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

[Olmec Head]

Having had a look at the sprue shots and the accompanying photos etc at the Eduard site; I was wondering if anyone with hands on the real thing (the model , not a real Spitfire to be precise) could comment on:

How is the difference in the early unarmoured and later armoured front fuel tank represented please? 

 

Is the hydraulic gear selector represented on the sprues as the instructions (as downloaded) seem to indicate that the earlier manual handle is on all the variants in the kit (I may be wrong on this).

Is there a bit for the remote contactor on the sprue or  the PE?   Again the kit instructions don't show it.

Does the PE 'sheet' have the radio wiring and is there anything to represent the 02 connection pipe (not the tube set up on later variants) at the front of the cockpit.  I think Basilisk built an Airfix Spitfire 1a with a resin cockpit insert that had the 02 pipe.   

And are there the switches somewhere  etc for the IFF fit for later Spitfires. 

Oh and the fuel cock levers on instrument panel and flaps control switch as well.  Possibly PE?  Final ninja level, the landing lamp lowering column which I don't think has ever been done by anyone ever (probably).

 

This is not implied criticism of the kit, I am just interested if it has these bits  to a lesser or greater extent.  The Tamiya and Airfix versions miss some of the cockpit 'fit' bits in various ways and it would interesting to see how Eduard did in comparison.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Olmec Head

[DonH]

Mine's on order. Finally pulled the trigger, i think it looks like a very nice kit and may be stiff competition for the Tamiya version, of which I also have two.

[B_Bogus]

Overtrees ordered.

Struggling to find 602 sqn decals for LO-B though 😢

[Retired Bob]

14 hours ago, Olmec Head said:

Having had a look at the sprue shots and the accompanying photos etc at the Eduard site; I was wondering if anyone with hands on the real thing (the model , not a real Spitfire to be precise) could comment on:

I have the kit and have had a dry fit session and it all goes together as good as their Mk.IX

All good, well no.  As you are aware the box contains 2 kits, one early without upper fuel tank "armour" and another with it moulded on.  Now for the bad news, the sprues only contain the early hand hydraulic pump, moulded on the side wall is the signalling switch box, no air hose (that would be on the pilots mask)  There is a part on the sprue for a remote contactor but it is shaded as not required, strange when the last marking option supposedly has the IFF wires?  Talking of IFF both fuselages have the IFF insulators moulded in the surface detail and you are not directed to fill them even if you are building a pre-war aircraft.  The wing root electrical socket is moulded in the surface detail and you are directed to fill this for the kit options.  Here is the "later" fuselage with the tank "armour", I have filled the electrical socket and IFF insulator.

 

14 hours ago, Olmec Head said:

Oh and the fuel cock levers on instrument panel and flaps control switch as well.  Possibly PE?  Final ninja level, the landing lamp lowering column which I don't think has ever been done by anyone ever (probably).

Sorry no, to all.  There is a fold together early voltage regulator, a plastic one for later ones and, on the sprue but not for this boxing there is a later twin cylinder regulator and plate.

In all there are a lot of good points in this kit, for an early Spitfire there are early metal seats, with and without padded cover and the later resin seat, (etched) wire guard for the fin top, p/e straps on the upper fuel tank the gun heating vents are separate parts, but the protruding outer guns that should have flash eliminators are just plastic parallel barrels.

I should add that I do not consider myself an expert, I have just read all the information on this site about Spitfires when I started to build the 2018 Tamiya kit in the hope of "getting it right" and found how difficult that phrase was.  I am sure others will find things that I have not yet considered, but it is early days and I just thought I should answer your questions.

[DonH]

What is your opinion of the raised rivets? They look overdone to me, but it's hard to tell from photos. The Tamiya kit has no rivets at all, which I am sad about.

[DonH]

I also notice in the instructions that there is no de-icer reservoir and I am sure it should be there. Easy enough to scratch up, but it's a shame.

[Olmec Head]

Thanks Bob your answers have filled in a lot of the blanks for me.  It would be interesting to compare the Tamiya, Airfix and now Eduard versions.  I think from your above description, the new Eduard boxing seems more suited to the early models say pre July 40 ish rather than the later Mk1a s.  It seems strange that they did not not include the hydraulic gear selector,  as that does limit the kit a bit.  I have posted in WW2 some questions on the gear selector on when it moved from the manual pump to the hydraulic system.

[Retired Bob]

7 minutes ago, Olmec Head said:

Thanks Bob your answers have filled in a lot of the blanks for me.  It would be interesting to compare the Tamiya, Airfix and now Eduard versions.  I think from your above description, the new Eduard boxing seems more suited to the early models say pre July 40 ish rather than the later Mk1a s.  It seems strange that they did not not include the hydraulic gear selector,  as that does limit the kit a bit.  I have posted in WW2 some questions on the gear selector on when it moved from the manual pump to the hydraulic system.

