Jump to content

DonH

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    1,557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DonH

  1. I agree with all of the above. Awesomeness beyond compare. However, the one thing that made my jaw drop for the sheer brilliance of it.....the sponges in the jig. That is engineering genius.
  2. OK, back to the photograph posted by Crossofiron. This is a MkIX with four pipes running down frame 8. My comments are: 1) I was totally wrong about auto-cocking. The pipes for those were on the floor and none of them ran up frame 8 (I believe) 2) I was totally wrong about the Heywood compressor - I am pretty sure the line from this stayed low and went over or through Frame 8 at floor level 3) Two pipes are definitely from the brake pressure gauge. 4) I simply don't know about the other two. They could be two from the flap lever or one from the flap lever and another from the brake pressure gauge. However, I have a MkI drawing that clearly shows one of the brake gauge pipes running down the back of frame 8. Maybe this was moved for some reason on later marks? On early marks, I expect the three lines were one flaps and two brakes. I can't figure out why this changed later on. Anyhoo, here is the schematic, hopefully someone will know for sure, cos I don't.. (image posted for research purposes, I will delete it if this offends copyright,etc.)
  3. You may well be correct, I have looked at schematics for so long, that I have confused myself! One minor point, I believe the yellow labels are possibly swapped between browning lines and brake pneumatic lines. The thick pipes on the control stick are gun lines. I also agree that there were five lines on frame 8, my focus was on the ones coming through the hole from behind the instrument panel. If the landing lights were removed, that takes away two lines, leaving three.
  4. One line is from the engine driven compressor to the two air tanks on the port wall I think, two lines are from the brake pressure gauge to the brakes, via a load of other junction boxes (see caveat below) One is for auto-cocking(?) the guns (if that is the right term) I think the auto-cocking is for cannons only, which is why there are only three air lines on the early marks. Also, please note the "I think" in this post. It is a while since I researched the pneumatic system on the Spitfire. It is possible that one of the lines I said was from the brake pressure gauge is actually from the flap lever. I will dig some more later.
  5. I can enjoy building and painting a kit but then run out of interest at any random stage in the build. I do this hobby for the enjoyment, so if the kit has served its purpose, regardless of stage of build, I can justify discarding it. I should say, I finish kits most of the time. I have recently gutted my display cabinets of 50% of the built kits because they have no interest for me now (and they were going moldy in the humidity.
  6. If I wanted to make an S-70B, what would be the best place to start with one of these kits? Would it need major modifications? I know nothing about helicopters...
  7. I would be delighted if Kotare issued a Vb, but I think that is a long shot. It will need some important changes to the cockpit side walls and a new wing. I suspect they will issue as many A wing variants as they can before investing in significant tooling. I really hope I am wrong because I would preorder a Vb the moment it was announced.
  8. That looks great. The camo colours look spot on to me eye. A yellow spinner will look perfect with that!
  9. Thank you, I appreciate it. I was not aware of the difference, it is great to learn new stuff about this lovely aircraft.
  10. Well, this will be difficult if you have not appreciated the gentle tinkle of china tea cups on a warm summer day. The caress of leather against wood. Loud murmurs of approval for a tickle down the leg side. Groans as a thick edge is pouched in the slips. The Brits are coming in from left field with cricket references...
  11. Oh wow! That certainly came in from long leg, via silly mid-on, and hopefully will land cleanly in the keeper's gloves.
  12. Let's start with K32601. I agree and I did not refer to that in my post. It is wrong, it should have a cs lever. Who knows if Kotare will change this error of omission, but frankly, I am a modeller and it is a nothing fix for anyone who can cut a sliver of plasticard and paint it black. If you prefer more surgery, graft an aftermarket version. I was even wondering if I would bother as the chances of actually seeing it are low. Nevertheless, it is a miss in the kit. For K32001: I actually stated that Profile A is wrong and needs the cs control due to the Rotol prop. No argument there. I also stated that Profile B is misleading because the heading is August 1940. If you want to model this aircraft at this date, it does indeed need a cs prop. HOWEVER, this aircraft had these profile markings in early June and as I stated could be modelled with the two speed prop if you wish. Profile C - again I agree if you want to model a BoB aircraft, it has cs prop. Again, I stated it was a narrow window for that profile without a cs prop. Technically, you can do it without error. You may not wish to, in which case you need the cs control lever. I trust that clears things up. I refer you to my other post regarding wing tips. I have nothing more to add on that subject.
  13. OK, enough. I have the Supermarine drawings, I have the wingtips, they match. If you find it different, you have that right. We can just agree to disagree.
  14. Sorry, I have compared the Kotare and Tamiya wing tip to the drawing. They match the Spitfire drawings I have. That is good enough for me, I honestly don't know where else I can look and what else you may want, but I can't give it to you. You have also compared Kotare to both Eduard and Tamiya, if I remember correctly.
