Spitfire IX UF-Q

[11bravo]

In my quest for what will be my next build, I've been thinking about the  1/32nd Tamiya Spitfire IX.   Problem is that I'm just not a fan of the standard Ocean Grey / Dark Green or the standard Desert scheme.   While surfing the net, I came across this Spitfire, based in Italy in 1944:

I think that might be a good subject.   Only question is on the finish.   Some references show all over NMF (or painted silver, I have no idea):

 

While others show NMF with a couple of panels in original paintwork.

Of the two options, I really like this version.   The nose panels really make for an off-beat appearance which is something I really enjoy replicating.   Does anyone have info on UF-Q?  Thoughts on which version is correct (although it's quite possible that the aircraft was 100% NMF and those camo panels were added later to replace the damage originals, so both profiles could be accurate).   Also, anyone have the "backstory" on why this aircraft would have had it's original camo stripped off?
 

Any thoughts on this are most welcome.   Also, any info on the Techmod decal sheet above (quality, availability, etc) would be quite useful. 

 

Also, while just doing some quick googling, a couple of other questions have come up:   Clipped wingtips or stanard?    Black squadron codes or red?

 

Thank you in advance,

 

John

 

John

Edited November 28, 2020 by 11bravo

[Ray_W]

I recall a few discussions on this aircraft and always NMF. The camo stripped after delivery. I am yet to see clear evidence as to whether the dark top cowling and fuel tank cover were panels left in the original colour, replacements or just plain dirty. I think that part is open to your own interpretation.

 

Ray

[Work In Progress]

I am not aware of any worthwhile evidence emerging since the previous times we have been over this, always inconclusively, of which this thread provides a representative debate:

Incidentally MJ250 wasn't painted Aluminium, but stripped to bare metal (unlike the BBMF's recent evocation using MK356, which was definitely painted). So if you want to build something definitely 100% accurate, you could also do MK356 some time after its 2007 repaint, as displayed below.

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Work In Progress

[spitfire]

Some more information and ideas

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/75794-spit-camo-scheme?page=0

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

 

[11bravo]

Thanks guys.   Whilst on the subject, I saw one model of this aircraft with clipped wings. Any idea if this is accurate?   

[Ray_W]

5 hours ago, 11bravo said:

Whilst on the subject, I saw one model of this aircraft with clipped wings. Any idea if this is accurate?   

 

It appears like a clipped wing. Although the image can be deceptive.

 

 

The wing does appear squared/clipped. Difficult to ascertain from the port navigation light although it does appear bulbous which would indicate a standard wing. Also seems slightly further back from a definite curved leading edge. Another case for a standard wing. Sadly, no visible aileron - a sure indicator. A clue might be the distance from wing tip to the pitot tube. It seems a shorter length than the standard wing - possible indicator for a clipped wing like the following image. You can also see my point about the wing tip navigation lights.

 

 

Without the specific airframe history it is difficult to come to a conclusion. 

 

If I was building this, I would Google a hole pile of spitfire images and come to a conclusion on whether it fits the image of a clipped wing Spitfire. The wing is, without further evidence, a toss of the coin. 

 

The above image is also a clearer image of MJ250 and suggests camo top surfaces although, again, this could be deceptive. I tend to lean towards dirty stained NMF similar to that discussed in the Key Aero thread as posted by Dennis

 

12 hours ago, spitfire said:

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/75794-spit-camo-scheme?page=0

 

Sorry no clear answers. I doubt anyone could say you were wrong with your final decision. What would you like to portray?

 

Ray

 

 

[Work In Progress]

It's only half an hour's work with a screwdriver to change the wingtip on a Spitfire, but generally units adopted one or the other for a period rather than being mix and match.

I would go with standard wings as the only direct evidence I have is this pic of a few 601 Squadron Spitfire IX in Italy with standard wingtips

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205209375 

[Graham Boak]

Why should the top engine cowling be so dirty and stained compared to the rest of the fuselage top and sides?  Beats me.

 

Why should there be dark paint on top of the engine cowling ahead of the pilot?  Anti-glare panel.

 

Now, which is the likelier?

[ClaudioN]

5 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Why should the top engine cowling be so dirty and stained compared to the rest of the fuselage top and sides?  Beats me.

Why should there be dark paint on top of the engine cowling ahead of the pilot?  Anti-glare panel.

Now, which is the likelier?

 

My two pence, I agree with Graham.

 

Maybe it's just me, but looking at this (clearer) picture:

2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

I think the top cowling panel appears to be some dark colour (look at the demarcation ahead of the engine exhausts), and there seems to be a straight line running from the back of the exhausts to the windscreen rear edge with, again, some darker colour above. It does merge with exhaust stains, which makes it harder to discern, but it is there IMHO.

 

What those darker colours were is anybody's guess.

I like to keep my conjectures as simple as possible, so I'd suggest both the engine top panel and the top fuselage at the rear are in original OG/DG camouflage.

[Work In Progress]

21 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Why should the top engine cowling be so dirty and stained compared to the rest of the fuselage top and sides?  Beats me.

 

Why should there be dark paint on top of the engine cowling ahead of the pilot?  Anti-glare panel.

 

Now, which is the likelier?

