Airfix 1:72 Spitfire Mk.I

[dr_gn]

Bit of a retrospective build thread...I wanted an early Spitfire, and was aware that in the past, Airfix did a Mk.I/Mk.IIa which included extra (early version) parts in addditin to their Mk.Ia mouldings. These included a flat canopy, 2-bladed propeller and rod aerial mast (and of course different decals. They seemed hard to find, but after a forum request, someone sent me all the additional parts and decals for the Mk.I, so all I needed was a commonly available Mk.Ia kit. I picked one up locally for about £8. I'll need to make up a two-pronged pitot-static head, but that'll be about it I think.

 

I started one of these kits about 10 years ago, but almost immediately threw it in the bin becasue of the laughably deep panel lines and fastener holes:

 

 

This time I've accepted it (mainly becasue I can't find one from another manufacturer), and am experimenting with reducing the panel line depths (as per this thread):  

 

First job was to paint Mr.Surfacer 1000 into all the panel lines:

 

 

and once set, removed the excess with IPA using the flat side of a hard Tamiya cotton bud:

 

 

This was repeated three or four times on all airframe surfaces, followed by a thick levelling wash of IPA (this clearly shows how wide the engraved lines really are):

 

 

Then, once set, I wet-sanded the whole thing with abrasive sponges to try and take the rounded edges off the top of the lines (which worked to an extent):

 

 

Then moved onto the interior (OOB apart form an Eduard early RAF harness). I didn't bother with any more detail becasue it's a closed canopy model. It will however have a p/e ring sight in there before the canopy goes on:

 

 

Then closed it all up and filled all the gaps. I also punched out a plasticard disc to reduce the depth of the circular tank filler aperture, and eliminate some tricky filling in the base:

 

 

Then got the wings on and filled the resulting gaps with Milliput. I'd pre-painted and lightly weathered the wheel wells in aluminium:

 

 

and applied the first guide coat of primer:

 

 

Quite a bit more further corrective work required. Here it is pre-primer with the Airfix Mk.22 I'm building, which is pretty much at the same stage:

 

 

So that's it up to date so far. I guess time will tell if the Mr.Surfacer option was the right way to go (as opposed to filling and completely re-scribing), but at least it will be interesting to see what it looks like.

[dogsbody]

All the newer Airfix fabric-winged Hurricanes that have the 2-blade prop option have that early pitot. 

I used a CMK razor saw to cut a space between the probe ends. It's not fully accurate but it's better that a boot to the man-bits, especially at 1/72 scale.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Graham Boak]

Mr. Surfacer 1000 is better used for filling in scratches or even as a primer (I'm told): Mr. Surfacer 500 is better for filling in deeper scratches but best of all for deep grooves such as on this Spitfire is Mr. Dissolved Putty.  However with age the Mr Surfacers thicken and get better for this job.  Mr. Thinner will return them to their finer state but I had to get mine from Italy,  It arrived fairly quickly with no problems but I think I overdid it.  I don't think that they do a Mr. Surfacer 5000 but that's what I've got at the moment!  Perhaps I'll just leave the top off overnight.

 

Despite the evil trenches, Airfix failed to include the visible join where the fairing from the wing root meets the fuselage.  This is awkward to scribe. 

[alt-92]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't think that they do a Mr. Surfacer 5000

The range goes from 500 via 1000 and 1200 to 1500. That last one is my primer of choice.

[Johnson]

Excellent work on the panel lines, and the cockpit looks great, love the colour!

[2996 Victor]

Nice progress on this and a good way to reduce the panel line chasms! I tried multiple coats of paint on an Airfix Tomahawk IIb, sanded between each coat, aiming for the same result, but it was only partly successful as some of the detail was lost completely.

 

Kovozavody Prostejov do some great Spitfires in 1/72, including two-bladed Mk.Is. The panel lines are very nicely done, very restrained, and the interior is pretty good, too. Downsides are they're short-run so need more fettling to get a spot-on fit, and they're generally a bit more expensive than Airfix.

 

Looking forward to seeing your progress!

 

Cheers,

Mark

[Max Headroom]

Nice progress.

 

I’m building a MK.III using the MK.I wings. To fill the trenches, I used Tippex corrector fluid. Once dried, well-worn wet and dry and polishing pads 

 

This is during

 

 

and this is with primer and a top coat of camo.

 

 

Trevor

[dr_gn]

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Mr. Surfacer 1000 is better used for filling in scratches or even as a primer (I'm told): Mr. Surfacer 500 is better for filling in deeper scratches but best of all for deep grooves such as on this Spitfire is Mr. Dissolved Putty.  However with age the Mr Surfacers thicken and get getter for this job.  Mr. Thinner will return them to their finer state but I had to get mine from Italy,  It arrived fairly quickly with no problems but I think I overdid it.  I don't think that they do a Mr. Surfacer 5000 but that's what I've got at the moment!  Perhaps I'll just leave the top off overnight.

