Spitfire GB

I saw DoogsATX's Spit in person at the Austin show this weekend.  All I can say is Wow.  He got robbed in the category.  it was a real beaut!

Satch

Those decals look amazing! I've got a few sheets that cover probably that many different planes, but they're type-specific. Got one for P-47s and another for Fw 190s, but they're basically just the unique bits. Crosses and stars and bars and stencils not included. But that set is sweet. Love the black wing, too!

I think satch might be exaggerating a bit about the Spit being robbed, lol! There was some very stiff competition in the 1/32 props category. But I WILL say that the Dauntless that won...meh. I've been trying to put my finger on it since the show, why it didn't do it for me, and I finally figured it out - the build had no soul. 

Also...UPS-Claus left this sweetness on my front porch today. Can't. Wait. To. Build. Aircraft. Again.

DoogsATX

Those decals look amazing! I've got a few sheets that cover probably that many different planes, but they're type-specific. Got one for P-47s and another for Fw 190s, but they're basically just the unique bits. Crosses and stars and bars and stencils not included. But that set is sweet. Love the black wing, too!

I think satch might be exaggerating a bit about the Spit being robbed, lol! There was some very stiff competition in the 1/32 props category. But I WILL say that the Dauntless that won...meh. I've been trying to put my finger on it since the show, why it didn't do it for me, and I finally figured it out - the build had no soul. 

Also...UPS-Claus left this sweetness on my front porch today. Can't. Wait. To. Build. Aircraft. Again.

 

Ahhhh - I love the box art. I've been toying with the idea of mounting a Spit or Mossie right onto the wing of a V-bomb as if it was tipping the wing, as they sometimes did to knock them down. (They were rather small targets to hit with gunfire apparently!)

Vance - you should check out the V-1 page on Wikipedia. They have some very in-depth info on numbers of V-1s downed by various aircraft and it's fascinating. 

Apparently the Tempest was the main buzzbomb killer, followed by the Mossie, Spit XIV and Mustang. 

Also, for all the fame that tipping has acquired, it seems only three V-1s were ever brought down this way. Compared to the thousands brought down by little chunks of lead.

From what I understand, the problem wasn't so much hitting the V-1s as shooting them down without getting oneself blown up when the explosive charge detonated. 

And man...this XIV is one sweet kit. It's no Tamiya Spit (but...it's also only like 60% the price), but it's mixed media. Resin for the cockpit, exhausts, gear bays, etc. Eduard PE for the instrument panel and other bits (if I'm not mistaken, it's the same one that I used in my Mk.VIII, which was the best PE panel I've ever seen, hands down.

Ahhhh - it's all coming back to me now!

Tempest - yes, that was the main V-killer, flat-out speed & good guns. Also the main "tipper" iirc, due to the sturdier wing structure. Only 3 brought down by tipping? Really?? I'll have to do some looking around. And yes, the explosive charge was an issue, the fighter had to pour on the speed to catch up & let fly the lead, and was then uncomfortably close to the rather large explosion.

From wiki:

"Early attempts to intercept and destroy V-1s often failed, but improved techniques soon emerged. These included using the airflow over an interceptor's wing to raise one wing of the V-1, by sliding the wingtip to within 6 in (15 cm) of the lower surface of the V-1's wing. If properly executed, this manoeuvre would tip the V-1's wing up, overriding the gyros and sending the V-1 into an out-of-control dive. At least three V-1s were destroyed this way.^[15] That the method was from time to time actually effective could be seen over southern parts of the Netherlands when V-1s headed due eastwards at low altitude, the engine quenched. In early 1945 such a missile soared below clouds over Tilburg to gently alight eastwards of the city in open fields."

There's a lot of fascinating stuff there. Like machine guns being largely ineffective (hence another factor behind the Temps, Mossies and Spit XIVs...20mm cannon). Or the stunning chart of Gen. Bissell's report on the Blitz vs. V-1. 12 months versus 2 3/4 months, 90,000 sorties vs. 8,000, 1.15 million homes destroyed by the Blitz, 1.13 million destroyed by the V-1s (in 1/6 the time). 

I have been enjoying the posts and the progress of the builders here; there are some very talented Spitsfire artists.

