MikeC

Absolument! That makes sense; I was puzzling how it could be a pressure release duct when the top (see my photo above) is flattened. I take it that the "straight" configuration was simply an alternative, but there seems from observation to be no rule about why some of these rods are curved as illustrated, and others straight - and as per my photos above, both configurations on the same airframe. Of course, these are restorations, so we can't draw any conclusions about in-service aircraft in that regard from them. Thank you for finding and sharing that.

If they follow the WNW release model I can see separate boxings for Vb, Vc, with and without assorted filters and other desert equipment. Anyway, don't want to derail your thread. May I ask why you decided to replace the seat? I was planning to go with the kit seat for mine.

And here we are. First, an overview, showing a number of the exhibits. The two PR XIs - the one with the stripes and "R" to the right of shot - are the two we'll be looking at in more detail. Both are currently flying on the airshow circuit. (Incidentally, if you think the cowling of the pink PR Type G looks odd, it looks even odder irl: it's a replica.) Firstly, the one with stripes, where I was allowed to get very close. This is PRXI G-PRXI, which is marked as PL983. This has the straight wire down the leg. It seems to go nowhere either end. The top: And the bottom: Note that behind this is what I think is the brake pipe. It starts at the wing inside the wheel well and is attached to and fed the airframe via a flexible section, as you can see in the photos above. The section on the undercarriage door seems to be metal pipe, which is then attached to another flexible section. In the next one you can see this second flexible section going behind the wheel (forgive the poor-quality of the next couple of shots, I was holding the camera at arms length and couldn't use the viewfinder) ... ... and into the hub: yes, it's clearly the brake pipe. (Incidentally, istr that these are supplied as vinyl parts in the Tamiya 1/32 kits.) This seems to be the standard brake configuration on all the SPit photos I've seen. I don't know about them being painted, it seems unlikely as it is clearly flexible hose when viewed in reality. The port undercarriage of the aircraft was similarly configured, a mirror image. The other PR XI is G-MKXI, painted as PL965/R. I wasn't permitted as close to this one, unfortunately. But from what I could see the brake lines were in the same configuartion as PL983. However, the mysterious "wire" is in the curved configuration ... ... on the starboard leg. However ... ... on the port leg, you can just see that it's the straight configuration. So to sum up, the brake pipes appear standard, at the rear of the leg. On the other hand, the other pipe/wire has no obvious function, but it must be there for a reason. I think that on my next visit to Shuttleworth I shall go and chat up the engineers who work on AR501. Hope this is useful.

You're right. I've just been to the PR exhibition at Duxford and got up close and personal with a couple of PRXIs. The curved pipe seems to be, in fact, wire rather then pipe and you're right, it goes nowhere either end. The flexible line running to the hub is the brake line. Photos later when I'm back home and have uploaded them.

Actually that's a very poetic description. Now I think of it, I have sometimes given away a part-finished kit to someone at my model club who has expressed an interest. So I guess that fits the bill of a "Prince Charming".

I thought you might! Good subject, Max, and have fun as you work your magic. Just for interest, when I went to Guernsey for a few days last September, our route back passed directly over the former RAF Thorney Island. This is the best snap I managed, but you can still make out the airfield, line of hangars, and runways. (For anyone interested, shot from the Embraer 195 belonging to Aurigny.)

I may be wrong, but I seem to think they were flexible pipes, and the route - straight or curved - varied somewhat within the limits of the structure and how the undercarriage operated. Others may know more. However, here's a pic of AR501, the airworthy Vc at the Shuttleworth COllection.

I had that once: mine was ICM's Bu 131 a couple of years ago, and the elevators just would not stay fixed to the tailplanes!

