cib2265

Due to an unanticipated move, this is the only build started and finished in 2023 for me. But it was a lot of fun. The Tamiya kit is magnificent. I added HGW harnesses and wet transfers, barracudacast resin wheels, and a little magic with a small DC motor. Paints are Mission Models primarily.  This is just after takeoff from the crushed coral runway at Henderson Field. 
 



 

 

 

 

 
 

Simon, let me start by saying that I have huge respect for your knowledge, appreciation and opinions about Mitchell’s beautiful creation, the Spitfire. However for the average aeroplane modeller such as me, the finer points that appear to be lacking in Kotare’s kit are of next to no significance, I accept Kotare’s offering for what it is.
 
All models are a compromise in one way or another and I’m more than happy to live with that. I enjoy researching, building (and usually adapting) and painting my models, making them as accurate as I need them to be but do I worry about a compound curve being wrong……nope. 
 
I wish Kotare all the success in the world; their current “crimes” are to me “very minor misdemeanours”. 

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.

People can grow.
 
Your knowledge is clearly much appreciated but you should refrain from assigning intents to others, you just don't know what happens in people's minds.
Please, try to assume that the folks at modeling companies strive to do their best.
Do you seriously believe the guys at Kotare wake up in the morning thinking: "how can we disrespect Spitfires and Mitchell today"?
Come on.
 
Take Edgar's advice and stick to the kits, I know I would appreciate your input even more.

One of the unfortunate pitfalls of relying on a modern (Mk.Vb?) restoration as evidence of what WWII Mk.I flush/puttied rivet surface detail was like. Also, check out those ill-fitting & bent panels. 
 

1939, 1940+ and modern build Spitfire gun panels not fitting as flush as Mitchell (and some modellers) would have liked.
 

I agree.
 
I tend to place small engines when I want my props to spin. But usually these small rotor turns way too fast for an idle engine
but if you look at picture of such models:

you barely see the prop at all. (yes it was spinning fast and my shutter speed was low
yet:

this is with a slightly higher shutter speed and then the prop starts to appear
 

 
imho, there is no bad points to leave the blades completely out. 
 
 
The only time I considered prop blur was this one (1/48 sorry)
I really wanted to have the contrast between the feathered engine and the spinning one. But in the end I added an engine rather than using prop blur. And the result was way better
 

That’s a joke right??
 
either way, the Tamiya 1/32 kit is the best Spitfire in any scale at the moment. Kotare Models LTD’s MkI in 1/32 later this year (the ex-WNW guys) has a realistic chance to eclipse it.
 
Bottom line, Airfix has a very high bar to beat the Tamiya IX. I just hope for better plastic, better mould quality and better fit than their Typhoon and Hellcat kits. Let’s see!

Sound great and the CADs look great....   But, that horrible soft plastic prone to warping, the poor quality control they have in production.   I will give it a miss I think.  Sad really, if only they would up their game so the plastic lives up to the potential of the engineering...  Maybe they will get their act together with this one but I wont hold my breath.

In 2018 after my 1/18 spitfire won at Telford, I was approached by an aircraft restoration company acting on behalf of one of their clients (a Hollywood producer i was told) who was having a full size spitfire restored. It was for a commission quote to build 'his' spitfire to the same standard.
 
I told them £25,000...
 
They didn't bite, if they had, they would have got a bargain in terms of invested professional time
 
Do not undervalue what you do provided the outcome is equivalent to a professional artisan or artist

Last week they were sat at the desks building the Quick Build Spitfire and on both the guys desks there were other brands of Models. I saw an Eduard Tempest and I think on the other desk was one of the Arma Kits boxes. I wouldn’t read too much in to it. They obviously aren’t taking notes on other brands either as they still keep turning out kits with surface features I could park and lose my car in. I looked at one of the new Vampire kits the other day and was half expecting to see an X-Wing being chased by 3 TIE Fighters down one of the wing panel lines it was that deep it could have doubled for the Death Star Trench run.

I just don:t see these as selling for full retail for long.  It may be the ultimate kit but the number of people that will actually build one are relatively few.  A lot more will be sitting in the box for years.  I think there will be a two year window to buy that at discount from retail.  Also after 6 months or a year the odd one will turn up at auction on ebay.  Limited edition or not, I suspect they will go at no more than $300.00 on ebay maybe even 200 to 250 range.  A lot of people are going to look at this and find it unfeasible for them to actually build It and it is going to take up a lot of real estate in the stash pile.  
 
I like some things about this kit, for example I liked that the outer wings were removable as it makes display easier.  I like the stressed skin.  I know how to solve the window problem Jennings points to, I wont worry about it or would not build one that needed the windows removed.  Seems like if you want the windows gone you should build the HK one as you don:t have to as much surgery.  
 