Here is what I am planning on doing.  I'm building three Spitfires: one of the new tooling and two from the old tooling.  To keep from being repetitive, I'll only post progress on the second old tooling when the builds diverge.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

On top, above, is the new tooling, I bought last year with a 70th anniversary Battle of Britain sticker on the front.  Bottom is the old tooling box.  Nice artwork on both.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

Above are the kit parts from the new tooling.  A few more parts than the old one, but still fairly simple.  This one has engraved lines that some might feel are too deep and overdone.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

Above is the old tooling.  Big difference is the old raised panel lines.

What I've got planned is to do these up in different paint schemes.  One of the old Spits will be "DW-T," from 610 Squadron, painted with Testor's Model Master Dark Earth, Dark Green and Duck Egg Blue.  I plan to paint the remaining two kits with WEM Colourcoats Dark Earth, Dark Green, with different underside colors/colours. The remaining older kit will be built as "QJ-Y" from 616 Squadron--sky blue undersides, and the newest Spit will become "LO-P" from 602 Squadron, with eau de nil undersides.

Here's progress so far.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

An interior view with the new Spit on top.  You can see the greater detail--the old Spit has none!  These are finished using WEM interior green--I neglected to photograph the other old Spit, painted with MM interior green.  MM does appear somewhat darker, while WEM is quite a bit brighter.

Next, a couple of shots of the cockpits for comparison.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

The old kit is very basic.  The new one is very nice, with a good decal for the instruments.  The detail is quite crisp, and it builds up to quite a little gem.  I made the belts out of masking tape, painted a very light gray. 

Thanks for looking in.

One more shot of the cockpits from a different angle.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

Then the fuselages.  For several years I've been gluing the horizontal stabilizers on before closing the fuselage.  I had a disaster with a P-51 once, when it was all painted--and the stabilizer fell off on one side.  Now I glue them from the inside.  I smear tube glue in the slot, push in the stabilizer, then run liquid gule around the whole shebang.  You have to be careful not to overdo this, or the glue does ooze out; but it creates a solid joint I've not had fall apart since.  I use a cheap protractor to adust the stabilizers at 90 degrees to the tail fin.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

Stabilizers before joining the fuselage halves... that's just crazy!!! I can't say I've ever seen that before, but if you're checking the angle against the rudder, I suppose it really won't change the finished product. You see something new every day! Nice little addition with the tape belts, I've just started doing this as well with my newer builds.

Most times it works, Vance.  I've even made a kind of template out of cardboard for B-17's, because the stabilizers are thicker at the base and taper toward the end.  It's the centerline that usually needs to be perpendicular to the tail fin.

The problem I encountered with many stabilizers is that there is just a very small area for gluing.  Use to little glue, and it doesn't grab very well; use too much and it oozes out.  I found that gluing from the inside is much more controllable.

Of course, as with all things in modeling, every step can end in disaster--and this one is no exception!

Thanks for your comments.

Glue-ing from the inside! WINNING!

Sorry realize I havent posted much of an update. This has been fun and has turned out better then I expected so far. I'll be looking forward to finishing her up this weekend.

How it started...

Sharp looking Spitfire, Noah.  Nice look to the colours.  Looks like Model Master from the bottles sitting around?

Also, from the top picture, did you paint the green first?  That's an innovation itself.  I've always started with brown, but you've got good results.

Thanks, most of my paints are MM, with some random testors and a couple of Humbrols. The Green is actually a pot of Tamiya that I bought in Jeddah around 91. Still in great shape. Thats a MM dk earth for the brown. I was spitballing the colors for closest match that I had and I'm happy with it. Maybe too vivid perhaps..

Here’s the progress on my Spitfire builds.  I’ve got the fuselages and wings assembled and sanded off.  With the old Spits, you can insert the (sparse) cockpit from the bottom.  This can’t be done with the new mold.  You have to glue to the port side of the fuselage, according to the instructions.  Then close it up, glue and sand.

Also, I discovered that the instrument panel needs to be shaved down or the fuselage won’t close around it.  Of course, I only discovered this after painting. 

In both cases, I closed the fuselage, sanded, then painted the area black, behind the prop backing plate.  Then I attached the plates to all three planes.  This is easiest with the old molds, since the plate as a hole in it, and is held by a “pin” inserted through the fuselage.  I stuck some masking tape, sticky side out, on the end of a paint brush, threaded the “pin” through the hole and held it there while pushing on the back plate and gluing.  I should have taken photos of this, but the build got away from me and I forgot.  You can kind of get the idea from some of the following photos I did remember to take.

