently

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1_Squadron_RAF

source for this is Halley, James J. Famous Fighter Squadrons of the RAF: Volume 1. Windsor, UK: Hylton Lacey, 1971

 

And they started overpainting squadron codes in early 1940.   Maybe the this is an airframe from France,  and the JX added quickly when back in England. 

But, this really want a separate thread.   

cheers

T

[DonH]

I have just been having a look at the drawings for the power driven u/c lever. 

 

The first mod to the GA drawing is dated 11 March 1940.

 

The first mod to the drawing I have of the actual u/c lever unit is dated 1 May 1940.

 

Both of these drawings were first done in March and May 1939.

 

Mods to the manual lever were still being done in April 1940, so I imagine the transition was sometime around May/June but that is a total guess based on no evidence.

 

I have no idea when the power driven unit was added into production, mods may have been done before entering production.

 

So, some dates that may or may not tell you anything but I am still convinced that the power driven unit was fitted to the MkI. I just can't tell you exactly when.

Edited August 23, 2020 by DonH

[DonH]

On a related subject, I now believe that it was possible to have armoured glass fitted to the windscreen and not have the de-icing system in place. The de-icing system, and associated tanks and piping seems to only fit when the power-driven u/c lever was fitted (no room on the port sidewall otherwise).

 

Sadly, the dates on the drawing are unreadable, so I can't say what timescale this might have been introduced but I will keep digging.

[Ray_W]

9 minutes ago, DonH said:

So, some dates that may or may not tell you anything but I am still convinced that the power driven unit was fitted to the MkI. I just can't tell you exactly when.

Hi Don,

Thanks for the info. That is why I'm hunting for further photo evidence where you can see for a BoB Mk. I whether the rear mounted hydraulic tank (evidence of the manual hand pump) was installed or not. The power driven unit was definitely in use (countering Eduard claim to some degree) as proven by the Spitfire maintenance video. Looking for more evidence both ways.

Ray

[Ray_W]

7 minutes ago, DonH said:

I now believe that it was possible to have armoured glass fitted to the windscreen and not have the de-icing system in place. The de-icing system, and associated tanks and piping seems to only fit when the power-driven u/c lever was fitted (no room on the port sidewall otherwise).

 

Hi Don,

 

I had similar thoughts although the de-icing installation could still have a tank, hand pressure pump and switching mounted somewhere else. Same principle but a different installation to the design that became standard with the power driven u/c operation on that starboard side wall. However, It's absence from the mid 1940 Mk I maintenance video, which has an aircraft with power driven u/c operation and with no reference to check fluid levels, does suggest it may not always be fitted.

 

Ray

[Johnson]

2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

However, It's absence from the mid 1940 Mk I maintenance video, which has an aircraft with power driven u/c operation and with no reference to check fluid levels, does suggest it may not always be fitted.

That was my conclusion as well Ray. I guess there was a mod documented and drawn at the time, and if we’re lucky it may surface one day.

[Troy Smith]

On 21/08/2020 at 16:20, Ray_W said:

Can you find a clear picture of a Battle of Britain Mk I without the tank showing?

 

P9450, later of 64 Sq

"P9450 Ia 613 EA MIII FF 5-4-40 8MU 8-4-40 64S 2-6-40 damaged by Bf109 nr Rouen Sgt C L Hopgood killed 5-12-40"

 

a few more on the IWM site, but not the above....

this is front on, can't see the tank, note there is a +/- enlarge facility.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205224609

and the same view, opposite side of image above

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205224606

which may show a tank?

If nothing else, great for a early 1940 standard factory finish, note walkway stencilling. 

 

there is the "shortest serving Spitfire"  X4110  which does not appear to have the tank.

"X4110 Ia 997 EA MIII FF 7-8-40 9MU 9-8-40 602S 16-8-40 shot down by Bf109 over Solent F/Lt Urie abandoned aircraft injured 18-8-40 Cunliffe-Owen SOC 5-10-40"

for more

https://imgur.com/gallery/GrRxX

 

I'll stick @lasermonkey in as he's good on Spitfire photos, and as at some point Eduard will donwscale these to 1/72nd, maybe find the discussion of interest.

