Pat Hughes Aussie Ace - Spitfire MkI X4009 AZ*Q - Eduard 1/48 ***FINISHED***

[Retired Bob]

20 hours ago, Ray_W said:

At least with the double kit boxing you have a second one to lose or not and choose the other build as an early version where you do not need it. 

That's exactly how it went, I was looking at the build/delivery date of the aircraft I was building and tried to work out the fitment of equipment and the underside colour scheme for that period, that gives an idea for undercarriage wells/legs colour.  As you are aware, when the underside scheme changed and the aircraft was already in service the legs, inner door surfaces and wheel hubs did not get the new  colour.  So I have silver, black & white and sky colours for these items on my builds.

12 hours ago, Johnson said:

I’m pondering the same question Ray. I’m thinking that the hydraulic u/c control was added and plumbed in after the cockpit was painted so the pipes may well have been left as unpainted copper.

That's what I went with as well.

 

Ray, your interior is looking superb, while I thought about adding wiring to mine, other than the copper hydraulic plumbing I did not, looking at yours I whish I had now.  How did you get the Bowden cables through the radio remote like that?  I thought that would be visible but my effort would have looked overscale.  As to the seatbelt problem, I looked at the information on this site and others and went with down the back of the seat for this period, front of the seat and through the hole was later, as I understand it.

[Ray_W]

A few pictures of the finished cockpit with some comments.

 

In the end, I decided to stay with my usual harness through the seat option. I went back over the old threads and the often passionate views and still came away with no definite decision. The clincher for me, was the recent thread where Peter @Basilisk posted the seat drawing. It's a 300 series drawing, so it is for the Mk I and the metal seat if I am not mistaken. The seat hole is titled "for safety belt". It is a drawing for the cartridge rack so I put that back on. Sadly the list of amendments and dates are not clear. I would have liked to be able to read these.  

 

Some pilot's may of preferred the over the seat option, but, I'll stick with my original view that if you go over the seat you cannot lean forward using the release lever unless the belts attached to the rear of seat slip either side of the seat (maybe this is what they did).  I'll correct this with the metal seat early version build that is coming up next if the evidence is strong. For this build it's through the seat.

 

Here's the link to Peter's post:

 

 

The final result:

 

 

Another peculiarity is the recess in the bottom of the seat. The later lozenge pattern is provided in the kit (in hindsight, easier to use the metal seat and alter for the paper/resin composite seat and paint in the appropriate colour), I decided to hide the triangular ends as best I could rather than fill, file and reshape. I put in the leather protective strap as fixed to the left hand side of the seat (painted Tamiya tape) and then laid the belts as best as I could, to hide those ends of the recess. I think it's OK for 1/48. I'm sure my family are not going to say " Dad, you have the wrong seat installed! It's totally ruined!" or these days probably a suitable list of emoji's showing shock then crying. 

 

 

The Eduard IP comes up real nice. Note that I let the black wash tone down the brightness of the white and yellow features. Careful though not to get it in the dials. 

 

 

@Greg Law

Greg, Well spotted! The seat is painted with acrylics. I get a little Tamiya Yellow XF-4 and Mr Hobby Aqueous Hobby Color Red Brown H47 (I don't think the brands matter) and mix and adjust on a palette. Get a base colour I like and then start painting with some adjusted more yellow and more red brown tones. I use Mr Color Levelling Thinners to keep the brush, paint and application area dilute and workable.  Once dry, I do dry brush slightly with a flat yellow brown (Tamiya Yellow Brown XF-60) on the wearing edges - this effect seems to have disappeared in the photos.

 

Before jumping into joining the fuselage halves, I removed the leading edge rivetting with Mr Surfacer 500. Chemical mask mandatory - my this stuff is on the nose. Sorry Eduard, I like the rivetting just feel it is a tad overstated on that leading edge. I decided to give my Spitfire an extra 15 knots. I kept most of the underside detail.

 

I'll now give this at least 24 hours to dry before some gentle wet sanding. 