With the new mold, there is a pin on the back of the backing plate, which is then secured by a little cap.  This makes it more tricky to fix up, but it can be done, again using masking tape on the tip of a paint brush.  But in this case you have to put the back plate in place, then fool around trying to get the cap on the pin inside the fuselage.  Don’t know if I’m explaining well enough, and photos would have shown the process better.  At least there is plenty of space between the cockpit and the bottom front of the fuselage to accomplish this.

The first photo below then is the new mold, showing fuselage and wing assemblies.  That must have been a bad day, because, again, I neglected to take similar photos of the old molds.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

Unfortunately, major distressing discovery, as you can see in the next photos.  In the new mold Spit, the fuselage is too wide for the wings to fit!!  On each wing, there is a scribed line outboard from the edge, and the fuselage over laps this for a full width!!  You can easily see this in the top view photo.  The port wing is located properly, but that little scribed line completely disappears starboard, covered by the fuselage. 

I don’t know if this is because I messed up assembling the wings in the first place, or if it’s a problem with the molding.  Whatever it is, I will have to severely sand the fuselage on both sides until I get a fit.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

 [View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

Interesting that this problem does not exist with the old molds.  The final photos show the old mold Spit with the wings fitting very well into the fuselage, with only minor gaps to fill.

I hope to get this all straightened out within a couple of day, and then proceed to painting.

Thanks for looking in.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

 [View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

Greenshirt

Interesting. I've finished two new mold Mk I's and had no fit issues at all at the wing roots. Went together very smoothly.

Now, I find that interesting!  It's possible that when I glued the tops to the bottoms of the wings, I didn't have them seated properly, causing the problem.  I used gap-filling super glue.  Now, I'm wondering if that put enough "bulk" between the wing parts, and sort of "pushed" them inward?

On the other hand, looking again at the photos, it looks like the gun ports line up pretty well, top and bottom.

So:  I really don't know what happened!  Except that I will pay much more attention to this the next time I build one of these.

I agree, Tim.  Dry-fitting is how I found that the instrument panel was too wide--unless I did something there too I wasn't aware of.

You didn't have any problem with closing the fuselage?  No instrument panel interference there?

None that I remember.  I enjoyed the build so much I immediately went out and got 3 more, and have found 2 since on sale.  I'm knocking out some older Mk I's so I can focus more on these in the various schemes I want to do (most DG/DE but with various undersides).

Tim

Greenshirt

None that I remember.  I enjoyed the build so much I immediately went out and got 3 more, and have found 2 since on sale.  I'm knocking out some older Mk I's so I can focus more on these in the various schemes I want to do (most DG/DE but with various undersides).

Tim

Hmmmm.  I wonder if I've been building these in the twilight zone.

I bought  a tin of each of the underside colours WEM offers (sky, sky grey, both kinds of sky blue and eau de nil--which is pretty vibrant!).  It's also my plan to build a bunch of Spits and Hurricanes in different shades.

By the way, where do you get your roundels?  I got a sheet from Xtradecal for upper wings--and it has only one 56 inch type B, and over $8 for the sheet.  I know there was variation, but it seems most sources tend toward that size.  Would you think that the 54 and 59 inch versions are anywhere near acceptable?

There's a fairly well known photo of DW-T from the starboard aft position, and it looks to me like the wing roundel might be a little larger than normal.

According to Xtradecal's recent BoB decal instructions, smaller B roundels were used, down as far as 24 and 40 inches.

Squadron has a set of roundels by AeroMaster; think I had some about three/four years ago, but looks like the packaging changed.

I started another new-tool Airfix Mk I/IIa tonight.  Other than the extra sprue it's the same kit.  I'll report in how it goes together, with pix.

I use kit roundels unless the AM decals provide them for specific markings.  Generally speaking the upperwing roundels were fairly standard sized at 56" throughout the war fr both Spitfires and Hurricanes.  If you have a photo that makes it clear a different size was used, then it's an anomaly.  If it looks an inch or two different, it's probably the camera angle playing tricks as the RAF were pretty good at keeping them properly sized. 

Pre-war or maybe late into 1939, I believe a 40" roundel was used, but it was temporary.  PR Spitfires seem to have their own "rules" (meaning none seem standard) for roundel sizes and location, so I rely on a good reference with a photo.

Fuselage roundels varied, especially during the BoB period.  They were supposed to be 35" but some units added the 2" yellow ring to the 35" and got a 39" roundel.  610 Squadron is a good example.

Underwing roundels came and went until 1941 when they were standardized.

