Airfix 72nd Scale Spitfire IIa

[fishplanebeer]

Dear All,

 

My first new project in 2021 will be the Airfix IIa/Va, it being the re-boxing (plus new decals) of the previous early I/Ia that Airfix released a while ago.

 

I will be building it as a IIa with Rotol propeller and blunt spinner but my new book on the IIa which I received for Xmas, Single No 17 by Robert Grudzien, says that some later IIa's had the larger oil cooler radiator as featured on the Mk III Spitfire? My knowledge of this particular  mark is limited as all I know/think is that it was planned to be powered by the Merlin XX but was dropped in favour of another version with the Merlin 45 series (the Spitfire V) due to other demands for this particular engine. The only true example built, N3297, then went on to be used as a form of test bed for other modifications such as the Merlin 61 engine. As  I don't have any plans for the Mk III I'm assuming this means a Mk IIa could have either the larger/circular style as fitted to the Mk III/V or the previous semi-circular style of the Mk I but just want to check if this is correct?

 

I'm happy with all the other differences between the I and IIa such as the wing strengthening strakes, coffman starter bulge etc.. and the fact that the kit lacks the gun heating vents under each wing.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

 

[Troy Smith]

22 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

My knowledge of this particular  mark is limited as all I know/think is that it was planned to be powered by the Merlin XX but was dropped in favour of another version with the Merlin 45 series (the Spitfire V) due to other demands for this particular engine. The only true example built, N3297, then went on to be used as a form of test bed for other modifications such as the Merlin 61 engine. As  I don't have any plans for the Mk III I'm assuming this means a Mk IIa could have either the larger/circular style as fitted to the Mk III/V or the previous semi-circular style of the Mk I but just want to check if this is correct?

try this re the Spitfire III

Colin, the site search is poor,  but you can use google to search the site by adding 'britmodeller' into the search term. 

 

Regarding the deeper oil cooler,  perhaps @gingerbob can help.

 

Ideally, be specific, state which airframe you are looking at and when, as they can make a difference.  

 

HTH

[Work In Progress]

Let's not over-complicate things bu talking about the III, it's not necessary. What this means is the oil cooler as seen on every Spitfire V, and retrofitted to many I and II. The one with the near-circular front opening rather than the U shaped one. Visually a lot of Spitfire IIa, especially later in their lives in OTUs, were visually indistinguishable from Va.

 

so:  "I'm assuming this means a Mk IIa could have either the larger/circular style as fitted to the Mk III/V or the previous semi-circular style of the Mk I but just want to check if this is correct?" 

Yes, this is correct, and a lot depends on the date of its existence on which you are modelling it.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Work In Progress

[gingerbob]

Not to complicate things, but not "every Spitfire V" carried the same oil coolers or fairing.  In essence, though, you're right that it's a question of "Mk.I/II style" or "Mk.V style".

 

I'm skeptical of the idea that late Mk.IIs received the later oil cooler in production.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one later in the war at an OTU, etc, sporting the larger type, but on an operational Mk.II I'd expect to see the "normal" one for the variant. 

 

Note also that some late production Mk.IIs were fitted with the DH prop, just to throw another spanner in the works.

[fishplanebeer]

I intend to build it as the 'Observer Corps' presentation aircraft P7666 so using the kit decals up to a point but with 54 squadron, who took over some of the aircraft from 41 squadron when they moved to Hornchurch in February 1941, so it changed from being EB-Z to KL-Z (the kit decals do not have the two victory swastikas which is a shame). However it seems only the codes were changed and everything else was kept 'as is' including the sky blue spinner and fuselage band.

 

The two well known photos of this machine, which by the way are taken at almost the same angle, show no wing stiffeners as these were introduced I believe in October 1941(mod 455) which post dates both photos. However as I don't have any photos of the underside of the aircraft I'd assumed that it would have had the semi-circular style of oil cooler radiator but then my new book on the IIa indicated that the larger/circular version could also fitted to IIa's as well, hence my confusion and original question.  

