Spitfire 1a R6691 PR-J * Flt Lt F J Howell 609 Sqn * Airfix 1/24 - Weathering at last

[224 Peter]

Seriously impressive... Well Done...! 

[Johnson]

Gloss finish (for the decals) went on today. After much deliberation and experiments I used Alclad II Aqua Gloss, sprayed straight from the bottle through my Harder & Steenbeck Evolution airbrush with a 0.2mm fine tip. I find that for water based paints this works better than the 0.4mm tip, I spray very light coats to start with, increasing the volume as I go. This avoids wetting the surface too much initially which can give the bobble effect.

 

 

I'm very happy with the results. For a model of this size eliminating all the dust is practically impossible, but nothing major. And some of the grainyness I got with the CC dark green enamel is still there, but hopefully won't cause any of the dreaded silvering.

 

Now looking forward to getting some markings on. These will be using the Montex set for PR-J, R6691. Having thought that I would use the Montex masks for everything, I've settled on just the MSG codes. The Montex 35" fuselage roundel has the small red spot, which did appear on Spitfires in the BoB, but is incorrect for R6691 and I'll be using the Airfix decals, which look pretty good with excellent colours.

 

Back soon, thanks for stopping by!

 

Cheers,

[bigbadbadge]

Thales is looking rather splendid with the varnish on Charlie   great work. 

Chris

[Johnson]

Finished the painting.

 

 

Painting the codes using the Montex vinyl masks was about as tricky as I thought it would be...

 

First, the individual letter is positioned in (hopefully) the right place;

The roundel is a photocopy and is just being used for reference. Then the actual mask is positioned over the letter. You can't do this in one go as the mask and the letters are pre-cut/separate and come off the backing paper individually. The port side was more complicated as, on the actual plane, the R is very slightly lower than the P, and the two letters are closer than on the Montex mask, so the mask had to be cut. This is why I'm just doing the P to start with.

 

The area surrounding the vinyl mask is then masked with paper to avoid overspray, and the grey - Colourcoats Medium Sea Grey - was sprayed on;

 

Very quickly off with the mask to avoid a paint ridge, and Hey Presto, we have the P and J;

Once the P was dry, the mask for the R could be added. And so on.

 

The starboard side was easier. Having no photograph to go by, I used the masks without having to cut them up.

 

The Montex masks worked OK. Not having used them before, I looked at the Montex online tutorial and I think I got the method right. The adhesive is low-tac enough to be safe with the paint and generally strong enough to hold them in the desired position. But Airfix's pronounced rivets held them away far enough in places to cause problems when the MSG paint drifted under the vinyl, which doesn't behave in the same way as (say) Tamiya Kabuki Tape which conforms better to raised detail. The vinyl just springs away and tries to stay flat. So once all the MSG codes were on there was a bit of touch-up needed on the dark green. I'm pretty pleased with the results and I think the Montex masks worked better than decals would have with all those rivets to contend with.

 

Next - Decals! Hooray!  I'll be using the Airfix decals which are printed by Cartograph - they look excellent, almost no carrier film which may be useful with all those rivets!

 

Thanks for looking, back soon(ish).

 

Cheers,

[bigbadbadge]

Very nice indeed Charlie,  great job .

Chris

[Johnson]

47 minutes ago, bigbadbadge said:

Very nice indeed Charlie,  great job .

Thanks Chris. I feel that the end of the tunnel may be getting closer, I think I can almost see a light!

 

Cheers,

[bigbadbadge]

18 minutes ago, Johnson said:

Thanks Chris. I feel that the end of the tunnel may be getting closer, I think I can almost see a light!

 

Cheers,

Ahh yes that lovely time when a model really starts to come to life.  Have you any thoughts to what's next Charlie???

Chris

[Johnson]

Just now, bigbadbadge said:

Have you any thoughts to what's next Charlie???

Decorating the living room . You can only get away with it for so long!

 

Seriously though , the next big modelling event will probably be the Bf 109 STGB at the end of May. Really looking forward to that. I have a Fine Molds Bf 109 K-4 and Eaglecal decals for it. Plus, er, rather too many other 109s in the stash - and the Special Hobby 109E-4 (more like Eduard I think) on backorder from big H.

