jackroadkill Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 I started building my Dakota whilst I prevaricated about how to do the mottling on my Emil. Then I ran into paint issues with the Dakota. Then this morning I found out about some unusual Spitfire Vb's and it got me thinking. "I've got one of those in the stash" I thought, "but I don't want to start another model now, do I? I'll just do some research and then I'll have a project in mind for when the Dak is finished". Sounds reasonable, right? So a couple of hours of research, a visit to the 'Bay for some paint and to Hannants for some decals later, the plan was complete. But something went wrong; I took my eye off the ball and before I knew it...: The kit is.... basic, to say the least. Not as basic as the ancient Airfix kits from my youth, but pretty basic. No cockpit detail, scale is a bit arbitrary in a place or two, fit is pretty poor in certain areas. Still, it can't hurt to look, right? Oh, there's the postman, and he's delivered a Tamiya panel-line cutter, some Micro Set and Micro Sol, some Tamiya tweezers and some Tamiya weathering powder (looks like make-up to me; I'd have used it as such back in my Goth days!). Oh no, things are happening now... Remember the bit where I said scale is arbitrary?! Okay, I admit it - I've started another model. Great fitting fuselage halves, as you can see... Not. However, not a problem, I ended up cementing it together in stages so that it couldn't pull itself apart (that Tamiya Extra Thin is good, isn't it?) Big gaps to play with in the wing roots, and a shedload of flashing where the cowling goes. More weird fitting under the fuselage at the back end of the underwing panel. So, a bit of fun that it hopefully going to teach me a few things. But, I hear you cry, what strange version of the Vb will you be doing? Well, for the moment I'm not going to say, but trawling the forum's dusty archives has revealed that there's very little source material to provide evidence of colour used, and arguments have raged in the past as to how close builder's representations have been to the real thing. With that in mind I'll state now that this is going to be a "could have been" or a "what if?" rather than an attempt at a definitive version. Answers on a postcard, if you like. Right, better get on with the Emil! Thanks, JRK 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted June 7, 2020 Author Share Posted June 7, 2020 (edited) Have managed to make some progress on both this and the Emil today. First off, I've discovered that everything about this model is wonky. I inherited it from a non-modelling friend and so it might have been badly stored etc, but one thing is for sure - not much is square and true on it, as you can see from the picture below. I kept the camera as XYZ'd as I could and you can just make out with reference to the cutting mat that all is not well in terms of geometry: Still, this is just a fun build and I doubt it'll make much in the way of odds to the impact of the finished article. I also was able to put into place what I've learned about panel lines and join seams; getting to grips with polishing the material back up after sanding (using a nail polishing block) and a Tamiya panel line cutter. Results were okay, and despite the huge amount of grinding that had to be done I'm reasonably pleased with things so far. I managed to get a reasonable result on the cockpit, despite the huge control column and bemusing lack of detail in the office; I just dry-brushed the IP with white paint as you'll see very little of it indeed when the canopy is closed. I also didn't bother with washes etc inside the cockpit for the same reason: As you can see, the fit is pretty poor; this is just one example of how things just don't line up. I had to get creative with the abrasives here, and use filler in each leading edge / fuselage area and the edges of the slipper tank (a clue as to the version of the aircraft there) as there were gaps you could put a fist into, as well as making the carb inlet housing fit: All things considered it's not going together too badly, especially when the general shonkiness of the fit is taken into account. I'm really enjoying overcoming the challenges it's presenting as well. Edited June 7, 2020 by jackroadkill Missed half of the post out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back in the Saddle Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 That does look a little wonky...😕 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted June 7, 2020 Author Share Posted June 7, 2020 22 minutes ago, Back in the Saddle said: That does look a little wonky...😕 There's no getting away from it, is there?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back in the Saddle Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 I thought it was the angle at first, but the nose/tail are perfectly aligned on the grid - unfortunately the wings are not...