Jump to content

MK1a Spitfire. Recommended 1:72 scale kits 2021


Lindsey C
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re comments based on Tempei's drawings, how do these compare with Monforton's?  Tempei appears to have based his on photographs, which is a notoriously uncertain approach, whereas Monforton's are based on factory drawings.   Both look inspiring, but do they agree?  In this particular case, for the length of the fuel tank panel between the windscreen and the engine cowling.  Or, possibly renewing the discussion above, what about the chord at mid-span?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monforton's,  Tenma's and Eduard's match almost perfectly for the Mk.VIII/IX airframes. As for the fuel tank cover I refer to Monforton's dimensioned drawing as being 36" or 12.7mm in 1/72. I measure 11.3-11.4mm on my copy of A02010 (12.72 on Eduard's)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fishplanebeer said:

Does any one have a definitive answer about the under wing gun heating vents, as in when they were deleted/deemed un necessary?

 

Regards

Colin.

Radiator derived gun heating was introduced shortly before the first two dozen Spitfires Mk.Is had been completed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm taking a measurement of wing chord at Station 12, that is the aileron/flap limiting wing rib. Monforton states it to be 2200.91mm or 30.57mm in 1/72.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eduard is a perfect match.

Airfix is about 31.4mm

Tamiya is about 31.2mm if measured at the aileron border, but it seems that the aileron is 1mm too short in span inwards... so if I measure the actual Sta12 it is more 31.4mm.

I would say that overall Airfix is a better choice accuracy-wise

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still confused about the heating vents as these were introduced after the initial production examples had come off the production line in order to solve the issue of the guns freezing up. My question is at what point were the vents no longer needed (presumably due to another heating mod at some point) and discontinued on the production line as I've also seen pics of early Vb's with them as well.

 

Regards

Colin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From reading the comments it seems to me there is no "accurate" Spitfire Ia as such. Not too different from the conclusion about the Hasegawa Wildcat vs the Airfix Wildcat... neither is perfect and each have their own pro's and con's - really down to the modeller to decide which kit they like the look of more 😀

 

As for the vintage Airfix Spitfire Ia derived from the Vb... is this the one?

Please ignore the Spit in the foreground as that is the new tooling. :lol: I did encounter a few fit issues particularly with the lower wing section joining the fuselage. Otherwise I found it reasonably ok to build.

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already wrote a warning about Tenma's plans in other topic and I would never take them as a serious reference.

The guy has very detailed approach at first sight, but soon you discover many flaws.

For example, he considers Hasegawa's C.202 Folgore as a perfect kit and didn't make any corrections while building it, despite the fact 

this kit has very well described and documented shape errors. When I pointed that out to him, he was very surprised.

Second, all of his plans are based on profile photos without considering lens distortion and that is a pure beginner's mistake. 

I have been following his site for a long time and exchanged some correspondence with him, because many of his works raised my eyebrows. 

He just enjoys butchering kits with dubious motivation and his plans seem to serve only as a justification for his efforts. 

The answers he provided made me confirm my observations and from then on I use his data only to learn some new techniques, but not for 

checking shapes anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knight_Flyer said:

As for the vintage Airfix Spitfire Ia derived from the Vb... is this the one?

Please ignore the Spit in the foreground as that is the new tooling. :lol: I did encounter a few fit issues particularly with the lower wing section joining the fuselage. Otherwise I found it reasonably ok to build.

 

spacer.png

 

Yes, the box in the background is the good old Airfix Mk.Ia :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knight_Flyer said:

From reading the comments it seems to me there is no "accurate" Spitfire Ia as such. Not too different from the conclusion about the Hasegawa Wildcat vs the Airfix Wildcat... neither is perfect and each have their own pro's and con's - really down to the modeller to decide which kit they like the look of more 😀

 

As for the vintage Airfix Spitfire Ia derived from the Vb... is this the one?

 

There is no perfect model.  However when it comes to the F4F  the current choice is more clear: Arma Hobby.  Sadly AH do not do Spitfires.

 

The previous Airfix Spitfire Mk.I followed closely on from the Mk.Vb but despite this it is distinctly more accurate, particularly in the wing and wing/fuselage join.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 

There is no perfect model.

