Jump to content

Revell 1/32 Spitfire Mk.IIa kit - Built as a 54 Sqn Spitfire Mk.Ia.


Derek B

Recommended Posts

Shape observations and comparisons

 

Using the George Cox Spitfire I drawings (which are considered to be the most accurate rendition of the early Spitfire) suitably enlarged to 1/32 scale, the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire VIII and Hasegawa 1/32 Spitfire Vb kits as comparison kits, I have tried to assess if there any noticeable anomalies on the Revell Spitfire IIa kit. 

 

100_6145_zps8fafd6d6.jpg

One key (and very useful) dimension that is common to all Spitfire marks is the length of the fuselage from the engine firewall bulkhead (Frame 5) aft to the rudder king post, which is approximately 246" on the full size aircraft, which when scaled to 1/32 scale is 195.262mm. This measurement will indicate if the fuselage is the correct length between these two points and highlight if there is any cockpit or other detail positional error with the kit.

 

100_6146_zps91da605c.jpg

Aligning the Revell kit fuselage with the the drawing to achieve a best fit with the rudder and fin aligned, we can see that the overall shape of the rear fuselage is good and is a reasonable match to the drawing. 

 

100_6151_zps1bf17822.jpg

 

100_6150_zps5abeb34c.jpg

At the centre fuselage position, the pilot access door is too far forward and the aft cockpit glazing is noticeably deeper (Drawing 7.5mm deep, kit 10mm deep). If the rudder is removed and the rear fuselage fin king post is aligned with the drawing, then the aft cockpit glazing position becomes 1.5mm too far aft.

 

100_6148_zps0c7095a1.jpg

With the kit fin leading edge aligned with the drawing, the nose of the fuselage at the spinner can be seen to be approximately 1.7mm too long.

 

100_6153_zpsa4f25b93.jpg

With the kit nose correctly aligned with the drawing, it can be observed that the exhaust pipes are too far forward (the drawing has a slight anomaly in as far as the side profile  and plan profile aspects show a difference of approximately 1mm between the two for the exhaust position, so depending upon which view you believe to be correct, the kit exhaust position is 1 to 2mm too far forward). The lower cowl line where it meets the curved oil tank under-nose fairing is also lower than the drawing. The exhaust position and long nose length problem is due to the fact that the fuselage is approximately 2mm too long between the firewall bulkhead and the rear of the exhausts on the engine cowl. This may be of little consequence for many modellers, but if a correction is to be made, the best place to remove the 2mm would be from immediately behind the exhausts.

 

100_6149_zps7b168e35.jpg

With the kit nose correctly aligned with the drawing, the cockpit aligns.

 

More to follow.

 

Derek

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just seeing things differently, but I seriously don't see the value in lining up a kit fuselage with a drawing that has no academic credentials or lineage... Don't get me wrong Derek, I appreciate your efforts, but I fail to see the value in the comparison... JUST BUILD IT!! :)

Cheers

Alan

Edited by alaninaustria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just seeing things differently, but I seriously don't see the value in lining up a kit fuselage with a drawing that has no academic credentials or lineage... Don't get me wrong Derek, I appreciate your efforts, but I fail to see the value in the comparison... JUST BUILD IT!! :)

Cheers

Alan

 

Hi Alan,

 

It will be built (but not completely finished), so paitience is required here  :)

 

This is the basic check against what is regarded as a good drawing to start with, and is also a useful reference for non-Revell Spitfire kits as well.  

 

After a check against the drawing, I will do a quick assessment against the Tamiya and Hasegawa kits (following in the footsteps of Jenn Wright (desmojen) and Iain Ogilvie (32SIG) to see how it stacks up against similar kits and then go into identifying any obvious issues or anomalies.

 

Once this is done, like Iain, I shall show how I tackle these issues using 'old school' modelling methods (I have actually done most of this already and it is sorting all of the photographs and recording the data/fixes that takes the time - that and having too much life and work to allow me the time to do it).

 

Regards

 

Derek

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just seeing things differently, but I seriously don't see the value in lining up a kit fuselage with a drawing that has no academic credentials or lineage... Don't get me wrong Derek, I appreciate your efforts, but I fail to see the value in the comparison... JUST BUILD IT!! :)

Cheers

Alan

 

... then you are reading the wrong thread!! ...

 

Plain old 'Just' Build Threads (or some not-so-just-plain) are listed under 'Works in Progress' ...

 

Derek has always indicated that this thread was designed to be an "Assessment" (his personal one - using his techniques of choice) of the kit for accuracy - followed by a bunch of corrections done (on perceived accuracy deficiencies) during the construction phase ... In other words:

 

"This is where this kit is not as accurate as it could be (in representing the real thing) - And here is how to fix the issues!" ... Like what most of us wanted to hear to start with - instead of the kit bashers!

