Jump to content

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


Homebee

Recommended Posts

In this post linked previously, gingerbob had this to say in regards to the early hand pumped hydraulic undercarriage selector:

 

While my original interpretation was NOT that the hand pump was replaced around April '40, the fact that the manual was not updated until then implies (to me) that it wouldn't have been much before that.  (That would put the serial somewhere, very roughly, around P9440 (or, about 600 Spits built), but don't put any faith in that estimate.)

 

In regards to the fuselage without the fuel tank armor, Eduard's representation lacks the additional panel lines near the front of the cockpit.

spacer.png

 

An easy fix, but when already making a separate fuselage it is a bit of an oversight.

 

And the upper nose contour just doesn't looks right to me  as it has a bit of a Mk.IX look to it with the hump after the fuel tank armor.  This is a picture of the Tamiya kit, but the Eduard offerings looks very similar.

spacer.png

 

Compare this to this picture from the Spitfire Mk.I at Hendon.

spacer.png

 

More information on this topic HERE and HERE.

Cheers, Peter

Edited by Basilisk
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Basilisk said:

In regards to the fuselage without the fuel tank armor, Eduard's representation lacks the additional panel lines near the front of the cockpit.

Hi Peter, 

 

Further, I suppose you are referring to the variation in skinning over the fuel tank as shown here with K5054. I don't know if it's a panel line demarcation or variation in skin thickness. Certainly appears as a different alloy.  It is often hard to pick in the camo versions although you can see it faintly in the picture you posted.

 

5SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_6

 

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ray_W said:

 

I intend to make a guess for my X4009.

As far as I can tell, Eduard only include the early manual landing gear pump and selector control in this first release (and possibly also the follow-on Mk.Ia release). I guess the part can be scratch-built, or robbed from the Airfix Mk.I kit, which has both types of selector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VMA131Marine said:

As far as I can tell, Eduard only include the early manual landing gear pump and selector control in this first release (and possibly also the follow-on Mk.Ia release). I guess the part can be scratch-built, or robbed from the Airfix Mk.I kit, which has both types of selector.

As does the Tamiya kit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Basilisk said:

 

And the upper nose contour just doesn't looks right to me  as it has a bit of a Mk.IX look to it with the hump after the fuel tank armor.  This is a picture of the Tamiya kit, but the Eduard offerings looks very similar.

spacer.png

 

 

Cheers, Peter

Which is why I'm kitbashing the Airfix fuselage with the Tamiya wing . . .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

As far as I can tell, Eduard only include the early manual landing gear pump and selector control in this first release (and possibly also the follow-on Mk.Ia release). I guess the part can be scratch-built, or robbed from the Airfix Mk.I kit, which has both types of selector.

Correct, and yes it can be taken from the Airfix kit or the new tool Tamiya kit, but as Eduard has several BOB decal options, it is an omission and should be there considering all the other option they provide.

 

1 hour ago, Ray_W said:

Further, I suppose you are referring to the variation in skinning over the fuel tank as shown here with K5054. I don't know if it's a panel line demarcation or variation in skin thickness. Certainly appears as a different alloy.  It is often hard to pick in the camo versions although you can see it faintly in the picture you posted.

Here are some clearer pictures.

spacer.png

 

1 hour ago, Ray_W said:

If that lump is there it's subtle.

It is maybe not as bad as on the Tamiya kit, but it is not as it should be.

spacer.png

Maybe a small issue for most, but it bugs me seeing a Mk.IX stile nose shape on the Mk.I. Fortunately it shouldn't be too difficult to correct.

 

Another comparison of the Mk.I from the Imperial War Museum London with a Mk.IX nose contour from the Technical Museum in Prague.

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the kit a lot and it is the new standard for an early Spitfire - and where is the fun in building models if there is nothing to correct ;)

 

Cheers, Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying a part of any kit is off/not correct on the back of a few photos dragged of the web, red lines and arrows is as pointless as it is pathetic.

It's the people that know no better and fall for such dribble I feel sorry for, and blindly follow such posters and carve/alter a perfectly good kit up.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Basilisk said:

Correct, and yes it can be taken from the Airfix kit or the new tool Tamiya kit, but as Eduard has several BOB decal options, it is an omission and should be there considering all the other option they provide.

