Kotare 1/32 Spitfire Ia (Mid)

[Stew Dapple]

Hello gents, here's my fifth completion of the year, Kotare's 1/32 Spitfire Ia (Mid).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had a momentary sag when I realised I was on the final stages of this kit, the same way that you might when you realise you're on the last few pages of a book you were really enjoying and you don't want it to end. It's an expensive kit, for sure, but it's beautifully moulded and engineered, not so complex that it's difficult to build, doesn't require weeks, days or even hours of sanding, filling, scratchbuilding etc. so depending on what you enjoy about modelling this may not be the kit for you  I had a couple of minor irritations - I didn't like the look of the landing gear leg attachments at all so I ended up fitting the landing gear legs before adding the upper wing... I wasn't too keen on adding the fuselage spine light before fixing the fuselage spine in place, but in fairness that was a good solution and I only had a bit of resentment due to the fact it meant I had to mask it before painting. Finally I wasn't terribly happy at having to shave off part of the cockpit door opening in order to have the door closed as if it were me who was the freak here and not those oddballs who want to leave the door hanging open  

 

The paints used were Colourcoats of course - for the strange interior green colour noted in the instructions I used ACRA08 Verde Mimetico 53192 which is a close eyeball match for the Humbrol 120 recommended in the instructions (I needn't have bothered, you literally can't see anything except the pilot's seat and armour if you have the cockpit closed, and I had painted those in ACRN28 RAF Interior Grey-Green as this was one of the optional colours noted in the instructions). Upper surface camouflage was ACRN09 Dark Green over ACRN10 Dark Earth and the undersurface camouflage was done in ACRN01 - Sky "S" Type.

 

I wasn't really taken with any of the kit's markings options; Al Deere has always been a hero to me but I just don't like to see a Mk.I with a Rotol prop and spinner, plus the proportions of the fuselage roundel look strange (though they are accurate); Richard Hardy's aircraft is basically famous for being captured more or less intact which doesn't strike me as a great claim to fame, and the 610 Squadron Spitfire has the fuselage codes on wonky... I tell you building this kit I learned quite a lot about Spitfires (and I thought I already knew a fair bit but I was overestimating quite a lot as it turned out) and one of the things I learned is that I can get quite uptight about some strange things   Anyway I ordered some aftermarket decals and used the ones for one of the 92 Squadron Spitfires from August 1940; it too has a misproportioned fuselage roundel but for some reason I like that one. I almost managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by picking the model up to test fit the underwing pitot while the decals on the starboard side were still wet with decal setting solution: the serial and squadron code on that side both disattached themselves from the model and stuck as little crumpled decorations on my fingertips. By a stroke of extreme good luck, our late forum-buddy Silver Fox had sent me some years ago the 1/32 transfers from the Kagero Battle of Britain Part II set which included the same aircraft as an option - the stroke of the serial is slightly thinner and the grey of the squadron code a little darker than the individual aircraft letter, but I was happy to accept the trade-off for the save.

 

Well, sorry for the ramble, if you made it this far, thanks for your attention  

 

Cheers, 

 

Stew

[Whofan]

It looks like this was a model that fought hard to be an RFI here.  What with Wonky serials, misproportioned roundels, a fortunate save from some time ago - it seems there was more than just luck involved.

 

Probably a sneaky lot of exceptional work by one of BM's more experienced members? 

 

You see, this model looks just about perfect to me!

 

No matter the bumps along the way, it's clear that you've applied all that experience because looking at the photos I can't find a single thing to tut at!

 

I'll be more than prepared to say if we see a better example of this kit that yours it'll be a long way down the line!

 

[Stew Dapple]

14 minutes ago, Whofan said:

It looks like this was a model that fought hard to be an RFI here.  What with Wonky serials, misproportioned roundels, a fortunate save from some time ago - it seems there was more than just luck involved.

 

Probably a sneaky lot of exceptional work by one of BM's more experienced members? 

 

 

Haha that's kind of you to cover for me mate, but honestly - this kit wanted to be built and it wanted to turn out a beautiful model - the fact that it pretty much did is more despite me than because of me  The wonky fuselage codes on the 610 Sqn aircraft and the misproportioned roundels on the 54 Sqn and 92 Sqn aircraft are factually accurate representations of the original aircraft  - that's why it was weird that it annoys me now and I'm still not exactly sure why it does...