 

As for the III this would make a very interesting conversion but somewhat beyond my skills at the moment I'm afraid.  

 

Regards

Colin.

 

 

[Work In Progress]

38 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

 

I'm skeptical of the idea that late Mk.IIs received the later oil cooler in production.

No-one in this thread has suggested that it did. and it is not clear from the wording of fishplanebeer's posts  exactly what claim the Grudzien book makes. 

"Were fitted with" or "could have" V-type coolers doesn't mean "manufactured and delivered to the first user with", so perhaps FPB could clarify whether Grudzien is claiming that, or whether he's talking about aircraft as modified in service

Edited December 26, 2020 by Work In Progress

[gingerbob]

True, I mis-interpreted the second-hand reference.  I have seen comments come up over and over that late (production) IIs might have been fitted, so that's what I was reacting to.

 

35 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

I intend to build it as the 'Observer Corps' presentation aircraft P7666

 

Well, that does simplify matters.  Built in November (not what I'd consider a "late" Mk.II) and lost 20 April '41.  Certainly the normal "half-round" oil cooler fairing- they were struggling to retrofit early-production Mk.Vs with the proper oil cooler in April!  And the photo I have to hand has the Rotol, so no worry there either.

[Ray_W]

30 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

  Built in November (not what I'd consider a "late" Mk.II) and lost 20 April '41.  Certainly the normal "half-round" oil cooler fairing- they were struggling to retrofit early-production Mk.Vs with the proper oil cooler in April!  And the photo I have to hand has the Rotol, so no worry there either.

 

I think Bob's reasoning has nailed it - November '40 build so Rotol prop, Coffman starter bulge, "half-round" oil cooler, no wing strengthening required. Did not last long enough based on the quote from Edgar's response back in 2011:

 

mod 367 "To make provision for fitting mk.III type oil cooler" was instituted 14-8-41, with 379 "To fit mk.III oil coolers to Spitfire Mk.II aircraft" (my underlining) following on from 26-9-41

 

Simple mod - prop and bulge.

 

Ray

[fishplanebeer]

Many thanks for clarifying this for me, now just need to scratch build the asymmetrical gun heating vents and it should be accurate.

 

BTW the reference in the Grudzien book is from his scale plans which show a port side view with the larger oil cooler (and DH propeller) and annotated "Spitfire IIa with larger Mk III oil cooler".

 

I think he would have been wiser to refer to the Mk V instead as this aircraft is more widely understood (by me at least).

 

Thank you.

Colin. 

[Yes_Man]

Will you be tackling the notoriously deep panel lines? They're the only reason I've avoided building the Airfix Spitfire Mk.I despite it being a glaring hole in my collection (and the Tamiya one is not great, shape is completely off).

[fishplanebeer]

I intend to leave them 'as is' even if they are rather deep (unlike the new Airfix Vc) as using washes to highlight recessed panels is not my strong point at the moment so they are never that salient or obvious anyway.

 

Every time I apply an oil based wash to the gloss varnished paint work I end up wiping it all away and end up back where I started so I may be doing something not quite right. I've seen YouTube videos where modellers use pastel based washes made from ground pastel, water and a drop of washing up liquid so I may give this a go on this Spitfire, or try careful washing once I've applied the final matt or satin varnish coat as a more flat surface may trap and hold the wash particles better?

 

BTW I use enamel paints and varnish which hopefully means that I can apply any type of wash using the appropriate thinner/remover. I've never been sure of the rules regarding what goes with what when it comes to washes, such as can you use a spirit/oil paint wash over acrylic paint/varnish, so I just stick to enamels even if this sometimes limits the colours available as acrylics seem to be more popular these days and available in a wider range.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

[Troy Smith]

6 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

so I just stick to enamels even if this sometimes limits the colours available

For your chosen subjects, go Colourcoats,  they have every main RAF colour, and are noted for their care in research into accuracy, and the enamel user say they are excellent paint as well.   Buy their own thinners,  white spirit is for clean up only.  

https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/collections/colourcoats-sea-british

 

9 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

such as can you use a spirit/oil paint wash over acrylic paint/varnish,

I do, though the gloss coat is Kleer, which is pretty tough, and the wash is artist oil paint dissolved in lighter fuel.  I don't wipe it   off, I use a brush with neat lighter fuel to wash off what I don't want, push it around, just a little lighter fuel in a pallete, rinse out brush.   dries really fast as well, it will flash of the model surface in seconds. 