 

As far as the drawings being utilised are concerned ... Given Derek's devotion to accuracy and detail, I would find it highly unusual if Derek didn't do any research into the accuracy of reference material used, prior to using it!!

 

As Derek has stated - he will, in fact, be building the kit ... His methodology in preparation for said exercise is his business - not for anyone else to critique!! ... and I, for one, am glad that he is sharing it!!

 

Rog :)

Edited by Artful69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek, I understand Alan's point, but I'm grateful you're doing this. There has been so much vitriol spilled over this kit, it's nice to have a basis of comparison. Now those who are on the fence can come down on either side (I will likely put my efforts into the later Spitty from Tamiya at this point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shape observations and comparisons (Continued)...

 

Moving onto other parts of the airframe and other kits, here are the wings:

 

100_6154_zpse6a9284b.jpg

The Revell wing (top) and the Tamiya wing (Bottom). Although the much higher quality of the Tamiya wing is evident - especially the radiator internal well representation - the Revell wing is accurate in shape and span and matches very well to the Tamiya wing; even the wheel well shape, location and size pretty well match each other.

 

100_6233_zps8232c966.jpg

The Hasegawa fuse;age fits the drawing extremely well in terms of length and shape (I would assess the kit as being the most accurate for the purpose of use for an early Spitfire - it is even slightly more accurate than the Tamiya kit in this respect!).

 

100_6221_zpsdfbb9fc0.jpg

The only area that may be slightly questionable is the plan shape of the Hasegawa engine cowl cover and fuselage width, which is slightly down on the drawing width. The drawing fuselage width measured at three places on all three kits show the following:

 

Drawing: Aft of exhaust = 24.27mm, At frame 5 bulkhead = 27.35mm and at cockpit between the aft edge of the windscreen and front edge of the entry door = 26.5mm.

 

The same respective measurements for the Revell ®, Hasegawa (H) and Tamiya (T) kits are:

 

R = 23.85mm, 27.75mm and 27.00mm.

H = 24.60mm, 26.17mm and 25.45mm.

T = N/A, 27.00mm and 26.00mm.

 

100_6221_zpsdfbb9fc0.jpg

So we can see from the above that overall, rounded up, the Tamiya kit is generally closest to the correct fuselage width, the Revell kit about 1mm too wide and the Hasegawa kit too slim by a similar amount (and is noticeably slimmer in the aft fuselage as well).

 

100_6240_zps588105c9.jpg

When the Hasegawa kit is correctly aligned with the Revell kit fuselage, it can be seen that like the Tamiya kit, the general overall shape of the rear fuselage is good and matches well.

 

100_6241_zps34f50e3e.jpg

It is quite noticeable that with the Hasegawa kit fuselage correctly aligned with the Revell kit fuselage that the extra length of the Revell kit nose is quite apparent.

 

100_6225_zpsd4c71e87.jpg

The Hasegawa kit wing matches the drawing very well, as do both the Revell and Tamiya kit wings.

 

100_6234_zps1cabffa2.jpg

Likewise, the tailplane of the Hasegawa kit (and both Revell and Tamiya kits) match the drawing very well.

 

100_6226_zps7c439566.jpg

The Revell and Hasegawa wing shapes line up well (as does the Tamiya kit wing also).

 

100_6228_zps0db57b71.jpg

Interestingly, the Hasegawa kit wing could be made to fit the Revell fuselage with minimal modification, which could be a useful option, as will be explained later.

 

...To be continued...

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shape observations and comparisons (Continued)...

 

100_6229_zpsd079488d.jpg

Good fit of the Hasegawa wing to the Revell fuselage other than the forward wing root gap.

 

100_6230_zps71b68c1c.jpg

 

100_6231_zpsd2e5dc27.jpg

 

100_6176_zps54be7656.jpg

As already observed previously by Jenn Wright and Iain Ogilvie, the shape of the top of the Revell fuselage forward of the windscreen up to the frame 5 engine firewall bulkhead appears to be too flat. This gives the aircraft an almost angular Bf-109 like feel to it. 

 

100_6174_zpsc8d8433a.jpg

In comparison, the shape if the top of the forward fuselage of the Tamiya kit fuselage is much more smooth and rounded.

 

100_6171_zps8f177d14.jpg

 

100_6220_zps04f31cc0.jpg

Similarly, the shape of the Hasegawa fuselage top in this area is also more noticeably rounded compared to the Revell kit fuselage.

 

100_6224_zpsa41962d2.jpg

 

100_6223_zpsedcfdfc0.jpg

The Revell and Hasegawa kit lower nose cowl oil tank cover fairings compared. In plan they match well in shape. From the side, both are similar in shape, but the Revell part is slightly deeper than the Hasegawa one.