 

@Johnson

as you found the daily inspection films of use,  Missing of the IWM site, but  on youtube,  is more footage 

 

 

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060020770

"Content description

Spitfires of 609 West Riding Squadron lined up in a blast pen/revetment with engines running. Ground crew approach aircraft from the rear and engines are cut. Refuelling tanker approaches from the rear. Guns have been fired and crews open gun and ammunition doors. Scene of aircraft "Q" being refuelled. Aircraft bears name of "Chico" on right hand side forward of cockpit. Empty ammunition tanks are removed to make way for full ones. Gun is uncocked and armourer pulls through the barrel. Full oxygen cylinders replace old ones (Squadron code "PR" is visible on aircraft). Ammunition truck drives along to the front of parked aircraft delivering full ammo tanks. New ammo tanks are installed in aircraft and canvas leads are threaded through swan necks. Armourer cocks gun and doors closed and access panels replaced. Armourer reports to pilot, sat in aircraft, "Guns loaded and cocked". Senior officer present gives order to start engines and flight is off again."

All the above is the youtube link, at the beginning and end of the clip.

 

HTH

Edited August 23, 2020 by Troy Smith

[Ray_W]

@Troy Smith

 

Thanks Troy,

 

Certainly the motor driven u/c pump was in use and may of been the more prevalent (the generally accepted view) contrary  to Eduard's claims.  

 

Ray

[alt-92]

 

nvm, misread.

[AlCZ]

OMG, Eduard  make best Spitfire Mk. I  in  quarter scale (and probably best kit of this version in any scale)  -  and  british  modellers  found one  and  hundred errors and  discuss  about  nitpicking...  This is  crazy !  Sorry, but who make  an accurate REAL  early (without armor)  Spitfire Mk. I after Eduard ?  Nobody  (maybe give in parts  twin bladed prop and flat top hood and voilá - early spit is completed... I look on my new tool Tamiya, and here have a lever on box with round cover or only this box - this  a very disscused aparature ?  This must make every modeller in five minutes from plastic profile...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DonH]

13 hours ago, AlCZ said:

OMG, Eduard  make best Spitfire Mk. I  in  quarter scale (and probably best kit of this version in any scale)  -  and  british  modellers  found one  and  hundred errors and  discuss  about  nitpicking...  This is  crazy !  Sorry, but who make  an accurate REAL  early (without armor)  Spitfire Mk. I after Eduard ?  Nobody  (maybe give in parts  twin bladed prop and flat top hood and voilá - early spit is completed... I look on my new tool Tamiya, and here have a lever on box with round cover or only this box - this  a very disscused aparature ?  This must make every modeller in five minutes from plastic profile...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I totally disagree with you. Eduard may have produced the best MkI Spitfire ever in 1.48 scale but all of the discussions so far have been trying to find documentation and evidence for when upgrades were made to the airframe. This was a constant evolution and anything that will give us a better understanding is a good thing. I have a fairly complete set of Spitfire drawings and I can tell you it, it is extremely difficult to plot the changes introduced in MkI production. I welcome this discussion. 

[alt-92]

15 hours ago, AlCZ said:

and  british  modellers  found one  and  hundred errors and  discuss  about  nitpicking... 

Oi!

Not just Brits ey. 

 

 

Yes I have complaints at some points, and rightly so, after all, I paid for it - but I can still appreciate the work that has gone into this. 

Whether this is the 'best 1/48 scale kit of anything'? Up for debate.

Not the first time I've seen you getting all defensive over Eduard, by the way. Could you perhaps accept that others have a different point of view about them?