Well, they need to include that landing gear selector part when they release the promised Mk.II and Mk.V variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tank152 said:

Saying a part of any kit is off/not correct on the back of a few photos dragged of the web, red lines and arrows is as pointless as it is pathetic.

It's the people that know no better and fall for such dribble I feel sorry for, and blindly follow such posters and carve/alter a perfectly good kit up.

In this case, with the plastic in my hands, I think Eduard has got it right. Any very minor dip along that cowl line that accentuates the bulge ahead of the fuel tank is probably a result of the moulding process and the smallest of dips around the fuel filler hole.  If concerned there is very little material to be filed or sanded off. Most modeller's will probably get it right, inadvertently, just sanding the joint line as normal. This is my opinion.

 

However , I don't mind hearing other opinions and those who wish to illustrate their point be it with lines on photos or whatever. I can then take it or leave it or do more of my own research. I have picked up some good points from those who do. On some issues I disagree or it's just not worth the trouble.

 

All-in-all these types of critique allow me to make mods (often very simple) that, I believe, better capture certain features and has given me great satisfaction at capturing a certain look. With regard to Eduard's Mk. I, I'm not convinced I need to do anything.

 

Ray

 

 

Edited by Ray_W
typo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

Well, they need to include that landing gear selector part when they release the promised Mk.II and Mk.V variants.

I'm sure it will be there. In this boxing you get two fret "R"'s that I think are dedicated to the early version. For example, both have the two blade Watts prop maybe some other early production features and, importantly, sidewalls in accordance with the early versions. So any landing gear selector needs to be coupled with the correct side walls. For example the morse indicator light key needs to move . So I expect another fret will be released correctly representing the later versions.

 

Maybe a bit of marketing to capture the Battle of Britain segment with the early version. Shame. My BoB build will need the sidewalls modified and I will scratch the necessary details related to the landing gear selector. 

 

6 hours ago, Basilisk said:

In regards to the fuselage without the fuel tank armor, Eduard's representation lacks the additional panel lines near the front of the cockpit.

This is represented in the kit with the use of PE.

 

5SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_7

 

Ray

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Basilisk said:

Here are some clearer pictures.

spacer.png

Thanks Basilisk for the photos! Given the picture on the left, I wonder if Eduard reproduced with the PE bands (PE nrs. 20 and 31). In the photo they look a bit raised so this might be how they went about doing it...

 

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and expertise!

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2020 at 6:17 AM, VMA131Marine said:

Does anyone know when the manual pump for retracting the landing gear was replaced with an engine driven hydraulic pump with the handle in the cockpit replaced by the landing gear position selector?

From Morgan and Shacklady's 'Spitfire - The History' P.48;

 

No 19 Squadron completed 300 hours flying time within a short period and the small number of obvious defects were dealt with, one being the notorious undercarriage pump lever... Mercifully powered retraction was rapidly introduced...

 

No dates given but very early. - afternote: WRONG! See my later post # 416.

 

Cheers.

Edited by Johnson
More info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Further, I suppose you are referring to the variation in skinning over the fuel tank as shown here with K5054. I don't know if it's a panel line demarcation or variation in skin thickness. Certainly appears as a different alloy.

Hi Ray, when I built the prototype in the Spitfire STGB, I came to the conclusion that the engine cowlings on K5054 in the photo were very early ones and were replaced by the time the prototype was painted.

 

And for those building these excellent models, you may wish to note (you may already know!) that part R23, R24 or R26 - the fuselage frame 11, and the top bar (R65) connecting it to frame 12 (R17), were unpainted (aluminium), not as Eduard suggest interior green. I didn't know this but having just spent weeks researching cockpit details for my August 1940 609 Sqn BoB Spitfire (the 609 training film was very useful) I noticed it. All my previous models are interior green naturally. The head armour is interior green. I'm sure there will be variations on this, but that's what I intend to do.

 

Cheers,

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnson said:

when I built the prototype in the Spitfire STGB, I came to the conclusion that the engine cowlings on K5054 in the photo were very early ones and were replaced by the time the prototype was painted.

Thanks Charlie, I have come to a different conclusion and wondered if there was, in fact, any skinning over the fuel tank so you are looking at the tank itself with the narrow plates acting as additional retention for the fuel tank or at least gap fillers around the tank. Maybe a question I should put in the WW2 group. I've been watching this video to try to pick the difference. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xon-nMuMhgM

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray_W said:

I have come to a different conclusion and wondered if there was, in fact, any skinning over the fuel tank so you are looking at the tank itself with the narrow plates acting as additional retention for the fuel tank or at least gap fillers around the tank.