 

 

 Ray

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Ray_W
clarification

[Ray_W]

1 hour ago, Retired Bob said:

How did you get the Bowden cables through the radio remote like that?  I thought that would be visible but my effort would have looked overscale.  As to the seatbelt problem, I looked at the information on this site and others and went with down the back of the seat for this period, front of the seat and through the hole was later, as I understand it

Hi Bob,

 

Just posted and you will see I went the other way with the "back of seat" harness. 

 

For the Bowden cables I used stretched sprue and glued the two short ones and two long ones to the 4 tabs that Eduard has on the corners of the controller. Not strictly true, as you are right the cables should go through the top and bottom of the unit, but, it is close enough to represent this. Copper wire would of been un-manageable. Lead wire too flexible and will not look like a Bowden cable. So it was stretched sprue. I used the smallest amount of Tamiya Thin to hold each then wicked in some thin CA  around the joint to strengthen it. 

 

Ray

[Ray_W]

1 hour ago, Rabbit Leader said:

I agree with Greg... this is honestly top shelf modelling Ray. excellent stuff. 
Cheers.. Dave 

Thanks Dave, it is a great little kit. Worth the extra effort. 

[Retired Bob]

1 hour ago, Ray_W said:

Before jumping into joining the fuselage halves, I removed the leading edge rivetting with Mr Surfacer 500. Chemical mask mandatory - my this stuff is on the nose. Sorry Eduard, I like the rivetting just feel it is a tad overstated on that leading edge. I decided to give my Spitfire an extra 15 knots. I kept most of the underside detail.

I also did this to the leading edge back to the main spar, it does improve the look of the wings.

 

50 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

For the Bowden cables I used stretched sprue and glued the two short ones and two long ones to the 4 tabs Eduard have on the corners of the controller. Not strictly true, as you are right the cables should go through the top and bottom of the unit, but, it is close enough to represent this. Copper wire would of been un-manageable. Lead wire too flexible and will not look like a Bowden cable. So it was stretched sprue. I used the smallest amount of Tamiya Thin to hold each then wicked in some thin CA  around the joint to strengthen it. 

Cheers Ray,I will give it a go, standby for the shouting. 

[Retired Bob]

2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Some pilot's may of preferred the over the seat option, but, I'll stick with my original view that if you go over the seat you cannot lean forward using the release lever unless the belts attached to the rear of seat slip either side of the seat (maybe this is what they did).  I'll correct this with the metal seat early version build that is coming up next if the evidence is strong. For this build it's through the seat.

Interestingly, Eduard make several sets of p/e Spitfire seatbelts and most show the attachment over the back of the seat, except the set for the Tamiya kit, that shows at the front of the seat and through the hole.  I always thought that the fittings on the straps were of brass not the silver colour that Eduard make them?  Here is my early Eduard Spitfire with darker coloured straps and brass fittings, it will have the ring and bead sight so no spare bulbs.  Sorry it's a bit blurry but I have added the oil tank above the air tank and from photos the rear of the pilots seat bulkhead is silver painted.

 

[Ray_W]

42 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

I always thought that the fittings on the straps were of brass not the silver colour that Eduard make them?

Bob,

 

Your cockpit looks very nice indeed.

 

From my research the buckles were steel. An example from this site.

https://www.historicflyingclothing.com/en-GB/raf-aircraft-parts/raf-aircraft-sutton-harness/prod_10252#.X2S6lT_itD0

 I do not think this is a replica. If so it's a good one and they have got the corrosion and wear just right. 

 

 

The buckles may of been blued when new so a darkish more blue-black colour may be more appropriate - I think unlikely nickel or chrome coated. 

 

I always have a concern using copper based materials during war time for applications unless mandatory. Copper and its alloys are much better being used in ammunition so if you can get away with steel then use it. This is another reason why I have a concern using copper for the undercarriage hydraulic piping although workability and possibly a reduced likelihood of stress cracking (post anneal after bending or start with a temper allowing some but not excessive work hardening) may of been a good reason to stay with copper.   

