DonH

Let it go. Agree to disagree.

I for one think the Kotare release seems great.
I'm by far and away no Spitty expert, but it seems so far top of the class as far as 1/32nd offerings go since absolutely no model is perfect.
Having built a couple other spit models (obviously not the same mark) the Kotare release seems a breath of fresh air comparatively.
Of course I'm one of those modelers who are not really bothered by any of the minutiae being off.
 

I think it is great to get the finer detail on these subjects. Some of us will use it, some will be happy with out-of-the-box, and some in between. But at least having that information gives us the choice.
 
My thanks to all who are contributing here.

This kit seems to be the benchmark for early Spittys. 

Thank you, I appreciate it.
I was not aware of the difference, it is great to learn new stuff about this lovely aircraft.

Thank you, I appreciate it.
I was not aware of the difference, it is great to learn new stuff about this lovely aircraft.

Let it go. Agree to disagree.

Oh wow!
That certainly came in from long leg, via silly mid-on, and hopefully will land cleanly in the keeper's gloves.

Just a quick up - it went well.  I'm gonna use the MB seat from the kit, with quite some mods/improvements, while the Lockheed seat separated decently well, and stayed in one piece. I'll keep it as a spare part, no idea for what model. So, on to the next page - here is the fit I'm happy with:
 

 
The seat is heavily modified and not ready yet. It needs wires, pistons... but first - instrument panels and 3D decals. 
 

 

I've been reading this thread with increasing disbelief...
 
Some really wonderful content and reference images - but this *is* a plastic kit with all the limitations that can bring to play.
 
No kit can, or will, ever be absolutely perfect.
 
I love seeing constructive criticism and research that can point the way towards improvements we can make to our models - but this seems to now be going somewhat overboard with regard to the Kotare Spitfires.
 
I haven't seen anything mentioned that doesn't look easily fixable (if wanted/needed) by any competent modeller - I have all three releases to date and I'm delighted with them - and, yes, they were paid for from my own pocket.
 
Iain

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.

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.

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.

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...

Oh wow!
That certainly came in from long leg, via silly mid-on, and hopefully will land cleanly in the keeper's gloves.

If you've had enough of this one why not go over to Britmodeller and sift through pages of argument regarding the diameter behind the Hurricane spinner not being round and that they weren't fitted with Spitfire spinners at some point. Some blokes with way too much time on their hands but not building models.
 
TRF

Wow - Fantastic news
 
I hope the S-3 Viking has a lot of rivets in real life - Trumpeter will surely put them on all surfaces 
 
/Niels

As someone who is almost as obsessed with cricket as he is with World War 2 aviation, I'd best leave this thread alone now as I have a lot of work to do today!

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...

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.

…….and it seems the “discussion” is now going round in circles (with slightly different radii) and quite frankly, getting tedious.

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...

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.

You certainly bowled a googly there DonH, or was it a flipper.
 
TRF

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...