 

[avro683]

16 hours ago, AlCZ said:

OMG, Eduard  make best Spitfire Mk. I  in  quarter scale (and probably best kit of this version in any scale)  -  and  british  modellers  found one  and  hundred errors and  discuss  about  nitpicking...  This is  crazy !  Sorry, but who make  an accurate REAL  early (without armor)  Spitfire Mk. I after Eduard ?  Nobody  (maybe give in parts  twin bladed prop and flat top hood and voilá - early spit is completed... I look on my new tool Tamiya, and here have a lever on box with round cover or only this box - this  a very disscused aparature ?  This must make every modeller in five minutes from plastic profile...

 

 

 

 

 

 

The new tool Tamiya Spitfire contains both types of undercarriage retraction device. What it does not contain are the head and body armour parts.

[Peter Roberts]

3 hours ago, avro683 said:

The new tool Tamiya Spitfire contains both types of undercarriage retraction device. What it does not contain are the head and body armour parts.

Quite so. And the Tamiya kit also does not give a true depiction of the deflection armour over the upper fuel tank in front of the cockpit, nor the recessed/raised rivets on the aircraft and the overlapping panels.

 

The Eduard kit is not perfect but IMHO the best in 1/48 so far. And arguably the best in any scale.

 

Personally I appreciate the points raised here about its shortcomings so I can make improvements and (hopefully) turn it into an even better representation. I don't interpret this as denegrating the kit - there have been mistakes made by Eduard and these have been pointed out. Now it is up to each of us to either except these or make changes.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Peter Roberts

[AlCZ]

Not the first time I've seen you getting all defensive over Eduard, by the way. Could you perhaps accept that others have a different point of view about them?

 

I love Eduard and i´m very proud on it ! I like their surface details, open  exhausts and guns, RIVETING,  broad choice of markings... , colours P.E. , resins and pre-cut masks... and all in one box. When i compared a new tool Tamiya Mk. I  and Eduard Mk. I...  hmmmm... 

Tamiya  is beyond Eduard... (No open exhausts, no RIVETS,  fat  decals and only  two aircrafts, no flat top  hood, no twin bladed wooden prop, no extra fuselage for very early version... And look as Eduard made ! In summer Mk. I, in October Mk. II and next year Mk. V ! 

And Tamiya  ? Made  Mk. I late -and nothing else ! Bf 106G-6 have in early version,  Eduard have from F-to - G with "bulged compressor" ... I a wait P-38J...and where is ? 

 

So, i like Eduard. Maybe made only few types - but in superb quality and  in whole coverage of variants and (sub)variants. With extra parts ! 

[janneman36]

People may like what ever they want...but realistically the Eduards are overriveted🤫 some rivets are to be seen on most aircraft but when you look at a Spitfire wing In real life you only see the bigger ones of certain panels.

 

doubleclick it you get the full picture..

That is certainly the case with their 109s as these aircraft are pretty flush in real life...
Not saying these kits are bad but that also goes for the Tamiya of which I have a few..almost no kit is perfect so choose wisely..
I do have the double boxing of the Few and I do like the rivets on the fuselage ..nevertheles if I would like to get rid of those rivets I simply prime the wing and sand it and scribe the paint out of the lines.simple..better then trying to get some rivets on I think..

This is my view on things ...somebody undoubtedly will disagree with it but build what you like and discuss what you like🤫

 

cheers, Jan

[hopkp]

1 hour ago, janneman36 said:

People may like what ever they want...but realistically the Eduards are overriveted🤫 some rivets are to be seen on most aircraft but when you look at a Spitfire wing In real life you only see the bigger ones of certain panels.

 

That is certainly the case with their 109s as these aircraft are pretty flush in real life...
Not saying these kits are bad but that also goes for the Tamiya of which I have a few..almost no kit is perfect so choose wisely..
I do have the double boxing of the Few and I do like the rivets on the fuselage ..nevertheles if I would like to get rid of those rivets I simply prime the wing and sand it and scribe the paint out of the lines.simple..better then trying to get some rivets on I think..

This is my view on things ...somebody undoubtedly will disagree with it but build what you like and discuss what you like🤫

 

cheers, Jan

I couldn't agree more, I really don't get the current 'fashion' of covering everything in rivet detail.....