 

Anyway I tone my belts down with a brown wash. Buckles included. A two-way bet.

 

Ray

 

 

 

[Retired Bob]

5 hours ago, Ray_W said:

I always have a concern using copper based materials during war time for applications unless mandatory. 

Good research on the belts Ray, I have only done the pre-war Spitfire with the darker coloured belts, the photo of 19 Sqn aircraft in May 1939 shows a dark shade of belt hanging out of the cockpit.  The later wartime aircraft are as Eduard made them with a tone down wash like you have done.

[Peter Roberts]

Great work here Ray! Lots of left click, copy happening.

 

I am not sure what you mean regards the seat? There was the first metal seat in cockpit green with a channel from side to side in the bottom and a 'plastic' seat with a hexagonal 'dish'. A third version?

 

Re: seat belts, all the photos I have looked at suggest the belt went through the hole in the seat for very early Spitfires (I assume metal seats) then over the back for later Mark I's (I assume plastic seats by this time). You can sometimes pick this up from photographs of pilots seated in the cockpit, but make sure you are looking at seat belts and not parachute straps ( !) 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Peter Roberts

[Ray_W]

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for the compliment. Historically correct? With so much change going on with Spitfire variation due to manufacturing and combat experience  I think you're safe with Eduard recommendations with seat and belt location. 

5 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

I am not sure what you mean regards the seat? There was the first metal seat in cockpit green with a channel from side to side in the bottom and a 'plastic' seat with a hexagonal 'dish'. A third version?

The seat thread I quoted previously talks about the lozenge pattern in the composite seat coming in 1941. This is the fIrst I had heard of this so thought I'd hide the pattern anyway. Another each way bet. There is an image of a lozenge pattern with leather piece so I added it. Also an interesting read here:

 

https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/39906-spitfire-seats-same-for-all-versions/

 

5 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

You can sometimes pick this up from photographs of pilots seated in the cockpit,

As to the belt location, mine could well be wrong. You may have the elusive picture that confirms this showing the harness between the back armour and seat. I remember Edgar Brook's comments regarding through the hole "only from Mk VII" and his one sure thing of not through the back rest on the Vb. If nothing else, doing it this way, will better show off an excellent job doing the leather upholstery.

 

More interesting discussion here, sadly many of the pictures are no longer supported:

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/spitfires-and-sutton-harnesses-t172581.html

 

I am very interested if you have evidence supporting either way. 

 

Ray

[Ray_W]

9 hours ago, Retired Bob said:

the photo of 19 Sqn aircraft in May 1939 shows a dark shade of belt hanging out of the cockpit.

Yes I recall another mention of this  dark shade somewhere. I'll get into that when I do my early version.

[Johnson]

Hi Ray,

 

Throttle Quadrant Boost control colour? You've got yours in red, as I have at 1/24. Almost all restored Spits have them red.

 

But looking at the pic I posted on your thread (post #44, page 3) I'm beginning to wonder. Looks awfully similar to the IG elsewhere.

 

Your (and other Spitfire cockpit aficionados!) opinion would be much appreciated.

[Retired Bob]

5 hours ago, Ray_W said:

The seat thread I quoted previously talks about the lozenge pattern in the composite seat coming in 1941. This is the fIrst I had heard of this so thought I'd hide the pattern anyway. Another each way bet. There is an image of a lozenge pattern with leather piece so I added it. Also an interesting read here:

Edgar wrote of the change to offensive attacks across the Channel in 1941 and the greater chance of ditching in the sea so a life raft and it's inflation bottle was introduced and the lozenge shaped indentation was for this inflation bottle.  The Tamiya seat has this lozenge shaped indentation but the plastic is thick enough to micro-chisel it to the width wide channel.

[Ray_W]

16 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

Edgar wrote of the change to offensive attacks across the Channel in 1941 and the greater chance of ditching in the sea so a life raft and it's inflation bottle was introduced and the lozenge shaped indentation was for this inflation bottle.  The Tamiya seat has this lozenge shaped indentation but the plastic is thick enough to micro-chisel it to the width wide channel.

