Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Well, if the Mk 1 has got a "bulge", it's pretty subtle:

 

with-ruler-2.jpg

 

The slight "dent" at around 132 mm on this ruler is where the filler cap is, where the curve of the cowl top is incomplete and it doesn't rise as high on the centreline, but what I'm seeing there is a straight line from the cockpit front to the blisters on the upper cowling (at 120 or so) and a smooth drop away downwards to the nose from there. I don't see anything to worry about, personally...

 

best,

M.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Noting that the habit of repeating photos when quoting posts is all too prevalent here causing it to be more of a trawl than a scroll. Having just removed more than a couple, please refrain gents. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, edited my earlier posts. I couldn’t find any photos of Mk I/IIs with this panel which isn’t to say they didn’t have them, but certainly some Mk Vs did as you say

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2020 at 5:40 PM, Scooby said:

Finest decal release ever for the Spitfire.

 

Not that I am biased or anything, I consider the owners good friends, I have worked on decals with one of them. If they don’t have concrete evidence of the schemes, they don’t produce on speculation.

And if they recognize a mistake, they willingly correct it. I am afraid that I had a fight here with on of the persons behind these fine decals a few years ago, partly because he didn't understood that my mistake was due to a foreigner's not flawless command of English. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2020 at 6:56 AM, Ray_W said:

Eduard's Mk. I instructions:

 

SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_4

 

Ray

By the way does Tamiya not have a similar line here, as part of their way of attaching the propeller?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NPL said:

By the way does Tamiya not have a similar line here, as part of their way of attaching the propeller?

It does but only because the cowling front is a separate part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received the kit in the post and I am trembling with excitement. My initial observations are:

1) There is definitely a Mk V in the pipeline. There is not doubt. Basically, just put in a new wing sprue. Not sure about cockpit parts but I am guessing they are all there for a Mk V. I think the Mk V prop is there, but the spinner may be missing.

2) Surface detail is extraordinary, the raised rivets are amazing and very much in scale. In fact, I can't actually see them very well, but can feel them with my fingertips.

3) IMO, Eduard compromised on the fuselage for the Mk I, in order to accommodate the future Mk V. The 12V socket on the wing root and the IFF aerial sockets are two examples. You may add the debate on the cowling if you wish, but I don't know about that. I think Eduard "reverse engineered" one of the marking options to justify adding the IFF sockets. 

4) Filling said IFF sockets is going to be a pain with all the raised rivets around them. PPP is probably your friend here or some other wipe off type filler.

5) Beautiful, unnecessary, rivet details on the front part of the wings. I understand they got the Mustang wings right, shame they didn't do that for the Spit.

6) Thicker fuel tank plating is missing but I can live with that in this scale.

7) There is no hydraulic landing gear lever! That is a major omission which I can correct using spares from my Tamiya kits.

8a) Eduard completely missed the tank for the antifreeze system, fitted to all Spits with the bullet proof windscreen. I think that is a shame, it is visible with an open cockpit door.

 

This is a gorgeous kit, box art is wonderful, moulding is crisp, accurate (to my eye) and some great marking options.

 

I will stick my neck out and boldly state that this is better than the Tamiya offering (of which I have two). In my view, Eduard have produced a better very early type Spitfire. I think the Tamiya version is better for the later versions of MkI. Eduard surface detail is better than Tamiya without a doubt.

 

My perusal of the instructions suggests that the Eduard version will be an easier build (less fiddly PE in silly places).

 

This Eduard offering is already my new favourite Spitfire kit and I have only just opened the box. I can't see that view changing any time soon.

 

Cheers

Don

Edited by DonH
Link to post
Share on other sites

And now some humble pie

 

Eduard provide two different fuselages. One with the armoured tank (late) and one without it (early). That's nice. Although they still included the IFF sockets on the early version which never happened.

 

However, this also means that you can't build two early versions, so you are stuffed if you want to build a version with the hydraulic u/c lever - which is most of them.

 

With more plastic fondling, I love this kit even more.

Edited by DonH
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more information regarding the kit because I will be building a Mk Ia with the lever operated undercarriage system (no manual hand pump).

 

A good guide for the required installation is the Mk II pilot's notes starboard side wall: 

 

Mk I II

 

I had already planned to scratch build the lever arrangement and piping. Here is the lower starboard sidewall supplied. You get two fret "R" in the boxing so two of the same are supplied.

 

SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_10

 

For a hydraulic undercarriage lever operation, the morse key and three spare light bulbs need to be moved.

 

Here is the full fuselage side and upper wall detail. The later version with fuel tank deflector plate as supplied is at the bottom. Note the tabs in the section high near the windscreen not in the early version at top. Pleasingly these take the relocated morse indicator lights key, spare bulbs and also the remote contactor definitely required for Mk 1 IFF installation but I think also for pip/squeak through the earlier HF radio system. 