I don’t think you’d end up with 5000 by simply thinning a coarser grade. The number refers to the solid particle size, not viscosity (although the coarser grades seem thicker by default).

 

I wanted the liquid to run into the lines and self-level as much as possible, plus I wanted the resulting fill to be as smooth as possible, therefore Surfacer 1000 was a good compromise. I was in no particular rush to complete the job, so several coats wasn’t an issue either, plus it gave a level of control as to how the lines looked after incrementing the layers.

[Graham Boak]

Thanks, but I wasn't completely serious...

[dogsbody]

6 hours ago, alt-92 said:

The range goes from 500 via 1000 and 1200 to 1500. That last one is my primer of choice.

 

My collection:

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Graham Boak]

My interest is for use as a filler, not a primer.

[dr_gn]

This one is taking a lot of work, especially re-scribing. Part of the problem is that some of the smaller details have got sanded away, but the main issue is that the Surfacer-filled trenches are wider than the much more refined re-scribed details, so overall - pfffff.

 

 

 

Some of the parts are badly mis-shapen like the two-piece supercharger intake, which took a lot of dissolved sprue and profiling to get right:

 

Anyway, got the tailplanes and rudder fitted, also some detail painting of smaller parts (I might paint the inner wheel covers underside colours to add some contrast there). A bit more surface detail fettling to do before getting some paint on. I hope the camo and pre-shading will cover the multitude of corrective sins:

 

[Johnson]

2 minutes ago, dr_gn said:

This one is taking a lot of work, especially re-scribing. Part of the problem is that some of the smaller details have got sanded away, but the main issue is that the Surfacer-filled trenches are wider than the much more refined re-scribed details, so overall - pfffff.

Difficult, but clearly some excellent work going on there.

[Fritag]

On 3/15/2023 at 8:41 PM, Johnson said:

Difficult, but clearly some excellent work going on there.

 

Second that.  Looking forward (as ever) to what you’ll produce, Garth; but I’m not sure I’ll start one myself! 

[dr_gn]

2 hours ago, Fritag said:

 

Second that.  Looking forward (as ever) to what you’ll produce, Garth; but I’m not sure I’ll start one myself! 

I think there’s another Mk.1 available in 1:72, but from some fairly obscure manufacturer. I wish I’d have known before starting this one.

[dr_gn]

A few Mk.1 questions for the experts; this is applicable to the Airfix scheme: 19 Squadron, Duxford 1938, code WZ-T; undersides black and white split down the middle with silver control surfaces:

 

1) Would one or all of the guns protrude beyone the leading edges? I've seen photos where at least one gun appears to do that?

 

2) Would the gun ports (and any protruding gun(s)) have the red fabric squares over them? In typical Airfix fashion, the instructions show them on the underside view, but not on the top view.

 

3) Would this aircraft have the diagonal IFF wires between fuselage and tailplanes?

 

4) In some images, there appears to be a tubular structure at the top of the fin - what is it, and is it applicable to this machine?

 

5) Oval panel on the port canopy - should it have one? (this is the flat canopy version).

 

That's about it. Thanks.

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Early  Spitfires did have the muzzle blast extensions: on the two outer guns (each wing) they protruded beyond the leading edge.  At this stage they did not fly with the patches.  When the blast extensions were removed the barrels did not break the leading edge.

 

IFF was not fitted until mid-1940.

 

1938 would have seen silver undersides when these entered service: I would not claim these were not seen before the end of 1938 but perhaps after Munich?  The attachment at the top of the fin was for the HF radio wire from the aerial mast behind the cockpit.

 

I don't know about the direct vision panel but it seems likely.

[dr_gn]

49 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Early  Spitfires did have the muzzle blast extensions: on the two outer guns (each wing) they protruded beyond the leading edge.  At this stage they did not fly with the patches.  When the blast extensions were removed the barrels did not break the leading edge.

 

IFF was not fitted until mid-1940.

 

1938 would have seen silver undersides when these entered service: I would not claim these were not seen before the end of 1938 but perhaps after Munich?  The attachment at the top of the fin was for the HF radio wire from the aerial mast behind the cockpit.

 

I don't know about the direct vision panel but it seems likely.

Thanks Graham.

 

To add some detail, would the extensions be visible inside the inner 6 ports (ie not protruding?
 

