Jump to content

Tamiya Spitfire Mk.1A 1/48 new boxing question


atc1225

Recommended Posts

Good day,

 

I have this wonderful kt in the stash and the other day someting caught my eye regarding the rear view mirror over the front windscreen. Is the shape of this correct as it comes in the kit? It looks to me too boxy in a way and I cannot find any reference photos where the mirror looks like this. I know the kit was modelled on a museum machine but is this authentic or just a restoration "gimmick"?

 

Thanks for any response,

 

Regards,

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atc1225 said:

but is this authentic

Mirrors were not initially a factory fitting, so there were various in field fittings used by different units during 1940, including car mirrors.   Refer to photos is really they only way too tell what was fitted.

@gingerbob @Peter Roberts @lasermonkey may have some information on when the factory fit started, and in there were any known versions connected with specific squadrons or maintenance units, MU's often had distinctive 'styles' and  you can find out what Spitfires went through what MU if you can't see the mirror fitted clearly.

If you have a specific airframe in mind, ask here.

 

HTH

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, atc1225 said:

Good day,

 

I have this wonderful kt in the stash and the other day someting caught my eye regarding the rear view mirror over the front windscreen. Is the shape of this correct as it comes in the kit? It looks to me too boxy in a way and I cannot find any reference photos where the mirror looks like this. I know the kit was modelled on a museum machine but is this authentic or just a restoration "gimmick"?

 

Thanks for any response,

 

Regards,

 

Pierre

 

The warbird, N3200 uses this mirror because that's what was on it when it crash in 1940.

 

plane1B.jpg

 

Spitfire-MkIa-RAF-19Sqn-QV-N3200-SLdr-GD

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Troy has mentioned, the initial production Spitfires were not equipped with rear view mirrors. Several Squadrons experimented with installing rear view mirrors, including 19, 234 and 601 Squadrons. S/Ldr Brian Lane at one point installed mirrors on the lower part of the windscreen of his plane, I think on both sides, but was promptly told to remove them (!) Some pilots in 234 Squadron installed rear vision mirrors on the top inside of the windscreen, though I would have thought the canopy locking mechanism would have interfered with any view from these (?) Spitfire DW-K of 610 Squadron is noted as carrying a local modification and the photo posted above by Jack may well show this.

 

The mirror in the photos above, contained in a small box like fairing, are examples of the first production type installed on Spitfires in late June 1940, from R6800-R6803 and R6880 onwards. The fairing was dispensed with around mid-August, somewhere between X4174 and X4257, leaving a mirror mounted on a small ‘T’ shaped post, also seen on Mk II and V aircraft.

 

Having flown a Spitfire and having sat in several, I have seen for myself how limited a pilots view is of the surrounding sky and have to say I am amazed a mirror was not included in the original design!

Edited by Peter Roberts
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, masterKamera said:

off chance, that photo of the n3200 crash, what happened ot the plane? i saw that it was supposedly the original n3200 frame used in that dunkirk film for 1 fighter used in the film

It is a recreation of that aircraft using a few of its original parts that were still airworthy after being recovered from the beach where it had lain buried.

Edited by Rolls-Royce
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rolls-Royce said:

It is a recreation of that aircraft using a few of its original parts that were still airworthy after being recovered from the beach where it had lain buried.

oh a review of the movie put it forth the entire original n3200 was flown for the movie and used for footage. I honestly didnt see that as being accurate due to the age of the craft and the cost of the craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, masterKamera said:

oh a review of the movie put it forth the entire original n3200 was flown for the movie and used for footage. I honestly didnt see that as being accurate due to the age of the craft and the cost of the craft.

 

Well the restored N3200 was flown for the movie, but very little of it's original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tbolt said:

 

Well the restored N3200 was flown for the movie, but very little of it's original.

True.  I believe the 'rule' is there must be viable constituent parts used matched to a dataplate or manufacturer serial number to be able to claim it is a restoration or rebuild (as opposed to replica)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regards N3200, about 13% of it is original, and about another 13% is original parts from the period, so around a quarter original.

 

I am not going to get into a discussion about original versus replica, but I would add that it was not unknown for a plane to get a new wing, rear fuselage, panels, undercarriage, or other components as required due to damage. One Australian Lancaster Squadron had an aircraft get, over the period of its life, a new fuselage AND new wings.

 

It is on display at Duxford Museum and you can arrange a sit in it, or a two hour explore. Well worth the trouble. It is a beautifully restored aircraft and the staff there do a wonderful job showing her off.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the November 1982 issue of SAM:

43207254250_d4988ce772_b.jpg

43207251560_a0015be28f_b.jpg

 

That should hopefully tell you all you need to know about the production rear view mirrors, though there were unofficial modifications at unit level. I haven't seen the Tamiya kit as it's not my scale, so can't comment on what type it may be.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say that almost all recent Spitfire restorations are based upon the owner securing its original serial number and identity in order to give it some form of provenance from a crash site they have unearthed or inherited. The reality is that almost nothing from the original aircraft then ends up being incorporated into the supposed reincarnation so they are effectively 'new builds' with very little of the original.

 

I don't have an issue with this in general terms as every 'new' Spitfire is a joy to behold when seen flying over Duxford and other places as they preserve the wonderful sight and sound for future generations but they have absolutely no historical merit. Personally my favourite Spits are those that remain pretty much as they were built, airworthy or otherwise, as they are the real thing and have genuine provenance. 