Interesting idea Ray, but the fuel tank would have been slightly lower than the forward engine cowling? The line of the top of the 'tank' seems continuous with the engine cowling. And the photo does appear to show the same panels you highlighted above, PE 20 and PE 31.

 

PS - great film clip!

 

PPS - Hmmm (having just watched the clip again). You may be right! I'm going to have to investigate how the tank was fitted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tank152 said:

Saying a part of any kit is off/not correct on the back of a few photos dragged of the web, red lines and arrows is as pointless as it is pathetic.

It's the people that know no better and fall for such dribble I feel sorry for, and blindly follow such posters and carve/alter a perfectly good kit up.

Sadly this sort of aggressive and unpleasant posting seems to be the default for some in this thread when people raise questions about this kit.  Peter AKA Basilisk has done excellent research and modelling for the Spitfire 1a.  He pointed out the nose error on the Tamiya as part of a very good review of the Airfix and Tamiya Spitfires.  I remember a very informative thread around the old Airfix 1/48 Spitfire 1a nose line and how it could be improved.  Such discussions re-started my interest in modelling and the value of the learned opinion and research in Britmodeller.  It is a pity that such discussion cannot be generated in this thread.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tank152 said:

Saying a part of any kit is off/not correct on the back of a few photos dragged of the web, red lines and arrows is as pointless as it is pathetic.

It's the people that know no better and fall for such dribble I feel sorry for, and blindly follow such posters and carve/alter a perfectly good kit up.

Has it ever occured to you that people might do this, the discussions, the red lines, the detective work, cutting up kits, because they enjoy it? If you don't that is fine, but is it really necessary to be so dismissive and patronizing?

 

I have been working on detailed drawings of the bf109 Erla G-10 engine cowling for years and found some very interesting things that have not been represented in any kit so far. But when I'll present my findings in a year or two, I'll need a bunch of red lines to explain my findings. Red lines on a few photos dragged from the web. You know, because that is the only resource there is for this aircraft. And posts like yours, well, they very much make me think twice about showing my work at all, you do call it pointless pathetic dribble.

 

Just let people enoy what they enjoy, you don't have to feel sorry for them and they don't need your pitty, they are fine. Just be cool about it.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tank152 said:

 

It's the people that know no better and fall for such dribble I feel sorry for, and blindly follow such posters and carve/alter a perfectly good kit up.

 

22 minutes ago, Olmec Head said:

Sadly this sort of aggressive and unpleasant posting seems to be the default for some in this thread when people raise questions about this kit.  Peter AKA Basilisk has done excellent research and modelling for the Spitfire 1a.  He pointed out the nose error on the Tamiya as part of a very good review of the Airfix and Tamiya Spitfires.  I remember a very informative thread around the old Airfix 1/48 Spitfire 1a nose line and how it could be improved.  Such discussions re-started my interest in modelling and the value of the learned opinion and research in Britmodeller.  It is a pity that such discussion cannot be generated in this thread.

Like I said in my last paragraph 🙂

Seriously, you dont use a few photos adorned with a few red lines and arrows etc and call that  research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people in this thread need to step away from their keyboards and consider actually being polite to other members of the forum. 

 

This stops here.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tank152 said:

Like I said in my last paragraph 🙂

Seriously, you dont use a few photos adorned with a few red lines and arrows etc and call that  research. 

Let me offer another perspective. A lot of modellers use photographs all the time to determine details for further detailing/correction of a kit. There is no problem using lines or arrows to highlight certain features for comparison and encourage discussion which may draw other, more knowledgeable people into the topic.

And while I agree that photos alone are not sufficent as research (as a base for creating a kit as a whole) it certainly is a good way to start a discussion about certain features of a kit as most modellers don't have access to the real thing to measure it (and even there we have the problem if restaurations are "accurate" in all details) or factory drawings.

 

It really depends how the individual brings across his findings. "Hey this kit is xxxx, look at this curve I've highlighted here. Totally mishaped." comes across much different than "Hey, I've noticed this bump here which don't seems to be present on various photos. I've tried to highlight it using some lines, what do you think?"