Do you happen to have a reference for the aerial frame (assuming it would be fitted to this aircraft), so I could scratch-build one?

 

So after the silver undersides, would the black & white split be correct? I’ve also seen - I think - silver under the nose with black and white split?

 

Cheers.

[Graham Boak]

Inner four, not six.  I don't know - I would expect the muzzle to fill the hole in the leading edge but can't confirm.

 

I don't know what you mean by the aerial frame - it was just a wire extending from the top of the fuselage mast behind the cockpit to the top of the fin. I don't have a convenient Spitfire picture to hand, but on the Whirlwind and some other types there would be a wire at approx halfway along going down to the fuselage.  Presumably the main wire would have insulators at each end, and the central wire actually carried the signal to the aircraft's radio.

 

The black/white split was what was intended.  There was some confusion as to whether this applied to the whole aircraft or just the wings, so you could see aircraft with Aluminium under the nose and rear fuselage.  I don't know about the specific example you want to make.  You would also see Aluminium ailerons or sometimes they'd be black or white, the reversal of the main wing.  The latter would be very odd and not readily explainable.   The Aluminium finish would have been retained because repainting the ailerons would mean taking them off to be rebalanced.

[dr_gn]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Inner four, not six.  I don't know - I would expect the muzzle to fill the hole in the leading edge but can't confirm.

 

I don't know what you mean by the aerial frame - it was just a wire extending from the top of the fuselage mast behind the cockpit to the top of the fin. I don't have a convenient Spitfire picture to hand, but on the Whirlwind and some other types there would be a wire at approx halfway along going down to the fuselage.  Presumably the main wire would have insulators at each end, and the central wire actually carried the signal to the aircraft's radio.

 

The black/white split was what was intended.  There was some confusion as to whether this applied to the whole aircraft or just the wings, so you could see aircraft with Aluminium under the nose and rear fuselage.  I don't know about the specific example you want to make.  You would also see Aluminium ailerons or sometimes they'd be black or white, the reversal of the main wing.  The latter would be very odd and not readily explainable.   The Aluminium finish would have been retained because repainting the ailerons would mean taking them off to be rebalanced.

 

OK, yes outer guns - I was getting mixed up with per wing or per aircraft. I have a drawing now - I think the inner gun on each wing was also partially exposed, with the second one out the only one being completely within the leading edge?

 

Re. the tubular frame on the fin - I don't mean the aerial post on the rudder, I mean the kind of oval shaped thin tubular structure at the top of the fin. It's joined to each side of the fin, and loops around the leading edge. There's also a stay to the leading edge. I think it's some kind of guard for something to do with the top of the rudder, but I can't think what; might be something to do with the mass balancing, but I assumed the rudder was balanced internally inside where it extends forwards over the fin?

 

Thanks.

[Johnson]

8 hours ago, dr_gn said:

Re. the tubular frame on the fin - I don't mean the aerial post on the rudder, I mean the kind of oval shaped thin tubular structure at the top of the fin. It's joined to each side of the fin, and loops around the leading edge. There's also a stay to the leading edge. I think it's some kind of guard for something to do with the top of the rudder, but I can't think what; might be something to do with the mass balancing, but I assumed the rudder was balanced internally inside where it extends forwards over the fin?

It was a guard, a precaution, to prevent the anti-spin parachute getting tangled with  the rudder.

[Bedders]

A good guide to the gun muzzle arrangement can be found on this page https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/k5054/ where there's a helpful photo of K5054 after a belly landing at Martlesham.

 

J

Edited March 18, 2023 by Bedders

[dr_gn]

1 hour ago, Johnson said:

It was a guard, a precaution, to prevent the anti-spin parachute getting tangled with  the rudder.

Thanks. I might make one and fit it - it’s another point of interest I guess.

 

 

[dr_gn]

Would there have been only one upper wing roundel on this aircraft? Looks wrong - did the Spitfire’s immediate predecessors only have one at this point before the war?

 

Thanks.

[Johnson]

1 hour ago, dr_gn said:

Would there have been only one upper wing roundel on this aircraft?

There was a press day for 19 Sqn and they put up all their new Spitfires including one's that only had one roundel painted on the tops of the wings. So I suppose if your plane was one of these it would be historically correct. But the assumption is that they would have had the second roundel painted later. So if you did use two roundels, you wouldn't be wrong to do so.

 

And, as can be seen, some had none!

Low Res scan for study use. If there's a copyright issue, I will delete.

Dreadful photo, sorry, someone probably has a better one. But the nearest Spitfire, WZ-T has only one roundel, as per the Airfix kit. And the next Spit, WZ-M, only has one but this time on the starboard wing.

 

Which Spitfire are you making?