 

Tip don't use black,  try a dirty grey, or paynes grey. 

see here for more

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235052380-hurricane-airfix-72nd-fabric-wing-mki-oob/&do=findComment&comment=3296243

 

as with everything, test on something else first! 

[johnd]

37 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

Every time I apply an oil based wash to the gloss varnished paint work I end up wiping it all away and end up back where I started so I may be doing something not quite right

Same here, but there's one modeller on here (tonyot?) who runs a scalpel or back of a scalpel along the panel lines after varnishing to make sure there's something for the wash to run into. Haven't got round to doing it yet but it makes sense.

[Yes_Man]

41 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

I intend to leave them 'as is' even if they are rather deep (unlike the new Airfix Vc) as using washes to highlight recessed panels is not my strong point at the moment so they are never that salient or obvious anyway.

 

Yes the new Sptifire Vc is the best I've seen from Airfix so far (not only in panel lines but in general detail too). Still not as good as Eduard or Tamiya but easily inline with Revell or Italeri. I'm a sucker for the panel line wash, though do not ascribe to applying very dark colours as is the trend right now usually opting for complementary shades.

[Bedders]

On 12/26/2020 at 4:02 PM, fishplanebeer said:

the other differences between the I and IIa such as the wing strengthening strakes,

If I remember correctly the wing strakes over the wheel wells were not standard  on IIs from the factory but after a time there was an RAF/Air Ministry decision that all the surviving short-nosed Merlin models should be thus modified to strengthen the wings. In practice I think this meant that all the Is and IIs working in OTUs, and some Vs (and related PR models), got the strakes later in their lives (R6915, a geniune Mk I on display at the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, has them for example). As ever, photographic evidence in advance of the airframe you plan to build is the key to long-term satisfaction...

 

Justin

[fishplanebeer]

Just on Colourcoats, I've checked their web site (Sovereign Hobbies) and almost all the RAF standard colours are currently 'sold out' along with their thinners so I'll have to order and try them when they are back in stock as it seems these paints are bespoke to Sovereign and not available elsewhere.

 

Will let you know how I get on with them at some point.

 

Regards

Colin.

[fishplanebeer]

Sorry but only just noticed that the Airfix II/Va kit that I will be starting soon also has the head armour and back armour plating completely missing, something that they seem to have corrected in the new Vc, albeit the seat armour lacks the cut-out for access to the fuselage behind the pilot.

 

There is an excellent pic of the armour arrangement in the Wing Leader book on the Spitfire I which can be viewed in the sample pages that are available to see on their web site at:  www.wingleader.co.uk/shop/spitfire-mk1-wpa1

 

As these pages are 'free to view' I'm assuming there are no issues regarding copyright.

 

Regards

Colin. 

[Work In Progress]

Free to view or paid-for has nothing to do with copyright, but on their website, which you have correctly pointed at, they are the ones publishing it, not you. So no copyright question arises. The question does arise when someone copies their stuff into a different site and thereby publishes it themselves.

[Jeff G]

On 26/12/2020 at 16:30, johnd said:

Same here, but there's one modeller on here (tonyot?) who runs a scalpel or back of a scalpel along the panel lines after varnishing to make sure there's something for the wash to run into. Haven't got round to doing it yet but it makes sense.

I use this method! Works like a charm. Most of the time..

[HOUSTON]

I learn about Spitfires from you guys.

thank you.