  15. OK, so.... Questions on differences to MK.Is: Canopies: When was the flat hood replaced with a blown version with straight sides? Was the full blown hood used on the Mk.I or did it come in with the Mk.II? Were Mk.Is retrofitted? Radios: Is there a definitive time for changes to radios and aerials? Again, were early Mk.Is retrofitted? I have seen photos of squadrons where there was a mix of aerial types and presumably different radios as a result. Cheeswires: Were IFF aerials ever fitted to Mk.Is? If so, from when (date or serial number range would be lovely)?
  16. OK, back to the wing tip, if I may, as I was quoted earlier in this thread. Here is the Tamiya wing tip overlaid on a Mk.I wing drawing. It is drawing number 30008-1-H, if I remember correctly. To my eye, it is a very good match. Here is the Kotare wing: I don't see any difference in plan between Kotare, Tamiya and the plans. Here is the Tamiya wing tip overlaid on the Kotare wing. Hard to tell from this picture, but in the flesh, they line up all the way round. And vice versa: You will have to take my word for it that the Tamiya wing tip is under there and lines up perfectly. So, a match IN PLAN between factory drawings, Tamiya and Kotare. When it comes to the compound radii of the wing tip (not the plan view), I find it hard to tell with my eyeballs. There may be a difference between Tamiya and Kotare, but I don't have the technology or will to try and figure it out versus the factory drawings. My point being, it looks fine to me (having said that, I have trouble telling the difference between a Rotol and DH prop) One caveat: this is based on the plastic I have in my hand. Your kit may differ. Surface finish. I note the comparison with the Revell kit (above) and my built Tamiya Mk IXs. Tamiya has rivets on the leading edge so +1 to Revell and Kotare. I wonder what RJ Mitchell would have thought about Tamiya's effort. Both Tamiya and Revell have rivets on the back part of the wing. I don't have Revell plastic to compare, but I like the very subtle rivets on the Tamiya wing. Kotare don't have any. So, back to the topic of differences in MKIs, do I need to add some subtle rivetting on the Kotare wing aft of the spar? Or was there a time when the whole wing was treated to a smooth puttied surface? It's easy enough with a rivet wheel, but I will probably not bother. The Tamiya rivets all but disappear when painted. A decision for future me. On the subject of the gun covers - they are raised on the Kotare kit, I can feel it with my fingertips. Without an optivisor, I cannot see it. Clearly, opinions differ, but IMHO, this is far from a joke or a mistake on Kotare's part. Back again to the topic of differences between MkIs - constant speed props. This is a very interesting topic and I have learned a lot from the various contributors on this thread, many thanks. Sorry to bring this up, but in my opinion, the majority of Kotare profiles are correct for the time period they are quoting. Starting with MkI (early) - Profile A and B are fine because they have the two bladed prop and not constant speed props. The title on profile C is misleading because it states August 1940. Due to the timing of CS fitting at squadron level, I would expect this MkI to have a cs prop in August 1940. However, the profile with a two speed prop is still valid between early June and when the cs prop was fitted. That is a pretty narrow time window. If you want to show it with a CS prop, it is a simple mod to the throttle quadrant. For MkI late - Profile A has a cs Rotol prop, so technically, is wrong due to the throttle quadrant (easy fix). Profile B is again misleading with the title (August 1940). If you want to show this as a two speed prop, it is the same narrow time window as Profile C above. Finally, profile C- same comments. The fitting of cs props is fascinating and an incredible achievement by all concerned to get them fitted to frontline squadrons in such a short period of time. From a modelling perspective, specifically on the Kotare kits, you could elect to show your model with a two speed prop or mod the throttle with a slliver of plasticard painted black to represent the cs control lever (remember to remove the two speed control, with a sharp knife). That's all I have related to MkIs and Kotare (I hope). I have some other questions, to follow.
  17. On another topic, I have run my finger over the gun covers and they are detectably proud of the surface, but in my opinion, only barely so, and I can't see it with my eye. Not disputing your measurements, I am just saying it is not significant to my naked eye. Worth noting that they are a different finish to the surrounding plastic (glossier?) that may accentuate the perception that they are raised.
  18. Hello all, I have compared a spare Tamiya wingtip with the Kotare version and they are an EXACT match in plan. I have not checked the curves/airfoil section (yet) but expect them to also match. By eye, they look an exact match in all respects.
  19. Love those decals and the general look of the cockpit, nicely done! The decals are beautifully subdued, they don't look like bright slabs of colour scattered around the cockpit.
  20. Well, well, your skills and attention to detail are outstanding. Have you ever thought of developing these into a business, making detailed parts for us mortals? No, wait... Oh yeah.
  21. Does anyone know (or care to guess) what colour primer was used on spinners (if any)? Could it be a primed spinner, waiting to be painted black/white/yellow/red/sky?
  22. Yep, I would be interested in the list. However, if we are just talking about the throttle quadrant, I can fix that with a piece of plasticard and a blob of white glue. On the other hand, the Barracuda Revell MkII set has all the right bits, with a nice rendition of the gunsight, throttle quadrant and compass. My point being, if you are shelling out for this, there are a number of things you could use if you were so inclined. Sorry, but I would like to see some evidence of the bad prop blade shape. I don't know either way, which is why evidence would be useful for me to see. I thought I was a Spitfire nerd, until I started digging into the evolution of the Mk I and realised I knew nothing. All help is gratefully received.
  23. Now, that is interesting and I will do my own research. Since I am doing Al Deere's KL*B from May 1940, I guess the two speed lever is correct for the kit profile.
×
×
  • Create New...