 

What are you up to?

[bigbadbadge]

Yes I know what you mean.  I have been converting our bungalow to a house.  Think of all the brownie points you will earn for extra modelling time tokens!!!

Good luck with the GB .  

Chris

[Johnson]

Decals finished today.

 

I used the Airfix (Cartograf) decals. They worked well but still took a lot of persuasion and copious amounts of Microsol to bed down over all the Airfix rivets. Once settled I ran a scalpel down the panel lines and then more Microsol. For the stencils I used the Techmod set. Beautifully printed with lots of options. I can thoroughly recommend these to anyone foolish enough to build a 1/24 Spitfire! And a real bonus, they contained the W/T or Ballast and First Aid stencils in white, as they should be. But not the '&' between them which I had to construct with an '8' and bits of white decal. But they were also typical Techmod decals; very, very thin and stuck fast almost immediately. But I've experienced them before and knew what to expect. The trick is to wet the area of application thoroughly with water beforehand. They were still a nightmare to move around without breaking them and despite being so thin still had a tendency to 'silver', something I hope I've cured with more Microsol. I won't know for sure until the final matt coat is applied. The kill markings and 100 (fuel octane) were from the Montex set.

 

 

The Montex set only supplies one '100' decal and it seems pretty clear from photos of other 609 Sqn Spitfires that the 100 marking appeared on both sides - which makes sense as it's there to remind the ground crew that the aircraft requires 100 octane fuel. I cut a small vinyl mask (the third one was just about OK) for the starboard side and sprayed the marking on with Tamiya acrylic white. Not perfect but I think it will be OK. Sorry about the 2nd photo, taken a few minutes ago in rather poor evening light.

 

 

I've based the markings on R6692 which also flew with 609 Sqn and was the subject of the IWM film. That plane carried the serial number in small characters on the tail which I'm assuming R6691 also did, despite what the profiles show. I downloaded a very close match to the font they used from the internet (CF Quebec Stamp) and printed the decals on Mr Decal paper using an EPSON Ink Jet printer.

 

 

Once again, thanks to Pete @PeterB for getting me started on home decal printing!

 

 

This has now been on the bench since July last year. I don't think I've ever spent so long on a kit. Next up, a coat of matt varnish.

 

Thanks for looking, back soon.

 

Cheers.

[bigbadbadge]

I say Charlie, this looks absolutely splendid with the decals on, great work fella.  Love it.  

Chris

[Tail-Dragon]

This is looking excellent!  I had this kit many, many years ago and can see the enormous amount of work you've put into it. 

[Johnson]

Hi Folks,

 

The exterior paint, gloss coat, decals and matt coat are done. Not without drama. The matt coat - Winsor & Newton matt UV acrylic, usually very easy, was a real pig . Blocked the airbrush nozzle, wasn't very matt, blotchy and mottled. I wasn't having a good day. I suppose it may have been reacting badly with the Alclad Aqua Gloss, but I can't see why. Eventually, late in a very fraught and stressful day, I was finally happy with the result. Phew.

 

And so, back to the cockpit.

 

The next task was the reflector gun sight. Another item Airfix had a reasonable go at but it could be better and I set about scratch building one. But in doing so, and having a fresh look around the cockpit, it struck me that the gap between the seat and the control column and i/p was enormous. Something wasn't quite right. In the end I worked out that the seat is just a bit too short (or not far enough away from the armour) and the control column was a bit too close to the i/p. Altering things at this stage could do some serious damage! Having mulled it over for a few days , I knew it would bug me later if I didn't attempt a fix. So today, out with the scalpel! .

 

 

The seat, control column and armour plate all came out with some (mostly) gentle persuasion and very little damage. Another phew. I've ordered a GreyMatterFigure AM seat on eBay and a bonus is that I'll be able to replace the Airfix armour plate which is too thick and the wrong shape, I should never have used it.