Yes. No sense wasting valuable modelling time on something that has fought back once too often, and is never going to reach my self-imposed standards - which honestly are not impossibly high! It's a hobby, done for pleasure, so if what I'm doing is no longer giving me pleasure , but has become a chore , then it's time for it to go. Only very rarely have I regretted it and bought the same kit again: it actually feels cathartic. I should say it will have had a long spell on the Shelf of Doom, I don't just suddenly decide I've lost interest and bin what I'm doing within 6 seconds. And after that, it usually gets another go, and I have been known to finish it. And I usually salvage spare parts if they're salvageable

This looks to be going well. Making notes ...

Indeed. I do wonder if we will see a JP/Strikemaster at some point. Plenty of scope for a varied series, quite small, lots if potential markings options including RNZAF, and come to think of it, I believe I made the same arguments several pages ago: for repeating myself.

Very nicely done.

Incidentally, I see we are now up to 14 pages and the thread has mostly stayed on topic, with sensible discussion and some interesting points being made. Thank you all for this.

My thoughts exactly, although the rumoured/previously announced/forthcoming/whatever ZM P-51B may affect the probability of a Kotare one. But then, they would be aimed at very different markets. I may buy a ZM one just for the experience as I've never done one of their kits, but I'd definitely have a (few) Kotare examples - particularly if they include the later fin fillet as an option (which incidentally was not exactly the same as that on the D). Spot on with the Trumpeter example too, to me it just somehow looks "wrong" in a way I can't quite put my finger on.

Deleted

Why am I not surprised? Hope it turns out to be possible.

If it works, it's valid. It's certainly worth a try. Good luck and let us know how you get on. The usual advice is to draw reference lines on the mask using a suitable pen or pencil: the one obvious flaw there is that once one section has been sprayed, the reference lines are obscured by the paint. I tend to "eyeball it" these days, which works reasonably most of the time, but when it goes wrong it really looks wrong!

Very nice Pony, well done. Not possible: bring it on!

Lovely!

However did I miss this? What an introduction, beautiful model. The tailwheel being castored off-centre adds even more interest, as does the tractor.

As will the Spitfire Production Site. "FF" is, of course, "First flown". Looking forward to this one, must start mine ...

A lesser-known fact is that that is not strictly true. Only two operational front-line squadrons flew the mark. However they were also flown at some point by: 595 Sqn, an Anti-a/c co-operation Unit, eg MB837 7B:V, as featured in current-at-2022 issue of the 1/48 Airfix kit; Fighter Leaders' School, RAF Millfield; an unidentified Fleet Air Arm unit (briefly, and how many not known); and the RAF Old Sarum Communications Flight. Alas, documentation is limited, this is as much as I have been able to find so far: if I could find any more info I would really be tempted by either the Fighter Leaders' School, FAA, or even comms example. I also saw somewhere once that 41 Sqn modified a couple of theirs for FR work, with an oblique camera, I assume pointing out of the radio hatch. I even corresponded with Edgar on the subject, but he did not have any more info than I did. Alas, the web page I read - it was on the Key Publishing site somewhere - has long since hidden behind the number 404. But even if I do a standard 41 Sqn or 91 Sqn fighter, I'm still tempted.

The bit about the gun covers came, via my own notes, from a post on here or another forum by the late Edgar Brooks who had carried out a lot of original research on the Spit in the National Archives and elsewhere. It's quite possible that something may have been misunderstood or lost in translation by me. The particular chapter of the book I was quoting was written by the officer who was the Squadron CO at the time, and originally published in 1974; whilst memory is not infallible, I judged that in this case the information is reasonably likely to be reliable. And I think I've perhaps missed something: I'm afraid I don't get the reference in your last sentence ("As you know ...") at all

Good point. I've built all 3 Tamiya Spitfires, but hadn't remembered in detail. Now you mention it I think you're right.

Except the laws of logic and maths, in that it bears a direct mathematical relationship to 1/48 and 1/72, the more widely popular aircraft scales. But I do accept that is not absolute. Anyway, I seem to be at risk of diverting this thread, so perhaps I'd better bow out.