Edgar later corrected himself.

 

"A visit, yesterday, to our National Archives, revealed another file on the seats, and also that I was wrong about the recess ... The recess was nothing to do with the dinghy, but to stop damage happening to the area of the parachute which carried the ripcord mechanism. This square caused problems, of its own, since the corners were prone to cracking, so the "sides" were elongated to make this less likely.

Sorry for the duff information."

 

Ray

 

[Retired Bob]

7 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

"A visit, yesterday, to our National Archives, revealed another file on the seats, and also that I was wrong about the recess ... The recess was nothing to do with the dinghy, but to stop damage happening to the area of the parachute which carried the ripcord mechanism. This square caused problems, of its own, since the corners were prone to cracking, so the "sides" were elongated to make this less likely.

Problem solved for when we make our Mk.Vs. 

[Peter Roberts]

22 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

Edgar later corrected himself.

 

"A visit, yesterday, to our National Archives, revealed another file on the seats, and also that I was wrong about the recess ... The recess was nothing to do with the dinghy, but to stop damage happening to the area of the parachute which carried the ripcord mechanism. This square caused problems, of its own, since the corners were prone to cracking, so the "sides" were elongated to make this less likely.

Sorry for the duff information."

 

Ray

 

Which suggests the initial recess was a square?

[Ray_W]

31 minutes ago, Johnson said:

Hi Ray,

 

Throttle Quadrant Boost control colour? You've got yours in red, as I have at 1/24. Almost all restored Spits have them red.

 

But looking at the pic I posted on your thread (post #44, page 3) I'm beginning to wonder. Looks awfully similar to the IG elsewhere.

 

Your (and other Spitfire cockpit aficionados!) opinion would be much appreciated.

Hi Charlie,

 

Red is a bit of artistic license although from this artist's impression in the pilot's notes it could of been anything. The safe bets are black (it does appear darker) or natural metal. The N3200 restoration was in natural metal.

Ray

 

 

  

Ray

 

[Ray_W]

16 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

Problem solved for when we make our Mk.Vs. 

If only that was true. Plenty more items to baffle us.

 

2 minutes ago, Peter Roberts said:

Which suggests the initial recess was a square?

Not sure.  Maybe. That's why I tried to hide it. 😏

[Olmec Head]

On 19/09/2020 at 11:24, Ray_W said:

Edgar later corrected himself.

 

"A visit, yesterday, to our National Archives, revealed another file on the seats, and also that I was wrong about the recess ... The recess was nothing to do with the dinghy, but to stop damage happening to the area of the parachute which carried the ripcord mechanism. This square caused problems, of its own, since the corners were prone to cracking, so the "sides" were elongated to make this less likely.

Sorry for the duff information."

 

Ray

 

This explains my confusion about if the first 'Bakelite' seats would have had a similar seat base (.ie a channel) to the original metal seats in a post in the WW2 section I did on Spitfire seats.  I didn't know about Edgar's correction and this would suggest that the seats would have had the romboidy type seat base section from the start, although as Retired Bob says this also could suggest an initial square seat cutout.  I must admit I have gone with the Sutton harness behind the seat based on Edgar's views on my new Tamiya Spitfire build.  I also went with the metal green seat.

 

Your cockpit detailing has been an inspiration to me to try to do the same to my current Tamiya build, but sadly I haven't got close to your level,  the cockpit detailing photos have been very useful and I have squared them away as a resource for further builds.   

Edited September 21, 2020 by Olmec Head
GPS

[Ray_W]

I now have the major items together.

 

Another Spitfire showing its heritage, clearly out of the Eduard stable. Already my favourite 1/48 Mk I without doubt, having now built a few Airfix new tool and the recent Tamiya offering. It also comes with the same foibles as Eduard's Mk IX and VIII. More about this soon. 

 

 

That yellow tape on the rudder is a cardboard protector for the aerial wire connection on the top of the fin. A sure item to get caught and flung off into the nether regions. In this case I am referring to far-flung regions rather than parts of personal anatomy. Mind you, it still applies.