😁 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveWilko Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 On 6/6/2020 at 5:30 PM, jackroadkill said: The kit is.... basic, to say the least. Not as basic as the ancient Airfix kits from my youth, but pretty basic. No cockpit detail, scale is a bit arbitrary in a place or two, fit is pretty poor in certain areas. And no where near as accurate as the old Airfix Spitfire Vb,if one may make mention Sir. If one remembers correctly when released,the 1974 Airfix Vb was checked,then checked,then checked again and was mooted to be the most accurate Spitfire of any mark reproduces in any scale. As far as one knows,it(and the late 70's Mk.1) have yet to be bettered,certainly in 1/72nd scale,for accuracy of shape and dimension. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 The Mk 1 was indeed the most accurate Spitfire to that date, and for some time following, but the Mk.Vb was rather less satisfying. Particularly the wing, with the aileron's too-wide chord on the top, peculiarities of the wingtip, and the very odd rise up at the root - which was to lead to misunderstandings when the time came to do a Mk.Vc resulting in too thick a wing. There was also a problem, shared with the Mk.I, of getting a good match at the training edge on the belly. The fuselage, however, was much the same as the Mk.I. Which according to the new Mk.I, was also too short in the nose. Something shared, to be fair, with pretty well every other kit. However, whatever the multiple flaws of the Italeri kit, most fixable, the cockpit interiors are well ahead of the 70s Airfix. And at least it didn't mould the undercarriage legs together with the doors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted June 12, 2020 Author Share Posted June 12, 2020 Well, I've managed to kung-fu it into some sort of shape and to the uninitiated it might even look okay. I had to do some extensive re-shaping around the nose, particularly where the lower cowling joins the upper, around the carb inlet and again at the wing roots but it's not looking too shabby now. The cockpit door didn't fit, but a dose of filler and some more sanding cured that. I've painted the underside and have put a very thin coat of brown on the topside just to act as a key coat for the real colour. So, here we are: This might give a clue as to the final colour scheme: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted June 20, 2020 Author Share Posted June 20, 2020 Over the last few days I've managed to get a few little bits done on both this kit and my Emil. I'm enjoying the Emil a good bit more than this one but as I'm not taking the Spit as seriously it's not a problem - not going to bin it just yet. I think I'm going to have to do some fairly major modification to the spindly undercarriage legs, because, well.... this: With the undercarriage legs dry-fitted it looks as if it's been built for some kind of weird oval racing. The port leg isn't too bad but goodness only knows what the pattern-maker was on when it came to the starboard leg. The leg itself fits into a square hole in the underside of the wing, in the leg rebate. However, the hole isn't congruent with the plane of reference, and so this ensures that the leg won't point in the right direction. Added to this is the fact that the hole is too close to the edge of the rebate so the leg (even without the fairing attached) fouls the edge of the rebate and won't fit fully into the square hole because of this. Then let's take into consideration that the wheels and tyres aren't very concentric, and add to that the fact that it looks like someone forgot to oppose the angle between the pegs that hold the wheels on and we arrive at a very geometrically-unsound undercarriage all round. Still, onwards and upwards, eh? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted June 26, 2020 Author Share Posted June 26, 2020 Hmm, can gallons of Micro Sol sort this, I wonder? Only time will tell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted June 26, 2020 Author Share Posted June 26, 2020 Well, it turns out that yes, it will - mostly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.E.SAUNDERS Posted June 27, 2020 Share Posted June 27, 2020 hi ALL , you reckon this AIRFIX Spitfire is wonky, buy a 1/72 GRAFIX Spitfire , the Wings are Back to Front ! So I built it anyway with a roolly good Paint Job 'n Deeecalin' all very nice. 😙 Then I took it to a Club Meetin' and asked an "Expert" "Wots wrong with this Spitfire " ? He did'nt pick it ! ! 