Again, I use kit provided roundels especially when AM sheets don't provide enough.  My Aeromaster BoB Spitfires sheet (72-028) has enough roundels for 4 aircraft but there are 8 subjects on the sheet.  I also have a sheet or two of roundels I pick up at shows or during sales online.  Can never have too many...

Tim

Regarding upper wing roundels, strange that the decal sheet has a lone marking and is not provided as a set.   I don't recall ever coming across a Spit (or any other RAF  aircraft ) having anything but identical size markings on either wing. Exception would be underneath with the b/w camou undersides.  As the port wing was black, the roundel had a yellow outer ring to offset it from the dark background.

I think I found the photo being referred to, plus a couple more from the same 610 squadron.  The roundel seems to be flush with the leading edge but there is some space in front of the aileron.  Could be just placement giving the illusion of a larger than normal roundel.

regards,

Jack

Jack, that top photo is exactly what I'm using for reference.  It's possible it is caused by the angle of the picture, but it seemed to me that the roundel extends closer to the aileron than a normal 56 inch version would.  Of course this is a subjective interpretation. 

I will probably be following Tim's protocol in the future, and using the kit supplied decals for national markings.  Spending over $8 for a sheet that has only one 56" roundel is not good use of my resources, although I suppose it helps the global economy.  Right now I have a bunch of left over Xtradecal sheets with 60-some inch roundels and other odd sizes that I'll never use. 

The photos are also interesting because the fuselage roundels don't appear as large as some seen in other photos, like the famous picture with DW-K, which I've read are said to be 49 inches?

In the photos, what do you estimate the size to be?  35" or 39" maybe?   Betwen decal instruction sheets and info on the web, I've come up with a lot of conflicting views on the marking subject.

Thanks for posting the pictures.  They are very useful. 

My guesstimate for those particular photos would have to be in keeping with actual reference material - namely CAMOUFLAGE & MARKINGS No.2 by Scale Aircraft Monographs - I'd go with 35 inches, plus whatever the size yellow ring was added.  The topmost one though seems the yellow is wider than the blue, but it could be the high contrast causing this.

As Tim had revealed  in his last post,  the yellow ring was to be the same width as the existing blue as put forward by the British Air Ministry on the 1st of May, 1940.  Again, this was interpreted differently by various units.  So further instructions were were sent out on May 11th,  "Aircraft with slim fuselages were to have the whole roundel reduced in size in order to accommodate the new yellow outer ring and prevent it encroaching on the upper or under surface of the fuselage."  As a stop gap measure, a narrow yellow band could be used because of limited space.  As a side note, the yellow was added to make the marking more visible, so I'm sure some thought the bigger the better.

Another conference was held on July 23, 1940 for the purpose of standardizing camouflage and markings.  A letter of their new policy, dated 11 August, was sent out to the various commands.   Regarding fuselage roundels, the article I'm reading makes no mention of exact measurements in terms of inches, only that the rings be of all equal size.  So again different units will have their own ideas of how to approach this. 

Now to the question about having different size roundels in the same squadron - I can only guess that changes took time to incorporate.  As well, in the heydays of that summer of 1940, there wasn't much down time to be spared for repainting roundels to specifications.

After all this research/reading, I just might have to join this group and build a Spit too - lol.

regards,

Jack

Thanks for the information, Jack.  And I think you should join the group build.

One of the appealing things about BoB Spitfires has been the variations in markings.  I imagine it was a very hectic, unsettled time.

Probably the method I've used most for choosing the size of the decal roundels is to cut one out that looks possible, and hold it up against the model, wherever it's supposed to be; then guesstimate whether it looks right or not.

And, in all fairness, just to clarify, Xtradecal does provide two 56 inch roundels on their sheet.  I meant to say it was enough for one aircraft only.  Sorry I was a little (no--a lot) fuzzy when I wrote the earlier post.

As an aside, it looks like DW-K's roundel does encroach at least on the upper fuselage.  From the look of it, the two would have to meet and overlap somewhere up there.

Thanks again.

..np about the info, I'm an admirer of the Spitfire and I learned some new things as well.  Agreed, the BoB period was a hectic time and a lot of changes were made to markings and colour during this period.  To quote from a British forum, it is quite a "torturous period".