 

I'm a fairly experienced modeller, yes, and as such I should not need to be told not to pick up the model when I've just a minute ago applied Mr Mark Decal Softer to it. I shouldn't need to be told that because I do already know it, but you don't have to be inexperienced to do something stupid  I was definitely lucky to in effect have a set of back-up codes and serials, but I wouldn't have needed that luck if I hadn't been clumsy in the first place  

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

[spitfire]

Nice one Stew, looks just as an early Spitfire should look like, can't wait to get started on mine but must finish the Reggiane first.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[bertielissie]

Ooh!! The Sky Type S looks so good on the lower surfaces.

Nice work on this "beyond my budget" kit.

[keith in the uk]

Very nice indeed , although i cant help but notice are there raised panel lines on the fuselage from the cockpit to the tail , is this correct ?

[Epeeman]

That's a lovely model Spit there, Stew.

 

Regards

 

Dave

[cmatthewbacon]

2 hours ago, keith in the uk said:

Very nice indeed , although i cant help but notice are there raised panel lines on the fuselage from the cockpit to the tail , is this correct ?

Depends what you're looking at, but I would say yes, it is:

 

best,

M.

[Stew Dapple]

8 hours ago, keith in the uk said:

Very nice indeed , although i cant help but notice are there raised panel lines on the fuselage from the cockpit to the tail , is this correct ?

 

Thanks Keith, yes, in answer to your question(s) the rivets from the trailing edge aftwards are domed and the panels are lapped - I believe this is accurate; at the time there was a great deal of pressure to increase production of Spitfires and it was found that flush-rivetting the rear fuselage did little to affect the speed of the aircraft, so standard dome rivets were used there. I'm relying on my memory here, which is itself pretty unreliable, but I think given that Kotare went to the trouble of putting rivets where it would have been easier not to is indicative of something of the sort  

 

Thanks to all you gents for your attention too  

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

[RichieW]

Looks good Stew, did your UC doors have sink marks? I just took delivery of one and mine have them. Nothing I can't easily fix but for the price I don't think I should have to. 

 

Richie

[georgeusa]

I think with this build you have tipped the scales for me to get this kit.  (Like I need another kit in the ever growing stash as opposed to the snail-like pace of building I'm doing.)  This is a great looking Spitfire.  I also really appreciate your take on the decals/markings for this aircraft and some of the history you have provided.   That is always an added bonus for me.  Thanks for sharing.  (Although, SWMBO will probably not like seeing another package arrive in the mail with my name on it that when shaken sounds like another plastic kit to clutter my numerous shelves of unbuilt kits.)

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Very nice Stew. I know what you mean about markings and propellers. The trouble is that I have a very clear idea in my mind about what a Mk.I Spitfire is supposed to look like. Unfortunately, that idea is very much rooted in the 1969 Battle of Britain film and real Mk.I Spitfires very seldom actually had all the features in the correct configuration;

 

Black pointy spinner

Sensible sized codes neatly aligned

Sensible sized Type 1A roundels on the fuselage

Proper rectangular fin flash

Sky underneath

Sensible sized Type 1 roundels underneath in a sensible position

 

In reality most Mk.I Spits seem to have some visually jarring attribute.

 

Hence, it turns out that my favourite Mk.I Spitfire model is in fact a Mk.IX with the cannons removed and painted in film colours 

[Samuraiwarrior]

That is a great looking Spitfire. Lovely paint job. 

One to be proud of. 

Thanks for sharing 

Kevin 

[Stew Dapple]

12 hours ago, RichieW said:

Looks good Stew, did your UC doors have sink marks? I just took delivery of one and mine have them. Nothing I can't easily fix but for the price I don't think I should have to. 

 

Richie

 

Aw that's bad luck mate, no I didn't have any moulding glitches at all with mine, which, as you say, is what you should be able to expect as standard. Hope you work around it without too much effort  

 

7 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Very nice Stew. I know what you mean about markings and propellers. The trouble is that I have a very clear idea in my mind about what a Mk.I Spitfire is supposed to look like. Unfortunately, that idea is very much rooted in the 1969 Battle of Britain film...

 

Good god Jamie, I think you've hit the nail right on the head there, my Dad took me to the cinema to see that film when I was a small child and it certainly had quite a profound influence on me... and apparently still does. That would definitely explain quite a lot  

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

[Andy Dyck]

Hi Stew, 

well it turns out fantastic and I am glad to see this one with closed canopy. It shows the fine aerodynamic line of this plane. 
so it seems you are quite happy with the model of this new company!