 

...To be continued...

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent comparison Derek!

 

Kev

 

There is a whole lot more to come yet Kev! (You may want to collate the useful bits for future LSP reference at some point when I am done if you so wish?).

 

Derek

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shape observations and comparisons (Continued)...

 

The fuselage wing roots, when viewed along their length from aft forwards, do not appear to have the correct amount of curvature to them.

 

100_6256_zpsda77fbbd.jpg

 

100_6255_zps480424f8.jpg

 

100_6254_zps41b26493.jpg

The pictures above provide some idea of how the wing root fairings should look. The kit roots are too flat on the aft areas.

 

100_6236_zps644b4a81.jpg

 

100_6237_zps2c141f19.jpg

 

100_6238_zps2bc7fb05.jpg

Careful examination of the wing root fairings has produced the observation that the flatness of the fairings is due to what feels like raised moulded areas that feel almost like lumps on the rear areas of both left and right fairings (hatched areas drawn drawn on the wing root fairings in the above photographs). The rest of the wing root fairings outside of the marked area appears to exhibit sufficient curvature.

 

The inside of the fuselage at these wing root fairing areas appears to to have a substantial wall thickness of plastic (estimated at approximately 1.7mm), so it should be possible to externally add the required curvature to the wing fairing panel areas without breaking through the surface of the kit plastic.

 

100_6190_zps2a320779.jpg

Apart from the incorrect style of underwing oil cooler faring as previously observed and noted by Jenn Wright, Iain Ogilvie and other reviewers of the new Revell kit, one very notable observation was how curved the underside of the fuselage looked at the wing centre section mid to forward point, making the aircraft look too portly in this area - definitely a very un-Spitfire like feature.

 

Careful examination of the drawing and comparison with all three kits with the wing and fuselages temporarily assembled appeared to confirm this observation. The Tamiya and Hasegawa kits certainly appeared to have an almost flat wing underside centre section in comparison to the Revell kit. The point of maximum depth on the Revell kit appeared to be adjacent to the undercarriage mounting points just forward of the radiator and oil cooler leading edge and just immediately behind the nose intake scoop fairing (in side profile, this represents a vertical point roughly mid-way between the front edge of the windscreen and frame 5 bulkhead position).

 

At this position on the drawing, the maximum fuselage depth is 39.65mm. The Revell kit depth at this point is 41.2mm, whilst the Tamiya and Hasegawa kit depths are 38.8mm and 39.32mm respectively (once more, the Hasegawa kit is close in this respect). This makes the Revell kit 1.55mm deeper than the drawing and accounts for the reported 'pot belly' look of the kit.   

 

Determining why this is so was not so straight forward. The depth of the fuselage from the top of the fuselage at the fuel tank armour mid-point between the windscreen and frame 5 bulkhead, down to the highest point of the wing root aerofoil shape, was fairly consistent across all three kits (within 1mm of each other), so the error is not really accountable due to excessive fuselage depth alone.

 

The wing root section maximum thickness on the drawing is 10.64mm. The Revell kit maximum wing root thickness is 12.00mm whilst the Tamiya and Hasegawa kits are 10.64mm and 11.35mm respectively. Therefore, the cause of the additional depth of the fuselage on the Revell kit is attributable to the wing being too thick at the roots.

 

The main findings and conclusions that can be drawn from the above is that the overall shape of the new Revell Spitfire kit is generally very good (certainly the fuselage aft of the cockpit) and the wings particularly match well in plan form to the other Spitfire kits. However, the fuselage is a little too wide from the front of the nose to just aft of the cockpit (by approximately 1mm). The small aft fuselage canopy glazing panel is too deep by approximately 2mm.

 

The fuselage length is a little too long (approximately 2mm) between the spinner backplate and frame 5 engine firewall bulkhead positions and the nose and fuselage is too deep from the spinner backplate the a point between the leading edge of the wing underside radiator and oil cooler and the aft edge of to intake scoop adjacent to the undercarriage mounting points. The wing root is too thick by approximately 1.5mm, with the wing underside curvature adding to the portly look in this area. The oil underwing cooler is of an incorrect pattern for this mark of aircraft and the cooling radiator is very simplified.

 

The aft of the wing root fairings lack the required curvature over the aft third of its length. The top of the fuselage between the front of the windscreen and frame 5 engine firewall bulkhead lacks the correct radius, being too flat on top producing a noticeable angular look to the fuselage top.

 

Although more observations will be made as the kit assessment progresses in detail, these will be tackled as and when the time comes. The next bit is the one most of you have been waiting for - how to correct these anomalies.

 

Derek

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek,

 

I really appreciate the manner in which you investigate this kit, and look forward to your recommendations for correction and hopefully modification for a variety of marks.

 

Tnarg

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...