I am building my later Spitfire using a spare hydraulic gear selector from a Tamiya kit.  It does seem strange that Eduard have produced their kit in this way, their 10 decal choices go from the first Spitfires to be operational with 19 Sqn in October 1938 through to X4382, LO*G of 602 Sqn September 1940, which they reckon had seat armour and IFF cheese cutter wires but a manual gear pump?  Comparing the Tamiya and Eduard kits they are very similar in breakdown and dimensions it will be interesting to see where they go with other boxings, it does seem strange to me that Tamiya have not released other variants that are so obviously in the pipeline looking at their moulds.  At the moment it depends on whether you want rivets or not.

[Johnson]

I’m finding it very hard to keep up with what should be in a Spitfire cockpit and when, and even what they look like!!

I’ve done searches on ‘Spitfire cockpit’ but most of what you see are restored cockpits with a mix of equipment, sometimes with labelling contradictions to add to the confusion. Period photos, and the excellent film posted by @alt-92, tend to be pre-BoB (when it was a bit busy to take useful photos!)

Is there a reliable reference source that gives details of what was in or added with dates, so if one was modelling a Spitfire in service in August 1940 it might be possible to get the correct cockpit fit?

[Nocoolname]

Sorry, just not getting the above at all. Do you want a Spitfire model or an actual Spitfire? That will actually have the all of the bits you're after and they'll even do them in 1:1 scale for you? I received my boxing a couple of days ago. I'm selling off almost all of my aircraft kits with the main exception being a few I can make a BoB setup from. The new Eduard kit goes down a treat. It looks like a Spitfire, feels like a Spitfire, even smells like a Spitfire and is riddled with detail. Evidently nowhere near the quality of the 1977 Airfix Spitfire but hey, I guess I'll just have to cope without all that flash and those lovely raised details and that crystal clear scale canopy and just live with what Eduard have lumped on me. 

 

In the meantime, tonight's radio broadcast will be the following compendium....

 

 

[Olmec Head]

Always good to have a meaningful conversation, your views probably have some validity...

[Olmec Head]

57 minutes ago, Johnson said:

I’m finding it very hard to keep up with what should be in a Spitfire cockpit and when, and even what they look like!!

I’ve done searches on ‘Spitfire cockpit’ but most of what you see are restored cockpits with a mix of equipment, sometimes with labelling contradictions to add to the confusion. Period photos, and the excellent film posted by @alt-92, tend to be pre-BoB (when it was a bit busy to take useful photos!)

Is there a reliable reference source that gives details of what was in or added with dates, so if one was modelling a Spitfire in service in August 1940 it might be possible to get the correct cockpit fit?

Thanks Johnson, it would be good to have a definitive guide to what should or should not be in the cockpit for a Spitfire, the various modelling guides don't really cover it in detailed detail (!)  And as you say, restored cockpits are not 100% .  I do use the Pilots' notes facsimile (AP 1565 ), but that is for a Spitfire IIA and IIB, but it does at least give indication of what could  or could not be there for a given timescale.

[alt-92]

I see the high temperatures outside have their effects?

 

Let's put it another way:

Minor (ooh) nitpicks aside, I'm happy with the kits. They form a solid basis to completely go nuts if you can find the necessary, specific to your desired subject, documentation or pictures. As I said earlier, they're good, but not perfect.

And maybe that's a good thing, that means modelling instead of just assembling.

[Johnson]

I got mine a few days ago and, apart from the already identified niggles - sink holes in exhausts - tick! Slightly dark codes - tick! - the kit looks fantastic! If I wasn't so dim/masochistic I'd be making one instead of a 50 year old Airfix 1/24th.

[Thomas V.]

I am not the one usually commenting on other people's opinions, but have to have to say that using terms like " solid " and "good" for the kit is hugely unfair, kit is excellent, not perfect but excellent, I had my doubts whether Tamiya can be surpassed, but Eduard did it, and as much flak they are getting for botched 109's, I applaud them for this kit.

[WV908]

If it's getting to the point where we're having to pick over tiny cockpit parts that may or may not be there in what is a very tiny cockpit in 1/48, I think we can safely say it's a good kit!

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[jackroadkill]

Mine should be delivered tomorrow; as a newbie I have few expectations (and not a lot of knowledge about what should or shouldn't be where) so I'll be happy just to get a nice pair of Spits built, I think.

[Peter Roberts]

Mine is winging its way to me as I write. From the pics posted it looks great!

 

One niggle for me is the raised Dzeus fasteners on the cowling - a bit over done to my eyes but an easy fix.

 

I'd rather rub down raised detail than have to add raised detail.  