 

Still to do;

• Scratch a No.7A/1124 Mk.2 Reflector Sight and mount
• New seat
• New armour
• New (or modified) door
• Replace Sutton Harness with the Y strap in the right ??? location. For me this is through the hole in the back of the seat, others may disagree! 
• Windscreen, Canopy etc. Mask and paint.
• Aerial mast / wire
• Undercarriage - useful!  (and add the locking lugs!!!)
• Recognition lamps (wing tips, tail, fuselage top and bottom)
• Red doped patches on M/G holes on wings
• Weathering
• There may be others...
• Modify the exhausts.

 

Crikey! I'd better get a move on.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[bigbadbadge]

Looking great Charlie,  odd about the seat, perhaps Tamiya had a hand in designing it as their 48th scale seats on their older Spitfires are odd Looking and short !!!

Looking forward to see the little bits and bobs come together now, got an Airfix 24th Mk.Vb to do in the stash I thought they are good kits with great surface detail compared to Trumpeter efforts with wrong shaped Spine and lots of holes for rivets.

Great work 

Chris 

[224 Peter]

I think you made the right decision, Charlie. 

I ordered the Greymatter seat kit when I got the kit. 

This is a photo of the Airfix seat, and the Greymatter one. 

Surprised to see that the Greymatter one is much smaller, but that it both looks like a Spitfire seat and the Airfix pilot still fits. 

 

 

The Airfix seat is a later model, the holes in the front didn't appear until late 1940 when the seat was changed from moulded bakelite to metal. Also, if using that seat the holes are far too small, there should be more "hole" than metal. 

The Greymatter seat is correct for an early Mk 1a or Mk 1, although it needs some cleaning up on the base, which should be a dark tan, with green metal strengthening brackets on the front corners.

The quilted upper part should be either dark green or tan leatherette, slightly shiny. 

Sear armour was not fitted until Feb 1940, so an early Mk 1 should not have ANY seat back armour. 

 

This is a useful link for Spitfire seat photos! 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235077784-spitfire-1a-r6691-pr-j-flt-lt-f-j-howell-609-sqn-airfix-124-back-to-the-cockpit/page/7/&tab=comments#comment-4053966

 

I'm uncertain about the seat belt routing, I cannot see it going through the hole in the seat and the photos support this view. So what was the hole for? 

[224 Peter]

I thought it might be useful to share the dimensions of the seat on the 1/1 Scale Lancaster we are building.

My assumption is that RAF "Fighter type" seats share common, or very similar, dimensions, because the parachute/dinghy pack were a set size. 

 

Seat Pan 18.5" wide and 16" front to back and 6" deep. 

In 1/24 scale: 20mm wide, 16.9mm front to back and 2.5mm deep

 

Seat Back is 20" high over the back

in 1/24 scale 21.2mm

 

Seat to back angle is 115 degrees

 

I feel the kit seat is way too large, but I'll check!

 

Peter

 

[Ray_W]

 

On 4/11/2021 at 12:40 AM, Johnson said:

Crikey! I'd better get a move on.

 

Looking really good. The painted up seat looks wonderful. Always a worry trying to get all the dimensions working in a model cockpit.

 

1 hour ago, 224 Peter said:

Seat Pan 18.5" wide and 16" front to back and 6" deep. 

 

Now when Edgar made comment on this he gave "I measured a seat, from a XIV, it was 17.5" wide" as discussed in this thread.

 

 

And yet when you look at the original Mk I metal seat drawings the width is 16.0" (1:24 17 mm) plus a little for the rolled beading.

 

 

I find it hard to believe they made any significant change in this, certainly not in the early marks. Possibly the SRBP (Synthetic Resin Bonded Paper) was a little wider although seeing the flare rack was 16", and there does not appear to be any significant seat overhang with later Mark's with flare rack fitment using the SRBP seat (see following image), I still think a seat width tending toward 16".  The overall width across the outside of the vertical seat support frame members is 16.8" . The seat also does not stick out dramatically, if at all from the vertical support members.