 

All the best

 

Andy 

[Dave Klaatu]

Nice! Love that paint!

[mick]

great work

[noelh]

On 5/25/2023 at 5:11 PM, Stew Dapple said:

 

Thanks Keith, yes, in answer to your question(s) the rivets from the trailing edge aftwards are domed and the panels are lapped - I believe this is accurate; at the time there was a great deal of pressure to increase production of Spitfires and it was found that flush-rivetting the rear fuselage did little to affect the speed of the aircraft, so standard dome rivets were used there. I'm relying on my memory here, which is itself pretty unreliable, but I think given that Kotare went to the trouble of putting rivets where it would have been easier not to is indicative of something of the sort  

 

Thanks to all you gents for your attention too  

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

My memory is equally unreliable but I recall a story that originally the Spitfire was flush riveted overall. So they glued split peas all over the airframe to simulate domed rivets and then removed them gradually until the drag effect was minimal. Sounds bizarre and now I doubt my memory.

 

It was I think for manufacturing purposes. The Spitfire was complicated build.

[spitfire]

Don't doubt your memory

https://flyaspitfire.com/2022/10/25/origins-of-the-spitfire-mk-i-spitfire/

 

Cutting edge development with peas
Trials followed, including a unique experiment, involving a bag of split peas. K5054 had been built with all flush rivets on the outer skins, but these were time consuming to use in production. The solution was to glue split peas on the rivet heads to simulate dome-headed rivets which were quicker to use. By removing the peas from various areas of skin and conducting tests, the optimum balance was found, giving the best performance but with the minimum time required to build each Spitfire.

 

Of course there was an Edgar thread.

Domed rivets, on the Spitfire, only existed on the fuselage of early Marks (up to the Vb & VI,) and only from the cockpit aft. All-flush rivetting became standard, from the Vc onwards, from June 1943 (according to Supermarine, the RAF make it earlier, in January.)

On the early wings and tailplanes, top skins were flush rivetted, while underside skins were held in place by countersunk screws, screwed into wood strips attached to the wing ribs. Eventually became flush rivets, and the holes were drilled, not punched, then reamed out and slightly countersunk, before rivetting (so no dished surfaces.)

Rivets were normally 3/32" or 1/8" diameter, which, if you assume that they would have doubled in width when hit by the rivetter, makes them 3/16" & 1/4", which when taken down to 1/48 scale = .0039" & .0053" or .099mm & .132mm; all this is plus a (guesstimated) height of 1/8", or .0025"/ .066mm in 1/48 scale.

Also, the vast majority of Spitfire panels were laid over each other, at the edges, which, even in 1/24 scale, means a difference in height of (roughly) the thickness of tissue paper, which is why panel lines are so difficult to see in so many photographs.

Edgar

 

Gentlemen, you need to differentiate between rivets, fasteners, and screws. Only a small area, of the preceding photo, contains rivets, and they're virtually invisible. Also, the Vc, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII were entirely flush-riveted from 10th June, 1943. Flush rivets were fitted into pre-drilled (and pre-countersunk) holes, so "dimpling" was almost unknown, and panels overlapped; they were not butted together. The wingroot panels were held in place by screws, as was the deflection "armour" (in fact a thicker gauge of aluminium) over the fuel tanks. The cowlings were held by Dzus fasteners, a (fairly) simple two-part fitting; later a/c (most noticeably, the XIV) had Amal fasteners, which were more complex, three-part, fasteners. From January, 1943, the front 20% of the wing was given the "P-51" treatment, with rivets and panel lines primed, filled, and smoothed down, before being painted (and, from the same date, paint was smooth, aka "type S" not matt.) Groundcrew were instructed to maintain that finish, so talk of them "lovingly" polishing their charges is a mite romantic.
Edgar

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

 

[Cookenbacher]

Stew!

This kit has intrigued me recently and keeps showing up on my forays into the interwebs, and now there's an official Stew Dapple^TM build of it, what a world! It looks fantastic, and I love all the details you've caught, like the landing gear indicators(?) over the wings, and painted gear bays left over from the previous scheme.

Hope you're doing well my friend.

[Keeff]

That is one lovely warbird!  Nicely finished and great details.

 

Keith  

[stevej60]

Superb work here Stew,not heard of this manufacturer before but it certainly look's as if they have done their homework and you've done their work justice.