 

Just my take and I'm sure others will probably disagree.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. I've always been puzzled as to what happens to the original, bent & corroded parts that these 'new builds' are based upon -are they just scrapped/binned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

are they just scrapped/binned?

Parts of MJ271 corroded spars were subsequently repurposed as buttons for polo shirts. I'm wearing one :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

Just to say that almost all recent Spitfire restorations are based upon the owner securing its original serial number and identity in order to give it some form of provenance from a crash site they have unearthed or inherited. The reality is that almost nothing from the original aircraft then ends up being incorporated into the supposed reincarnation so they are effectively 'new builds' with very little of the original.

 

I don't have an issue with this in general terms as every 'new' Spitfire is a joy to behold when seen flying over Duxford and other places as they preserve the wonderful sight and sound for future generations but they have absolutely no historical merit. Personally my favourite Spits are those that remain pretty much as they were built, airworthy or otherwise, as they are the real thing and have genuine provenance. 

 

Just my take and I'm sure others will probably disagree.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. I've always been puzzled as to what happens to the original, bent & corroded parts that these 'new builds' are based upon -are they just scrapped/binned?

The ironic thing is that most of the surviving Spitfires are not really "pretty much as they were built". Due to in-service modifications, metal fatigue, time-change maintenance items, battle damage repairs, etc., almost none are as they rolled off the factory floor. This includes the revered Mk IIa of the BoB Memorial Flight. N3200 and P9374 are probably the closest to wartime factory spec of any flying Spitfires today, although the majority of their parts are new make.

Edited by Rolls-Royce
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's absolutely true that any early or even later marque Spitfire would have been modified throughout its life and then 'fiddled' by those seeking to keep it airworthy or to achieve museum display standard thereafter, but at least to my mind they are still essentially the original, even if they are not as they were when they originally came off the production line. Very different to a rusting wreck dug up on a French beach after 50 or so years and then presented as the real thing after a very expensive new build with practically nothing of the original incorporated save the serial number.

 

Just my take on this and I'm sure many will disagree.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. the RAF museum's MK.1 example was reverse engineered many years ago to take it back to its original spec so it is possible to take them back to original factory condition if desired, just not sure how you can reverse engineer a collection of rusty, salt water damaged and twisted metal bits into anything resembling very much.

Edited by fishplanebeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2022 at 9:31 PM, Peter Roberts said:

Regards N3200, about 13% of it is original, and about another 13% is original parts from the period, so around a quarter original.

 

I am not going to get into a discussion about original versus replica, but I would add that it was not unknown for a plane to get a new wing, rear fuselage, panels, undercarriage, or other components as required due to damage. One Australian Lancaster Squadron had an aircraft get, over the period of its life, a new fuselage AND new wings.

 

It is on display at Duxford Museum and you can arrange a sit in it, or a two hour explore. Well worth the trouble. It is a beautifully restored aircraft and the staff there do a wonderful job showing her off.

The Lancaster on display at Duxford is a Canadian-built B. Mk. X and served only with 428 Squadron RCAF during World War II.  Post war she returned to Canadia and in June 1946 where she was converted to Mk. 10MP.

 

R5868 at Hendon, however, was flown by an Australian unit, 467 Squadron, and was overhauled extensively between service with 83 Squadron and 467.  It was not unknown for Lancasters (and other types) passing through overhaul to emerge with more new parts than original and “retaining” the identity of the forward fuselage only, especially if it bore artwork or inscriptions of some description, e.g. R5868’s “No enemy plane....” legend.  During her overhaul R5868 received a new or extensively reworked rear fuselage which “deleted” the original windows.  There is an image of her at Barkston Heath with not much more of her mainplanes remaining than the centre section “box” so it’s entirely possible that much of her wing structure now is not that with which she left Avro’s in the summer of 1942.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little more than just establishing the serial number of a given plane. My understanding is that the manufacturers data plate is a basic requisite to establish provenance.

 

In the case of Spitfires, I believe this is typically located on the firewall. No data plate, no provenance.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if a data plate and the known serial number is enough to make it 'the real deal' then I rest my case.

 

Personally I'd be much more interested in seeing the remnants of the original aircraft, a wee bit akin to the RAF Museum's decision many years ago not to fully restore the Halifax but instead to preserve it in the condition in which it was recovered. At the time I thought this was wrong but with the benefit of hindsight I now completely understand and agree with their decision as I can now gaze upon the real thing and not a proxy or 'new build' with no provenance but lots of new aluminium and paint.

 

Regards

Colin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to close, I know that when Lancasters went in for a major service (or major damage repair) they would be broken down into the major sections and that only the nose section usually retained its original identity when it came out the other end of the process. As such 'S' R5868 had a completely new/different rear fuselage fitted along with probably new wings etc. etc. . Which raises the question of whether a B.I could end up being a B.III or vice versa which I know has been covered by a previous post so I won't revisit this particular aspect.

 

However what is important, for me at least, is that R5868 still has components that were of the correct period and timescale so is still authentic even if not as it was when originally built. There is little authenticity or historical value in an aircraft that just has an original data plate around which everything else is brand new aluminium apart from the Merlins.

 

When I've visited the British Museum the artefacts that are original are the ones that I have always found to be of the greatest interest, such as the original ancient Greek helmets and the items recovered from the ancient pyramids. A copy would be fine to give the visitor a sense of what these may have looked like but the originals have an aura and historic context well beyond that of a cleverly constructed and accurate replica.

 

As I say just my personal opinion.

 

Regards

Colin.

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
×
×
  • Create New...