 

 

 

[Peter Roberts]

Info re: u/c retraction system -

 

 

Looks like the initial pump action retraction mechanism was replaced around April 1940, and likely not retrofitted to early builds.

[LUCIANO007]

If even restored spitfires are not 100% accurate, where I guess a lot of effort and money goes, then how can you really expect a model, from any company, to be?

Another thing I cannot understand is how people that are so picky that find problems to the best of the models, can at any time be satisfied with anything at all. How do they enjoy the hobby, when they see problems to everything? Saying that, I can almost never build a model out of the box. I always feel it needs some more detail etc. But most of the times (not always I admit) I find the balance to enjoy our hobby and build something that is good enough... Perfect will never be and I can live with that...

[Ray_W]

1 hour ago, LUCIANO007 said:

then how can you really expect a model, from any company, to be

Restoration is often a compromise because your working with today's material's and methods. As you know many restored aircraft are just built from a few corroded spars, some skinning and a rusted lump of motor having being submerged for 75 years. Restoring involves compromise and also gaps in information and I think the modelling fraternity has had a big part in even indirectly driving accuracy on latest restored aircraft. See the restorers who frequent the modelling pages. I tend not to trust restored aircraft - still.

 

Should Eduard get it right? Well, with the wealth of information that they have access to from the broader community, within the limits of moulding technology and economic number of variants to be boxed, I would say, yes.  Am I worried about a few minor cockpit details? No. But I like to know and really enjoy such details being highlighted - the big and small. I appreciate any one detailing a substantiated kit's "flaws". I can then make a decision either way - leave it as is, correct or avoid the kit. The banter about accuracy and corresponding debate is one aspect of the online community I enjoy, particularly when it hits on someone's pet subject. It's then time for the popcorn emoji.

 

My "The Spitfire Story"  arrives today and I am looking forward to it very much. To see it "in the flesh". Eduard continue to push the envelope and I am happy about that.

 

Ray

[Peter Roberts]

And if the restored aircraft is going to fly, the need to meet modern regulations will necessarily impose items not present on the original WW2 aircraft.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Peter Roberts

[Retired Bob]

31 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

Should Eduard get it right? Well, with the wealth of information that they have access to from the broader community, within the limits of moulding technology and economic number of variants to be boxed, I would say, yes.  Am I worried about a few minor cockpit details? No. But I like to know and really enjoy such details being highlighted - the big and small. I appreciate any one detailing a substantiated kit's "flaws". I can then make a decision either way - leave it as is, correct or avoid the kit. The banter about accuracy and corresponding debate is one aspect of the online community I enjoy, particularly when it hits on someone's pet subject. It's then time for the popcorn emoji.

That is exactly my point, I started my kit review saying it's as good as their Mk.IX (which is regarded as the best 1/48th Spitfire) it just clicks together, everything else after that is just minor detail.  I also made the caveat that I was no "expert" I have just read all the information on this site (that's what it's there for) and if I can do that surely the person at Eduard that is paid to do it, can find it out, after all, this kit was planned for several years.  So it is a superb kit and so is the Tamiya Spitfire and I am going back to building them.  Bob, out.

[nickhenfrey]

Apologies if this is in the wrong place - I originally bought this set to build Douglas Bader 222 squadron, and George Unwin 19 squadron, but it looks like they should both have the later fuselage. It then crossed my mind to build Douglas Bader 19 squadron (before 222), but I think by the time he joined (around Feb 1940) they would have moved on from the Option A type (1938 19 Squadron). I have not found any info on his 19 squadron spitfire - there is a famous picture of Cozens with some other 19 Squadron Spits, but I assume this is before DB joined in. Anyone have any info or links to DB 19 squadron?

[Work In Progress]

5 hours ago, LUCIANO007 said:

If even restored spitfires are not 100% accurate, where I guess a lot of effort and money goes,

A clause which pre-supposes that the owners have historical accuracy as some kind of obligation. They don't, it's purely a matter of taste and choice, but always subsidiary to operational considerations. The effort and money goes predominantly towards making a safe and practicable flying machine out of something that isn't. What's left over goes towards making it look the way the owner wants it to look. No-one feels under any obligation to copy a particular configuration of a particular airframe at a particular point in history. Some individuals may choose to veer quite a long way in that direction but not at the expense of flight safety and their other operational requirements for the aeroplane. Those are the actual obligations on owners and restorers.

 

Equally there is no special holy legitimacy to the appearance and configutation of a given airframe on any given date in its history. Every aircraft that is used changes in appearance and configuration, and such changes are usually more rapid in time of war than any other time. And aircraft's existence in 1960 or 1980 or 2000 is just as much part of its history as its appearance in 1940. So any question of "accuracy" must be tempered by "accuracy to what specific date?"

Edited August 7, 2020 by Work In Progress