[AlCZ]

Hmm. Riveting is part of "Czech school or Czech model style". When you look on czech discussion first was - "Have you blueprints for rivets ? And when modeller (Many of them were Telford's Champion's) ignored rivets was under heavy critic... Top build kit MUST have rivets. I'm not top modeller, only "box collector" but i must say - with riveting looks model better... but when you look on Eduard P-51D so have fine rivets on fuselage, but on wings not - because was in real putted (but Tamiya 1/32 have rivets on wing.) An in big airplanes (as Flying Fortress or Catalina) looks surface without riveting bare... so a HK Fortress have rivets and Revell still nice Big  Black Cat (PBY)have riveting a 25 years ago... and vintage many kits looks still dam good and more realistic with over surface riveting. In last time was in czech hard critised a Mi-24 from Zvezda - because haven' t riveting - so this is true - real Hind was heavy riveted. And we can polemised with rivets, but open guns barrels and exhausts may be standard in 2020... And patine too looks better in riveted model...

 

I don' t speak about 1/72 WW2 fighters but in 1/48 (and 1/32)kit without riveting looks - as child toy. And when compared a 1/32 Spits from Revell - Mk.I (II)& Mk. IX with Eduard (and Pony was the same problem) quarter scale fighters from Ed was more detailed as Big scale kits from Revell. I realy like a car scale Tiffies (have both !) & Hellcat with (stitched/patched) surface details - and i was impresed a WnW Lancaster with photo-realistic surface details made by me a Pavlov reflex ! Is sad a WnW is gone and big scale Lanc probably  never flying on shelves...

 

And Spit on picture is nice - but it is a current time warbird after restoration - and not heavy weathered operation aircraft - without any patine... but you can see a over surface rivets in tail section and on frame.... On war pics war Spits heavy weathered with masive oil leaks.. 

 

So - warbird in top quality haven' t a relevance...

(So few pages back everybody give here a pics of "Prague Spit" from National Technical Museum in Prague and demonstrated why havent ed kit a hump... But Prague Spit was originaly machine after crash and have warped nose...Yup, it is a original WW,2 Spit but after crash...

 

And any warbirds - as Mustangs - every have clear (putted) wing and many not... and Mustang in operational service probably isn' t high polished chrome bird with miror shine surface ! But still - on frame are rivets (as have Eduard) in all cases...

 

It is too in style not ? When you prefered "toy like or brand new look" or artistic interpretation of reality...

 

And i can must see i like a british more "hobby" or "relax" work. In Czech isn't scale modeling a hobby - it is a type of religion.... Rivets, weathering, after market...(Maybe because many modellers who presents their kits are a really Masters).UK is military and nuke superpower, Czech Republic was superpower in Scale modeling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by AlCZ

[Work In Progress]

I think we are all aware of your often-repeated dogma on these subjects. Are you labouring under the misapprehension that you have a duty to change other people's minds? 

[Ray_W]

I never found this thread a criticism of Eduard's 1/48 Spitfire Mk I. It has seemed for the most part balanced with appropriate praise. Much of it glowing.

 

Some issues have been raised which is the normal detailed discussion on matters Spitfire of this site. I want to hear from people who say things like, the rivets in the leading edge should be filled, the cowling is too bulged, there should be a motor driven undercarriage selector lever for some Battle of Britain types, detailed discussion on IFF and radio systems, armour, what did they do with de-icing and the timeline on Spitfire changes. This is no different to someone saying "where are the rivets?". I am also happy to hear the discussion on the riveting like it's "wonderful", "overdone", "I like it", "I don't like it". In all cases I appreciate the evidence being presented be it a dangerous area because much comes down to personal preference. For example, I like Eduard rivets because the surface textures it creates. This is a personal thing. If I was truly into rivets then I would be measuring them to ensure correct depth, diameter, protrusion, quantities, location, age of the airframe. So in the end riveting is another modelling technique. Is it accurate? Unlikely. Does it enhance the appearance? For me, yes. Take it or leave it. It's the individuals choice.  Importantly, in all cases, I want to hear other people's opinions, best presented factually, so I can make decisions on how I progress my own kit.  