 

 

So, if I have a seat within the 16 to 17 " range I think "good to go". My 1/48 spitfire seats in later Eduard and Airfix, finish at just a little under 9 mm width so they fall within this range. Possibly someone will have a Spitfire mod. like @gingerbob saying seat width increase to suit big a*** pilots. Unlikely though. Anyway I am sure there are members who have/can measure the real thing and put us out of our misery.

 

Here is some flare rack detail. You can see 2" spacing 1.75" diameter hole at the top to clear signal cartridge cap. Note comment with bottom hole 1.5" diameter.

 

 

As always with matters Spitfire, plenty of variations/modifications to keep us guessing. 

 

And, if you're redoing the armour plate, and the internals will accomodate it, then may as well get the shape right.

 

 

Ray

[Bonkin]

Wow Charlie! Only just found this and have read through it from start to finish. It looks superb! I love these 1:24 kits... I've still got the 109 to finish, and have the Spit, Hurricane, Harrier and now the Typhoon in my stash waiting for times when I am not so busy with work.

 

I'm seriously impressed by the level of detail you are going to and the fact that you seem to have cracked the wing dihedral issue which is all too often the bane of this kit. I also think it was totally the right thing to not bother with the engine and to put the cowls in place. One small detail which I noticed from the pictures back on page 5 and which I am sure you will not mind me bringing to your attention... is that it looks like you've got the cockpit door the wrong way around? Is it just the lighting?

 

Looking forward to seeing this finished. Great work!

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Bonkin

[Biggles87]

Ah yes, the perennial seat/harness question, a real

I think Spitfire cockpit equipment changed so much in 1940that it’s very difficult to prove what is correct unless you have a dated photograph showing the items in question. ( I'll bet someone has, c’mon then show us. )

I’m sure that whatever you decide on will be done to you usually high standard.

 

John

PS The first thing I do with any Aires Spitfire cockpit set is throw away the oversized seat.

[Johnson]

On 4/10/2021 at 6:02 PM, bigbadbadge said:

Looking forward to see the little bits and bobs come together now

Thanks Chris - so am I. Another item to add to the list are the exhausts which will need a lot of modification. I'm enjoying the build immensely (now I have the decals and paint on) but it really seems like 'The Never Ending Story', and the Bf 109 STGB is looming!

 

On 4/11/2021 at 12:38 PM, 224 Peter said:

I think you made the right decision, Charlie. 

Thanks Peter, and for the info on seat sizes and the photo. My Grey Matter Figures seat is on order, should arrive hopefully by Saturday. Spitfire seats are almost as contentious and complicated as the Sutton Harness!

 

22 hours ago, Ray_W said:

And, if you're redoing the armour plate, and the internals will accomodate it, then may as well get the shape right.

Cheers Ray - saved me a bit of looking. I shall certainly replace the Airfix armour which I should have done when I 'finished' the cockpit. I'd spent so long on it by then that I was getting lazy. As well as being the wrong shape, at 1:1 the Airfix part would have been 32.4mm thick (or 1.272" in 1940s terms) and probably weighed a bit more than the 73lb. And, according to Edgar, who noticed it in the IWM film, the back armour should be black.

You have a much better copy of the diagram than mine. Does it say what width and thickness the back armour plate was?

 

22 hours ago, Bonkin said:

I'm seriously impressed by the level of detail you are going to and the fact that you seem to have cracked the wing dihedral issue which is all too often the bane of this kit. I also think it was totally the right thing to not bother with the engine and to put the cowls in place.

Many thanks for your kind words! The support I've had on this long project has been outstanding and helped keep me going. There are times that I wonder if it's worth it. I can't take credit for the wing diheadral issue as the idea came from a previous BM thread. For what I wanted to achieve the engine was an unnecessary complication, but it would be awesome to include it in another build. I do have another 1/24 Spit in the stash...

22 hours ago, Bonkin said:

One small detail which I noticed from the pictures back on page 5 and which I am sure you will not mind me bringing to your attention... is that it looks like you've got the cockpit door the wrong way around? Is it just the lighting?