😠 🛬 🙂 cheery "modellin' " mumbas ! Geoff 🌐 👹🔨😷😬🤒 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 I've finished it. Not in the sense of spending ages making it perfect, more in the sense of dragging it over the line by the scruff of its neck (and possibly before having it euthanised). It's not pretty and I'm not going to bother with an RFI, I don't think. This was supposed to be a sort of "what if?" crossed with a speculative "might have been" version of a 601 Squadron Operation Calendar Spitfire. There are very few colour pictures available of them in their original USS Wasp-applied Mediterranean blue scheme, which, as far as I can tell, was only ever intended for the flight from the carrier to Malta, whereupon they (or the ones that survived the air raid that hit the landing field immediately after they arrived) were repainted in their more widely-known Malta scheme. There are as many opinions on what the blue colour actually was, hence the "what if" / "might have been" nature of my colour scheme. I mixed up a blue that is possibly somewhere near correct - about halfway between the slate-blue sometimes shown on Malta Spits and the blue that was used for the Merlins Over Malta program (see www.merlinsovermalta.com) With that in mind I'm stating that I make no claims to accuracy with the paint scheme. I don't know if the undersides were painted azure blue whilst onboard USS Wasp or when they arrived on Malta, but I chose the latter because I had the paint already. Again, this could be wrong, but there's not a big body of evidence (that I could find, at any rate) to substantiate either possibility - this is just an idea of how things may have been. Also I weathered the underside on the basis that it would probably not have been cleaned up that much if it was going to be repainted on arrival in Malta but left the topside paint looking fresh. The kit was horrid; the fuselage / wing joints were abysmal, the slipper tank didn't go on straight, the undercarriage was gash, the molding of the underwing radiators was terrible, the fuselage is wonky, the airscrew is a joke, the canopy didn't fit in any way, shape or form.... You get the gist. By the time it was finished I was thoroughly sick of it (see the "Is it Okay?" thread in Chat) and just wanted it done in some shape or another. I'm now intending to do another version of the aircraft at a later date with a better kit in the hope that I can give it a bit of the mojo it deserves. Suggestions for better kits will be gratefully accepted, by the way. Anyway, these are the photos. They're not great, but are just meant to show the general idea. Thanks, JRK 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Nice work and I do like the blue. Thats the thing with Malta Spitfires, no one is truly wrong short of building a time machine or a Tardis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 4 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: Nice work and I do like the blue. Thats the thing with Malta Spitfires, no one is truly wrong short of building a time machine or a Tardis. Thanks, glad you like it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbadge Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Hi It does look good in the blue, great work. I have built one of these in the past and have a couple of their mkIXs but have thrown them in the Spitfire Spares box for parts donors . They missed the panel lines which mark the definition of the wing fillets too. Good to see a Malta Spitfire and a nice fun project. All the best Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 54 minutes ago, bigbadbadge said: Hi It does look good in the blue, great work. I have built one of these in the past and have a couple of their mkIXs but have thrown them in the Spitfire Spares box for parts donors . They missed the panel lines which mark the definition of the wing fillets too. Good to see a Malta Spitfire and a nice fun project. All the best Chris Thanks Chris - I've got an Italieri nine somewhere, as well as a PRU, but I'm not keen to do much more than chuck them in the bits box. I'm not sorry to see this one done, but it's been a good learning experience (for example I didn't know if you could straighten undercarriages with boiling water before I built this, but I do now!) and I hope it will stand me in good stead for making another in the future once I find a kit that I like. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbadge Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 hour ago, jackroadkill said: Thanks Chris - I've got an Italieri nine somewhere, as well as a PRU, but I'm not keen to do much more than chuck them in the bits box. I'm not sorry to see this one done, but it's been a good learning experience (for example I didn't know if you could straighten undercarriages with boiling water before I built this, but I do now!) and I hope it will stand me in good stead for making another in the future once I find a kit that I like. Yes a good learning experience, there are some nice Spitfire kits out ther, I like the Airfix ones although panel lines are not liked by some, for me they are great as I brush paint, Tamiya are quite nice and so are the KP ones and Frieghtdog does a nice Seafire Ib conversion using the KP kit this is very nice and looks good when done. Keep up the good work All the best Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackroadkill Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 Thanks, @bigbadbadge, I'll check those kits out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now