 

Comparisons to other kit manufacturer's efforts cannot be avoided and should be welcomed. Here I like to know the differences - I've made them all anyway. I don't want to get into kit maker's philosophies and business models. All have their supporters and markets. How you define best is open to interpretation - most accurate, easiest to build, cheapest, unusual subjects, availability, the list goes one. It does not need to get in nationalistic modelling philosophies and the danger of generalisations that come out of this.

 

I appreciate Eduard's enthusiasm and their renditions fit well with what I like. Yet, I also buy others and enjoy turning them into something I like. I have, as always, again, already, spent the money with Eduard, and have the "The Few" and will start construction soon. 

 

Ray

[Johnson]

This discussion appears to be divided into the subjective - rivets, how much one likes them etc, and objective - the analysis of equipment fit, whether it was appropriate for a certain Spitfire at a certain time. And whether Eduard got it right.

 

We know the plane had/has rivets, but how much should we be able to see them at 1/48?

 

I think it would be helpful, if it were possible, to determine the size of the actual rivets on the real thing and the size Eduard chose to depict them at 1/48. Some real rivet counting ! 

 

I have the Eduard kit and it looks wonderful. But from an purely personal and subjective point of view I suspect they are slightly exaggerated. Unless someone manages to do the analysis I’ve suggested, and maybe Eduard did, I would if I were investing 1000s in a new kit, whether they are appropriate and whether you like them is a matter of personal taste.

 

For some really exaggerated rivets you should see the 1/24 Airfix Spitfire I’m building. But like Eduard’s latest effort, it was an honest attempt to get the Spitfire right.

[alt-92]

16 hours ago, AlCZ said:

And Spit on picture is nice - but it is a current time warbird after restoration - and not heavy weathered operation aircraft - without any patine... but you can see a over surface rivets in tail section and on frame.... On war pics war Spits heavy weathered with masive oil leaks.. 

 

So - warbird in top quality haven' t a relevance...

Merlins leak. So does the one in the picture.

Which is a Spit in use, granted, not wartime use, but still in use. 
There are dents and stressed skinparts visible (now there's an idea!).

 

There is this notion that because warbirds are not true wartime aircraft, they're not 'real'.

Might I suggest that in wartime, a functioning a/c that can be put to use without worrying if the engine seizes, parts fall off, doesn't rot through (mud is wet, moisture creates corrosion) or generally doesn't pose greater risk to friendlies than enemies is of bigger value?

 

The care given to extant aircraft is great, yes. After all, most components are by now more than 70 years old. That does not change the fact that these are first and foremost functioning airworthy aircraft.

[AlCZ]

30 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Merlins leak. So does the one in the picture.

Which is a Spit in use, granted, not wartime use, but still in use. 
There are dents and stressed skinparts visible (now there's an idea!).

 

There is this notion that because warbirds are not true wartime aircraft, they're not 'real'.

Might I suggest that in wartime, a functioning a/c that can be put to use without worrying if the engine seizes, parts fall off, doesn't rot through (mud is wet, moisture creates corrosion) or generally doesn't pose greater risk to friendlies than enemies is of bigger value?

 

The care given to extant aircraft is great, yes. After all, most components are by now more than 70 years old. That does not change the fact that these are first and foremost functioning airworthy aircraft.

I understand - warbirds must be in perfect condition as it is WW II fighter, or  f.e.  veteran car. But for scale modeling is more relevant photos of operational machine from wartime with all "war wearing scratches".  Because we build a operational aircrafts and not  museal machines or warbirds, no ?  Restored aircraft are ideal when you make  a moulds a research in project, but not for weathering. And piece to piece it is on will of owner, what he have  their aircraft restorated.  (F.E. - rivets on  Mustang wing, as i write above).