Not at all! But I checked and it is correct - or as Airfix would have it. But the internal detail on the door is all wrong and will need replacing with plasticard and the opening/closing mechanism adding.

 

9 hours ago, Biggles87 said:

Ah yes, the perennial seat/harness question

Thanks John, and too right about the harness! Removing the seat gives me another crack (3rd) at getting it right, or my interpretation of 'right'. 

 

Cheers everyone!

[Ray_W]

37 minutes ago, Johnson said:

Does it say what width and thickness the back armour plate was?

 

Hi Charlie,

 

Sadly no. The only note is this:

 

 

The recent WIngleader Series Mk. I book says 6.5 mm (surely 1/4") for the head armour and 4.5 mm (surely 3/16") for the rear seat armour. 

 

Also it is worth reading this. I see Edgar also posts the same image. Does not answer you dimension questions but still worth a look :

 

 

But, best of all, buried in this thread was what I have been looking for a long time. I knew I had seen it somewhere! Something I am sure that will interest you. The hand pump U/C hydraulic circuit showing that famous tank we try to spy in the starboard rear perspex indicating  a hand pump circuit. Thank you Edgar. You can post it in your current undercarriage thread "spot the tank" :

 

 

Ray

 

 

    

[Johnson]

6 hours ago, Ray_W said:

But, best of all, buried in this thread was what I have been looking for a long time. I knew I had seen it somewhere! Something I am sure that will interest you. The hand pump U/C hydraulic circuit showing that famous tank we try to spy in the starboard rear perspex indicating  a hand pump circuit. Thank you Edgar. You can post it in your current undercarriage thread "spot the tank" :

 

Thanks Ray - I shall. And I also found the same post this morning looking for back armour dimensions. Not absolutely critical as the width and thickness can be fairly accurately judged from available photos, and scaled from the seat width - about 16-17".

 

On 4/11/2021 at 12:38 PM, 224 Peter said:

I'm uncertain about the seat belt routing, I cannot see it going through the hole in the seat and the photos support this view. So what was the hole for? 

 

Hi Peter. I'll have to do a bit more digging on the seat belt, but I recall reading that the hole in the side of the seat pan on the stbd side was for the seat belt to avoid it snagging on the seat adjustment lever. But whether this was from a photo or just conjecture, I don't know.

 

The Airfix seat is very wide - 23.7mm, or 22.4" at 1:1. The pan is 17.2 mm front to back (16.25" 1:1).

 

Cheers,

[Johnson]

Arrived today, the new seat by Grey Matter Figures. Looks OK. Well, very nice actually.

 

The old and the new. Quite a difference.

 

And I'm going to have to try to remember how I painted it. I know - I'll look in my thread! 

The red/brown/flaky colour was based on a receipe of Jonners.

 

Pluses and Minuses...

+ It measures 18.50mm across, or 17.5" which is fine. 

- It has the lozenge in the base of the pan (for the dinghy?) which I think may be wrong for August 1940.

+ It has the recess in the port side of the pan for the ripcord. I think this bit was leather covered?

- No hole in the stbd side of the pan, for the lap belt, or possibly not...  . Either way, the hole should be there.

+ Hole in the back for the Sutton Harness Y strap... or down the back of the seat according to Edgar, who's not to be trifled with! 

 

Back soon!!

[Stew Dapple]

Charlie, I'm sure I read on this very forum that the hole in the seat back is nothing to do with the harness arrangement but is simply a hand-hold to lift the seat out when required for maintenance work in the interior?

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

[Johnson]

5 hours ago, Stew Dapple said:

I'm sure I read on this very forum that the hole in the seat back is nothing to do with the harness arrangement but is simply a hand-hold to lift the seat out when required for maintenance work in the interior?

 

You're right Stew.

 

Edgar posted this in 2015:

The debate as to whether the Y strap goes through the hole or down the back of the seat rumbles on. I've been through the posts so many times it makes my head spin. Still can't decide, so for this seat I think I'll be going with Edgar down the back of the seat (but not gluing it!). And then there's the lap belt on the right hand side of the seat pan... through the side hole?

 

Cheers,