 

The grey regions is where I have hit it with some undercoat to check the joins in the usual danger zones - fuselage joins, front cowling and leading edge. I also have a coat of undercoat rubbed back continuing to reduce the pronounced rivetting ahead of the main spar - foible 1.

 

The cowling closed up nicely. I did use a little CA on the joint when set and then smoothed and feathered in to prevent any likelihood of a ghost seam appearing. Just standard practice on all my builds.  

 

I dropped the elevator to make the build more typical of a Spitfire parked with no control column lock. A very easy mod with the Eduard kit. Slightly bend the pins that insert into the tail plane, push in and glue in place. There is a square box section between the port and starboard elevator halves that only needs a slight chamfer on the outer most edge to allow the retainers, parts P40 and P41, to slip into the correct position.

 

Yes, I know, I did not push the control column forward far enough in the cockpit. I'll tell no one if you don't.

 

 

I still have not decided on the wheel well colour - silver or sky, silver or sky, silver or sky? 

 

 

It is well reported, but there is an error in the instructions to note when assembling the wheel well wall. Parts R18 and R19 need to be reversed.

 

 

I find on all the Eduard Spitfires that I need to remove some material in the lower cowl at the wing leading edge to get it to engage properly and not slightly protrude at the spinner. As the join surface is tapered, it is a simple matter of removing the inside surfaces rather than altering the external visible surfaces. Also the air intake needs some material removed to sit in flush. Not a big deal, normal modelling technique for a good fit. Foible 2.

 

 

Foible 3 and an annoying one this time that I have hopefully corrected. Eduard do a beautiful rendition of the ailerons. This results in one engagement tab into the body of the wing and a very weak outer join coupled with a knife edge butt join which is easy to over glue. The result is you end up with an aileron that gets snapped off usually at the most inopportune time. I decided to pin the outer position by gluing in some copper wire into the aileron and drilling and gluing it into a mating hole in the wing. 

 

 

 I did get a bit energetic while drilling (pin vise) and thankfully did not break though the aileron but ended up with a blemish in the inspection port. I'll fix that. Now it is a much more robust connection without excessive glue.

 

 

With the fuselage halves joined you just have to say that it is always worthwhile doing extra in Spitfire cockpits.

 

 

Bye for now.

 

Ray

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Ray_W
Missing word

[Stew Dapple]

Oh yes, that's looking really nice Ray... that cockpit looks really convincingly real  

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

[sammy da fish]

Thanks for showing your progressive build. At least we get to see how the model actually goes together, not like most of the magazines.

sammy

[Olmec Head]

Ray, Do you have a view please on the upper nose line, It has been suggested that it shares the Tamiya fault of being a bit Mk IX in its profile rather than the smooth curve of Mk1.  I know this caused some 'debate' when first raised in the Rumourmonger section when the kit came out, so it may re-open that can of worms.

[Ray_W]

2 hours ago, Olmec Head said:

Ray, Do you have a view please on the upper nose line, It has been suggested that it shares the Tamiya fault of being a bit Mk IX in its profile rather than the smooth curve of Mk1.  I know this caused some 'debate' when first raised in the Rumourmonger section when the kit came out, so it may re-open that can of worms.

Well, maybe, maybe not. Does it drop quick enough to the spinner backplate? I'll leave that to those who wish to compare. It does appear different to their Mk. IX keeping in mind it is a different construction process with the Mk I cowl being part of the fuselage halves rather than a drop in piece.  Easy to sand a little off if you wish to eliminate the hump if you believe it is exaggerated. It still looks very much like the Mk I to me. 

 

Here are some photos compared to my Eduard Mk IX. You can be the judge. Note props are just pushed in so the Mk IX prop is hanging down a little. Just noticed when I published the photos.

 

 

 

Edit: Here is one more comparison photo I have added; my Airfix Vb to Vc conversion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you think? I am very satisfied.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ray

[Johnson]

43 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

It still looks very much like the Mk I to me.

Agree. Useful pics Ray, Thanks.