But some come nearer than others.  There are flaws with the Tamiya P-47D and the Starfix [insert kit name of choice here] but I know which I’d rather devote my hobby time to.

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

However when it comes to the F4F  the current choice is more clear: Arma Hobby.

Agree: the Arma kit renders the Hasegawa and Airfix, let alone the Frog and Revell, opposition obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

I already wrote a warning about Tenma's plans in other topic and I would never take them as a serious reference.

The guy has very detailed approach at first sight, but soon you discover many flaws.

For example, he considers Hasegawa's C.202 Folgore as a perfect kit and didn't make any corrections while building it, despite the fact 

this kit has very well described and documented shape errors. When I pointed that out to him, he was very surprised.

Second, all of his plans are based on profile photos without considering lens distortion and that is a pure beginner's mistake. 

I have been following his site for a long time and exchanged some correspondence with him, because many of his works raised my eyebrows. 

He just enjoys butchering kits with dubious motivation and his plans seem to serve only as a justification for his efforts. 

The answers he provided made me confirm my observations and from then on I use his data only to learn some new techniques, but not for 

checking shapes anymore.

 

Now this is interesting because he never built a Hasegawa MC.202, neither 1/48th nor 1/72nd!

If you read through his drawing Web pages he states using factory drawings as a basis. Often he compares the result with telephotos (low distortion) or distortion compensated photos. He does mistakes for sure, but limiting the scope of our discussion to Spitfires, his and Monforton's  plans perfectly match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, steh2o said:

Now this is interesting because he never built a Hasegawa MC.202, neither 1/48th nor 1/72nd!

If you read through his drawing Web pages he states using factory drawings as a basis. Often he compares the result with telephotos (low distortion) or distortion compensated photos. He does mistakes for sure, but limiting the scope of our discussion to Spitfires, his and Monforton's  plans perfectly match.

Oh yes he did, in 1/72nd scale, you just didn't pay attention.

Here is the link and you'll find it somewhere in the middle of the page:

http://soyuyo.main.jp/danshari/danshari.html

His C.202 was built almost straight from the box because he considers this kit to be perfect, not requiring any modification. I have email correspondence with such statement from him.

Looking at his particular works, you can see that he draws plans over photos which is evident on many of his builds, most recently on his F-4 from FM.

If you fell in love with his work nevertheless, fine with me. I just wrote what I know from him directly and what I saw on his site.

Edited by MarkoZG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marco I stand corrected! I never saw this page before indeed.

Still, his Spitfire drawings match Monforton's and this is what is relevant to this discussion. 

I like JT work, you don't,  this is entirely another matter.

Regards,

Stefano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Right. Stash has just grown! 🤦‍♂️

 

To add to the lonely Airfiix (A68206) Mk1a starter kit (now started👊) I now also have in the 1:72 stash:

 

Airfix Mk1a (A01071B). France 1940 so not BoB. Tooling is exactly the same in these 2 airfix kits but this gives far more decals, i.e. the small markings for fuselage and wings, gas warning patch etc.

 

Tamiya 60748 Spitfire Mk1. 2 options- 1. L1043 DW-O, 610 Squadron, June 1940 (so Biggin Hill) or 2. X4561 QJ-B, 92 Squadron, Dec 1940 (so RAF Manston, Kent).

Will be option 1 for me but there is no aircraft serial no. decals on option 1. I gather not all had this no. on fuselage? The A68206 kit which is also 610 Squadron but July 1940 Biggin Hill has serial numbers. Also no underwing roundel. Would these have been added on delivery? Nice decal package though no decal for flight instrument panel.

 

KP Spitfire Mk1b KPM0055. 3 options - 1. R6908 QJ-F, Dec 1940, 92 Squadron Biggin Hill. 2. R6776 QV-H, August 1940, 19 Squadron, RAF Fowlmere, Herts. 3. X4272 QJ-D, December 1940, 92 Squadron, Biggin Hill.