 

SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_9

 

These parts are actually supplied on fret "R"  but are not used in this boxing's instructions - parts 66 and 67. Note also the rear headrest voltage regulator is supplied and again not used parts 70 and 71. 

 

SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_8

 

Very good. So I have some parts to do that revised installation. I still find it surprising the undercarriage lever mechanism was not supplied and expect it to be supplied on a later model boxing probably with a different fret with new prop and spinner and different low sidewall. Never mind. Easy scratch build.

 

Ray

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, avro683 said:

It does but only because the cowling front is a separate part.

And you don't think that they calculated with it as part of a coming Mk. V? Of course we don't know if they will produce a Mk. V -- probably a Mk. Vb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DonH said:

And now some humble pie

 

Eduard provide two different fuselages. One with the armoured tank (late) and one without it (early). That's nice. Although they still included the IFF sockets on the early version which never happened.

 

However, this also means that you can't build two early versions, so you are stuffed if you want to build a version with the hydraulic u/c lever - which is most of them.

 

With more plastic fondling, I love this kit even more.

With Mr. Sulz's (Spell the name if you can) talent for business, I would not be surprised if te missing parts are included in the separate Mk. I cockpit. It seems very complete and you can see for yourself assessing Eduard's home page, with plenty of illustrations. With all these extras, it will probably be the most costly Spitfire ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting in Eduard's August newsletter, regarding the hand pumped undercarriage, they say this:

 

"The published sources vaguely state that the hand pump was later replaced by the motor-driven one spreading the information at the same time, that it took place after the manufacture of the 175th Spitfire Mk.I. This is an error, the aircraft of much later production blocks still featured the hand pump and it is highly probable that the undercarriage retracting system with motor-driven pump has never been introduced into Spitfire Mk.I production line. Spitfire Mk.I pilots therefore retracted their landing gear by 27 strokes of the large lever mounted on the right side of the cockpit which certainly had an negative impact on take off and landing procedures and more often than not caused bruises of the back of the pilot‘s hand, known as „Spitfire Knuckle“. On the contrary, Spitfires Mk.II featured the motor-driven pump as a standard, supposedly right off the production start."

 

What's the contrary evidence? 

 

This Mk I maintenance video shows the hydraulic pump driven selector at 12:22. The serial has been removed so the aircraft cannot be identified but someone like @Troy Smith might be aware through other correspondence.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2EHCiZm8IM

 

Might refute Eduard's claim.

 

Ray

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spitfire Story by Alfred Price refers to improvements:

“an engine driven hydraulic system to raise and lower the undercarriage did away with the need to hand pump....”.  “These improvements were all introduced on the production line early on”

 

In Spitfire at War (also by Price), the “Into Service chapter” by Air Cdre Henry Cozens Says:

“the later mark I Spitfires had an engine driven hydraulic system to raise and lower the undercarriage, which did away with the need to pump and resultant ‘Spitfire knuckle’”


Not really sure if that helps or not, but it does sound as if Mk 1s were fitted with a hydraulic system at some point if those sources are correct.

 

@Ray_W although the serial is not that clear on that Spitfire (L6675 on the tail? Edit - Troy’s eyesight is better than mine.... see below! 😄), the scheme dates it pre-June 6 1940. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/08/2020 at 15:39, Ray_W said:

The serial has been removed so the aircraft cannot be identified

it's painted on the white of the fin flash,  quite small

see https://youtu.be/z2EHCiZm8IM?t=1025

 

Look like R6693

Air Britain lists this as 610 Sq,  and this is 609.   R6692 IS listed as 609 though.

see here

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/121789-spitfire-r6693-and-am-training-film?t=118896

 

Note comments on cockpit 

"Second is, in the cockpit interior close ups the a/c is fitted out for (and with) an electric chassis lever control and this doesn't appear to be a retro fit. I always understood this didn't appear in Mk. Is until quite late in the Battle. Yet this particualr a/c left Eastleigh in June and was Cat E about a month later?"

 

"It looks like the original handpump to me - the later control (hydraulic!) is quite prominent, and I cant make it out!!"