 

I've always tended towards the anti-dazzle considerations as I know that I would not be wanting to fly combat around Italy with a long flattish shiny metal nose ahead of me, and find it hard to believe that anyone else would find it an acceptable risk, ESPECIALLY since leaving the upper nose alone reduces the considerable amount of work that  would already have had to be invested in getting all the paint off the rest of the airframe, so really evceryone concerned had considerable incentives to leave the upper nose that way. I'm sure there is some exhaust staining too and that the staining provides a visual buffer between paint and no paint.  I imagine that the edges of the paint are a little diffuse because whatever techniques were used to remove the paint are unlikely to have left tidily straight-lined and crisp edges.

[Ray_W]

With regard to how weathered NMF can look and difference in the possible top cowling/fuel tank camo finish it is worth going to the debate at key.aero and the conclusions made:

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/75794-spit-camo-scheme?page=0

 

The SAAF forum has a number of images of natural metal Spitfires at different angles with no anti dazzle, but solid colour demarcation at the full tank cover. There are a couple of private photos well into the thread that are worth looking at. Earlier ones in the thread are sadly Photobucket watermarked. Maybe not as clear. 

 

https://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2760

 

For me I see no definite conclusion - so it's a "modeller's call".

 

Ray 

[Work In Progress]

Yes, read all that and found the "all natural metal" case highly unconvincing

Edited November 29, 2020 by Work In Progress

[ClaudioN]

1 hour ago, Ray_W said:

With regard to how weathered NMF can look and difference in the possible top cowling/fuel tank camo finish it is worth going to the debate at key.aero and the conclusions made:

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/75794-spit-camo-scheme?page=0

 

Indeed, the SH-coded RAAF Spitfire caught my attention there. Agreed, it's a "modeller's call".

 

Claudio

[Graham Boak]

The arguments may be  quote "quite clear and unambiguous" but the missing word is "weak".  Yes the rear panel does seem a darker shade when stripped, so I'll certainly go with that, but two different shades, darker above than on the side?  I would be more convinced were the darker colour seen directly above the exhausts below the bulge claimed to be shadow - I've seen no evidence of exhaust staining in this area on any other Spitfire, not even bare metal/Aluminium ones, and much evidence of such staining aft and slightly below.  The striking difference between the upper and side panels at the nose is much clearer on the better quality photo Claudio has published above.  You certainly cannot get exhaust staining forward of the exhausts nor just above the nose panel line but not below, nor on top of the cowling.   And with such a precise separation.

 

There remains the problem of glare for the pilot without dark anti-glare panel seen on so many other types and indeed Spitfires.  There is a strong glare on the forward bulge of the engine cowling and on the rear fuselage - but not on the top of the cowling.  This appears to go against physics - even more so than exhaust staining forward of the exhausts.  Even white Hurricanes in the Norwegian Sea retained camouflage on top of the engine cowling.  The pilots in Italy weren't stupid.

[ClaudioN]

3 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

the better quality photo Claudio has published above

Not me, it's taken from Ray_W's post.

[Ray_W]

31 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

  I would be more convinced were the darker colour seen directly above the exhausts below the bulge claimed to be shadow - I've seen no evidence of exhaust staining in this area on any other Spitfire, not even bare metal/Aluminium ones, and much evidence of such staining aft and slightly below. 

 

Graham,

 

Have you taken a look at the SAAF photos in this link? I am interested in your thoughts. 

 

https://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2760

 

Images at various positions through the thread.

 

Also, note the exhaust staining on A58-303. Yes, a Mk VIII and used for high speed tests, but does show what can happen with exhaust staining. 

 

 

I would say go with weathered camo and you have the best of both.

 

Ray

[gingerbob]

Ray, those are some sharp looking Stukas! (nosing around the "photostream").

[Graham Boak]

Ray: Point taken, and corrected above.  However the path of the exhausts would make the lower part of the fuel cover darker than the upper part, whereas UF-Q shows the reverse.

[11bravo]

Folks,

 

Thank you very, very much for all the helpful information.   With regard to the clipped wing, (keep in mind that I know nothing about Spitfires), would the serial number provide some guidance on what type of wingtip this aircraft had when it left the factory?

 

Lastly, I can't tell from the picture above but is that bomb mounted on the centerline or under the wing?   Is it a 250 lb bomb?

 

Thank you all again!

 

John

[alt-92]

30 minutes ago, 11bravo said:

would the serial number provide some guidance on what type of wingtip this aircraft had when it left the factory?

No. The tips were detachable in the field, and may or may not have been removed here.
I'd hazard to guess no.
Bomb looks like a MC 500lb one, standard fit for centerline (Eduard have those as AM). 

 

[Ray_W]

53 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Ray: Point taken, and corrected above.  However the path of the exhausts would make the lower part of the fuel cover darker than the upper part, whereas UF-Q shows the reverse.

Hi Graham,

Yes I am tending more camo now on those top panels. It makes for an interesting model portrayed this way.

Ray

[11bravo]

Last question (I promise):   Anyone have details about the Techmod decals I posted initially?   I've never heard of this brand before, just wondering what the quality is.     I did a quick google, nothing else came up for decal options for this Spit besides this outfit. 

 

John

Edited November 29, 2020 by 11bravo

[Ray_W]

56 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

Ray, those are some sharp looking Stukas! (nosing around the "photostream").

Thanks Bob,

A little off topic, but I have had some very satisfying builds this year. The Stukas were a blast, in particular that D-5. It was what I like - research and a challenging build.

Ray

[alt-92]

7 minutes ago, 11bravo said:

Anyone know if there are aftermarket decals for this Spit (in 32nd)? 

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TM32044?result-token=SPMGh

[11bravo]

13 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TM32044?result-token=SPMGh

Thank you!!  Order placed.