 

Unfortunately, accuracy discussions seem to be quite heated lately (maybe a result of the current lockdowns many of us are experiencing?) and many people seem to take an extreme stance ("sxxx up and build as is" vs "rivet is off by 0,003in" crowd). A pity, I really enjoy such discussions as I like to know what could be improved on a kit. This helps me not only to learn something about the subject at hand but also to decide if I want to buy a certain kit and what features I want to improve or not.

And while some are more passionate than others we are all here because of our common interest in scale modelling. So can we not have a objective and civil discussion about accuracy without constantly judging others opinion as "nitpicking" or "irrelevant", which is quite subjective anyway, and take it as a opportunity to discuss, research  and maybe learn something?

 

Com'on, group hug everybody :)

 

Peace,

Markus

Edited by Shorty84
  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy what have I done :( Let me say that we are all individuals and are entitled to our opinions and what I presented here is just how I see it. But I enjoyed reading all your comments.

 

18 hours ago, tank152 said:

Saying a part of any kit is off/not correct on the back of a few photos dragged of the web, red lines and arrows is as pointless as it is pathetic.

The colour pictures in the comparison are all taken by myself and NOT dragged of the web ;) And red arrows do help in pointing to issues.

 

16 hours ago, Ray_W said:

This is represented in the kit with the use of PE.

5SpitfireMkI_X4009_PatHughes_Construction_7

Thanks Ray to point this out - it helps looking more closely through the instructions. But I am not sure if using PE is the best way to go. At least Eduard gives us a choice as rescribing these lines is not a big deal.

 

13 hours ago, tank152 said:

Seriously, you dont use a few photos adorned with a few red lines and arrows etc and call that  research. 

So how would you point out discrepancies? Scale drawings open another can of worms, Manufacturer drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale (if they still exist). So aren't pictures the next best thing?

 

I spent some time this afternoon with Photoshop trying to show more clearly how I see the issue.

 

Here the Eduard fuselage over a period picture of a Mk.Ispacer.png

 

And here over a picture of a Mk.IX

spacer.png

 

The Eduard shape is a very close match to the Mk.IX contour but doesn't match the Mk.I shape well which is straight. This is a minor detail but I still feel a hallmark of the Mk.IX Spitfire shouldn't be on the Mk.I

 

Better get back building the kit as it IS a great kit.

Cheers, Peter

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Basilisk said:

But I am not sure if using PE is the best way to go.

Hi Peter,

I agree with you on this. I had never noticed these panels until you pointed it out and, as you will see from the later posts I'm on the hunt for function. My initial thoughts are, if they are truly proud from the the tank surface, then decal film or Bare Metal Foil may be the best way to go. Whether they're proud of the surface, flush or proud one side and slipped under the mating skinning on the other end. is still not clear. Simple scribing may be best solution.

 

16 minutes ago, Basilisk said:

The Eduard shape is a very close match to the Mk.IX contour but doesn't match the Mk.I shape well which is straight. This is a minor detail but I still feel a hallmark of the Mk.IX Spitfire shouldn't be on the Mk.I

I have the Eduard Mk IX, VIII and Airfix Vb with me for comparison. Built, not in the box. My latest Tamiya Mk la is back in Australia. In my view, in terms of model manufacturer's, Eduard has definitely attempted the Mk I cowling. If I put a steel rule across the top you will see a noticeable Mk IX gap for the bigger cowling. Not so with their Mk I. If this difference is due to glue because of the Mk IX has a separate top cowl? Maybe, but the shape is different to my eye. If anything, it is how Eduard has represented the radius across the Mk I cowl. Maybe a little too much at that position at the rear of the exhausts. We are talking minutiae. I expect based on the quality of your builds and attention to detail it will be an irritation.  For me, if I am convinced it needs a little adjustment, then maybe a little fine sanding. As I said, I expect it will happen naturally for many finishing the join line.

 

I have a saying "when it comes to Spitfire shape discussions there are no winners".  So many subtle shape changes going on. We need Lord Nuffield to make a ruling.

 

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have scanned in the plans from Aerodata International No 2 booklet on the Spitfire I and II.  I don't know how accurate these plans are considered to be and they are originally 1/72 in scale:

 

Spitfire

 I did keep the plans as flat as possible and I think it does show the nose profile.  

 

I would be interested if anyone has guidance on the best plans for the Spitfire I, I just went for these as I hoped Aerodata had a good reputation when they published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...