 

"There's even a close up of the lever in the 2nd Part (The Flight Rigger) at 6.44"

may refer to a different film clip. (there is another version) which checking shows it is

again, to time link showing the serial on the fin flash

https://youtu.be/tyJiAdMD8AM?t=394

 

Assuming that this is a unit level mess up, note these serials, and the first 3 all going to 609

 

R6690 Ia 744 EA MIIIFF 2-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 'PR-A' 7-6-40 shot down by Bf110 over S London P/O Daunt killed 15-9-40 SOC 18-9-40

R6691 Ia 745 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 C2 ops 25-9-40 AST 616S 10-11-40 602S 2-5-41 58OTU 12-6-41 air collision with AR246 Letham Moor Stirling CE 18-3-43 SOC 31-3-43 FH672.10

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

R6693 Ia 747 EA MIII FF 4-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 610S 'DW-A' 7-6-40 Stalled on approach and dived into ground Hawkinge Sgt Smith killed 25-7-40

 

 

One other point,  note the delivery dates are very early June, so this film was shot after the 5th June, and before Sky undersides came in

EDIT

closer watching of the film, as detailed in further posts, shows the underside got repainted, and a 1 Sq Hurricane in the background,  dating the film to mid June 1940, and the serial confirmed to be R6692. 

 

On 20/08/2020 at 15:39, Ray_W said:

The published sources vaguely state that the hand pump was later replaced by the motor-driven one spreading the information at the same time, that it took place after the manufacture of the 175th Spitfire Mk.I. This is an error, the aircraft of much later production blocks still featured the hand pump and it is highly probable that the undercarriage retracting system with motor-driven pump has never been introduced into Spitfire Mk.I production line.

 

well, Eduard are not known for their tact or modesty when it comes to mistakes.   Anyway,  given that the hydraulic pump was a right pain, could it be retrofitted?  (and so Eduard may technically be right, it was not on the production line)  but the film is of a known airframe, at a fairly narrow window in time, and shows the new pump.

And,  if I am reading the number, these are range of the 740 onwards of production, I'm going to add @gingerbob  in as he may have something in his files.

 

HTH

T

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steve 1602 said:

Not really sure if that helps or not, but it does sound as if Mk 1s were fitted with a hydraulic system at some point if those sources are correct.

Yes Eduard are going against the oft quoted change at the 175th aircraft from the undercarriage hand pump and in their view "highly probable" not introduced in the Mk. I.

 

I have an open mind. Interested in the evidence either way and if the maintenance video is a Mk I and not a Mk II then it counters their view immediately.  

 

As an aside, funny that a video Spitfire maintenance starts with a Hurricane.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Smith

 

Thanks Troy, I knew you would be on the ball with this.

 

Definitely not the hand pump at 15:20. That's the hydraulic pump system selector at his right thigh. Also note reposition indicator light morse key  higher on the side wall.

 

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

Anyway,  given that the hydraulic pump was a right pain, could it be retrofitted? 

On the original aircraft I think they would not bother.

 

On the kit. Easy. See my post #385.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

R6690 Ia 744 EA MIIIFF 2-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 'PR-A' 7-6-40 shot down by Bf110 over S London P/O Daunt killed 15-9-40 SOC 18-9-40

R6691 Ia 745 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 C2 ops 25-9-40 AST 616S 10-11-40 602S 2-5-41 58OTU 12-6-41 air collision with AR246 Letham Moor Stirling CE 18-3-43 SOC 31-3-43 FH672.10

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

R6693 Ia 747 EA MIII FF 4-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 610S 'DW-A' 7-6-40 Stalled on approach and dived into ground Hawkinge Sgt Smith killed 25-7-40

 

Anyway, it has made my mind up. I will fit the pump driven unit. All the above June 1940 supply and I'm building July 1940 supply X4009.

 

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ray_W said:

A good guide for the required installation is the Mk II pilot's notes starboard side wall:

Another item that I believe would required, not shown on the diagram, is the windscreen de-icer reservoir and control shown in this pic;

 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/07/anatomy-of-spitfire-cockpit.html/04cn7253

 

The photo is a restored Mk.V - I assume they would be in the same place?

 

And, if you looked at the pic, can anyone tell me what the silver looking control with two copper pipes in the top middle is?

 

And... whilst all that copper piping looks very nice, would it have been painted interior green in 1940?

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Johnson said:

And, if you looked at the pic, can anyone tell me what the silver looking control with two copper pipes in the top middle is?

I think you will find it is the switch to pneumatically cock the cannon armament.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

I think you will find it is the switch to pneumatically cock the cannon armament

Don't need that then! Thanks Ray.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Johnson said:

Don't need that then! Thanks Ray.

You do if modelling a Mk IIb.

 

On another question. When was the de-icing system introduced? I don't see it in the Mk II pilot's notes or in the maintenance video I referred to in the earlier post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

When was the de-icing system introduced?

I saw a post that said it was introduced at the same time as the armoured windscreen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Johnson said:

I saw a post that said it was introduced at the same time as the armoured windscreen.

OK instead of clogging up the Eduard thread I'll do a little research.  If there is a system in the Mk I's then it certainly does not look like what came after and was the standard. 

 

EDIT: posted the question in the all things Spitfire thread in WW2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Homebee changed the title to 1/48 - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.1 to Mk.V by Eduard - Mk.I/Ia & IIa released

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...