I'm not sure now if I should have posted those colour plates.  I have assumed the artist did his research, but as a rule of thumb use artwork as a last resort when no photo evidence can be found.  Reason I did post them was to show how varied the fuselage roundel can be within the same squadron.   Both the top and bottom profiles are captioned with the date of August 1940 while  DW<A is from July.   Which goes to show one can't put these changes into specific time slots.  Also looking at the fuselage serial numbers, one would think those in the later sequence would have the smaller roundel, but nope the opposite is happening here.  That could be because the serials are associated with the different aircraft manufacturing plants (and not really have anything to do with the order they have been built in) - can anyone verify this?   Here is the link for more spitfire profiles from the same artist:
http://www.markstyling.com/spitfiresmkl_ll_1.htm

I've also discovered an explanation to the use of 40" upper wing roundels:   "upper wing type 'B' of 40" dia was standard(if anything at that time could be---for absolute certain)! on service spits only 1939---40 and came about by having the standard 56" type A1 altered thus---the blue max. dia. of 40", with the red centre spot extended to 16" and the rest filled in blue--the yellow outer was then filled in with camo. colours"

And for those that can't get enough of 1/72, AZ Models has a made a bunch of them, there are 5 boxings alone of the early marks.   Reviews have it as accurate as Airfix and the details of todays modern kits.  http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/reviews/kits/az7287reviewpm_1.htm

I've several 1/48 Spits in my stash, my plan is to build one of Beurling's mounts while stationed at Malta.   Have some paints on order from Europe, so once they arrive I'll make the comittment to join the Group.

regards,
Jack

Jack,

Artwork can be more confusing than helpful sometimes, unless based specifically on a photograph that is generally available.  I've seen some artwork based on private photos that nobody else has nor has access to (meaning they cannot be verified), and the artwork is fairly unique such as colors and patterns never before seen nor referenced in literature.  As an example, the AZmodel artwork for the top two aircraft should have a camouflage pattern either identical to the bottom artwork, or a mirror image. That's pretty standard throughout the Spitfire history with rare exception (such as desert Mk V's repainted from Temperate Land Scheme to Desert Scheme).

Actually, one can be pretty accurate with time when it comes to Spitfire camouflage and markings. The Air Ministry gave some very specific directions with some good details, except in a couple of well known instances (Sky versus “duck egg bluish green” comes to mind) and each are dated. Units were given a short period to comply, usually just a few weeks. Even during the BoB changes were happening and units were expected to comply. That attrition removed aircraft from service during this period is well known and in many cases updates came in the form of new aircraft or aircraft taken out of service for other reasons like combat damage. The maintainers worked wonders in my mind to get them back in service so quickly as well as Supermarine building new ones so fast the Germans thought the RAF was much larger than it really was.

According to “Spitfire The History”, Supermarine's Woolston and Itchen factories were the production sites during BoB, however Woolston was being dispersed due to threat of bombing in July 1940 so it's not certain from my reading of STH how much production they actually accomplished. In September 1940 production was actually halted on all Mk I's due to Luftwaffe bombings, however the Castle-Bromwich factory was beginning to roll the Mk II off the line so real production was continued but not at the higher rate hoped for until the original factories were back on line. Interestingly, as a result of the BoB those factories were fully dispersed to over 65 locations around Southern England, 46 of which were production and the remainder support units (like repair depots).

Tim

Good eye there Tim.  Not sure how AZmodels dropped the ball on the upperwing camou pattern.  The sides thou look fine as does the other box art from their other releases in that linked review.

I concur that there were precise dates for specific changes to the spitfire's appearance as I did refer to definitive dates of 1940.  When I wrote "...one can't put these changes into specific time slots" was referring to the actual aircraft in the field - so my fault for any misunderstanding.  Just as you had eluded to, it would take a few weeks, so there would be an overlap.   The Air Ministry was well aware of this.  Unknown to me is of any grace period for the change overs, but the Ministry did expect the various Commands to inform them when all aircraft were up to standards of new schemes.   Now if these documents do exist and are available to the public... well honestly I'm not concerned about accuracy to that degree - lol.

...right then, carry on/british accent

regards,
Jack

Hey There All, Managed a bit of progress over the past couple of weeks. I patched together a "Frankenmask" for the camouflage utilizing paper cut outs provided with the kit and silly putty to mask over the fuselage. Trying to piece together a complete paper mask was just a bit frustrating. Here's some pics of the masking.

Airbrushed the MM Dark Green on yesterday morning, let dry for a bit and peeled off the masks......

 I got a bit of overspray under the paper masks in a few spots so I'll be doing some spot masking and spraying to clean those up. Overall, I was rather happy with the results and learned a few things  the way.

 Really like the work eveyone else is putting out there. Very nice indeed.

                                                                Joe