This will be R6776 since I am after a BoB Mk1b. The kit looks far better in the flesh than over the internet. Nice detailing though it looks very fine and I will not know how well it carries through until painted. It's gone the other way than the Airfix's huge wide panel lines! The lower wing dihedral is huge but maybe this reduces when the kit is built? Decal set includes Sutton Harness (though it is grey!) and a huge amount of panel markings. I like the clear gunsights. just paint the non clear parts. Clever and saves me scratch building the clear glass plate. The kit has many redundant (here) parts so obviously the tooling covers many other marks (eg. Desert filter, 3 prop options, etc.) I will give this one my best since it is a rare Mk1b and I do not yet have the knowledge base, decals etc. to create a Mk1b from another kit.

 

In the absence of a definitive kit I will 'go at' all these Kits and see how I/they fair. Pro's & con's to each no doubt. I have much work ahead of me and at this rate I will never get to the Luftwaffe stuff! (keep quiet about the 2 Special Hobby BF109E-3's that seemed to have jumped into the box too! 🤫).

 

Regards,

 

Lindsey

Edited by Lindsey C
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't unusual for pre BoB Spitfires to have the serial painted in small black letters at the top of the fin and some carried this into the battle as well such as L1082 of 609 squadron. I'm sure there were many others too and some carried no serial at all so what you really need is a good photo of the aircraft to confirm. There is well known pic of DW-O in formation with DW-K but unfortunately this is R6595 and not L1043 but it does show the absence of serial numbers.

 

Regards

Colin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks Colin I will do a bit of research.

 

Another quicky, would it be valid to put a gas detection patch on Hurricane Mk1 L1592 (Fabric Wing RAF Kenley, August 1940-'one for Troy') and the Spitfire starter P9495? And other early BoB? There seems to be many debates and threads here also and many timelines depending on aircraft type. From what I gather, these were standard paper patches but were not necessarily applied to all aircraft, even within a squadron. They were phased out from fighter aircraft around mid 1940. I suppose having one on port wing is valid or not for each aircraft from early BoB and I am probably making work for making myself here! 🤣

 

Thanks

Lindsey

Edited by Lindsey C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gas detector patches were replaced by gas detector paint in the camouflage colours.  However this was not always possible hence the appearance of oddly shaped paint areas on Spitfire fuselages, especially on the Middle East.  Presumably on other types too.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re' the under wing roundels this would be a subject all of it's own but suffice to say that the existence, location and size varied quite considerably during the battle  depending upon a host of factors so again a good pic of the aircraft would be the best bet to determine if they were there or not. Even when edicts were issued to apply them/remove them it took time for this to filter down to the MU's and squadrons so there was much variation.

 

As for the gas patches they are also almost a topic worthy of a separate thread but generally they were introduced on aircraft shortly after the out break of the war and were either a fabric patch taped onto the port wing with dark red tape or painted on using special gas sensitive paint. As a general rule of thumb they were phased out in September 1940 but could still be seen on aircraft after this time.

 

HTH.

 

Regards

Colin.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add that my info on the gas patches comes from the Wing Leader publication on the Mk1 Spitfire which is well worth investing in as it has a great collection of early and BoB period machines along with some interesting detail notes as well.

 

I also checked an old article from SAM/October 1982 which may now be out of date but it confirms that when Sky undersides were introduced after Dunkirk in June 1940 the under surface roundels were simply over painted. Between 11th-15th August all squadrons were then instructed to re-apply them again but as there was no universal standard given each MU almost certainly applied their own interpretation of this edict in terms of size and location. This applied to aircraft produced after this date as well as those held in store pending release to the squadrons so this goes a long way to explaining the many variations that were seen. It was only in late December 1940 that factories started applying the roundels which then resulted in a far more standardised approach.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks Colin

 

I found an image of one of the Spifire's that I can just see under the port wing & no roundel! That's good, I have no underwing roundels! lol

 

Regards,

 

Lindsey

Edited by Lindsey C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why does the Tamiya Mk1 have the outer two 0.303's  peeping out of the ports to differing extents on each wing? Is it because they think they are in BF110 noses? 🤣

 

Lindsey

Edited by Lindsey C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...