If I ever build one, I want to see how much I can leave out to simplify the build.  They say for example that the gun turrets comprise around 40 parts, will there be a 3-d printed version that has half the parts count?  Things like that could help.  I would never say a kit is over detailed though as you can always choose to leave things out, harder to figure out what to add if you want something that is not there.  In the end it is good for the modeling world this is coming to market.  Will I ever own one I don:t know.  Will I ever build one I don:t know.

This release, for me, completes a ‘Holy Trinity’ of kits I have wanted to see released: truly state-of-the-art versions of the Spitfire Mk1a, DeHavilland Mosquito FBVI and Lancaster B.I/III. 
 
I have the HK Lancaster and that will become Mk10 KB-864 ‘Sugar’s Blues’ but I will buy the Border kit and it will be R5868 ‘P-OS’. I’m lucky to have the space to display several twins and heavies in my home office so these will be added to my already built DeHavilland DH.98 FBVI and Boeing B17G ‘Thunderbird’. 
 
Frankly I am delighted.  This is a phenomenal time to be a modeller. I could not agree more with Alan G: one of these probably IS a 2-3 year project (based on my ‘Thunderbird’ build time). Isn’t that the point: we enjoy modelling so I don’t understand people getting upset at their own build time. For me; I am simply glad to be building. 
 
Best regards,
Paul

Hey guys,
 
Been a bit away to the dark scale lately with a lot of naval aviation projects
 
Here's the latest off the bench:
I converted AMK F-14D to a Bravo of VF-103 (with FighterTown decals and old Hasegawa bits) standing ready on the catapult moments before launch.
The carrier deck is completely homemade and is part of a larger project.
 
I really enjoyed building and painting AMK's tomcat and the carrier deck presented a lot of challenges. The biggest one being probably the raised Jet Blast Deflector.
Enough reading, here are the pictures:
 

 

 

 

 

 
Thanks for looking
 

I firmly believe that some of these manufacturers are actually the one's to blame. In several instances, many modelers have pointed out issues with CAD and provided input only to be ignored. Several years ago a Rep from Trumpeter reached out to me regarding the AV-8B. I spent hours and a few weekends taking hundreds of photos, measurements and notes. After all was said and done, I was told 'never mind, we're just going with what we have'. Seriously? All that work and time spent and you just blow it off? Hell, one of the members of the R&D team that helped with the Kittyhawk H-60 kits just mentioned a similar experience. They provided input that was ignored at the end. 
 
It's happened over and over. The forums are filled with SME's that have either worked on, flew or studied ad nauseum countless aircraft. Collectively we have provided almost everything a model manufacturer could possibly need to produce an accurate representation of most aircraft. However, the vast majority of the time we were ignored. Is it any wonder they received bad feedback? 
 
You know, while not LSP related, Kinetic actually listens to modelers and takes our feedback to heart. Their postponed Gina is a perfect example, as well as their continual improvement from release to release. Maybe other manufacturers should follow Raymond's lead and actually listen to those that know the subjects. 
 
Kittyhawk had multiple opportunities to improve, but never really did. Yes, some of their later kits are nice, but still have issues. They were plagued with accuracy and quality issues, multiple issues with instruction sheets, and the perception among many is that they just didn't give a f--k. 
 
While I'm still far from perfect, I have come a long way over the years and it was due to 'bad feedback'. I never gave up, but worked harder to improve and listened to those that provided harsh criticism. Still do and they're the reason I still have a relatively successful small business going on year 21. 
 
If manufacturers want our support, listen to those of us that are trying to help instead of blowing us off.

More work on the Rhino. Pictures look rough, but it will clean up once done!
 
First, I closed up the main wheel well doors. These required the usual shimming and adjustment - on almost every surface to get fitting somewhat respectably. The drawback of being an aircraft modeller....

 
Note the seams that needed addressing nearly all round with some Bondo (red) putty.
These weird triangle indents done by Trumpeter were filled with shaped 1mm plasticard:

And the ladder door was taken off and refitted as best i could flush, will need some filler, I couldnt find the small tab piece at the end so added with plasticard.

 
Next will be wing and nose reattachment and filling those seams, spot priming to check it all looks good, then I can get on with the cockpit and crew. 
Ordered some new low viz decals and stencils - very hard to find!  
 

My home mades from wood from Home Depot. The first one I did was the cross which
was made from 4 plinth blocks with 45 degree points at one end. The rest required a
router for the edges. They all have inkjet printed images on glossy paper and attached
to the wood with a very thin layer of Elmer's white glue. 
 

 

 

 

 
Kinda fun, want to do a large scale someday.
 

I hope that this isn't controversial, but I image the model on a stand, then use Adobe PS to edit out the background, add prop effects, and paste the output onto free desktop wallpaper. Here are some examples:
 

 

 

 

 

 
I should add that I've gotten a lot better at this during the COVID-nonsense!
 
-Moe
 

I am one of the fervent adepts thinking that an airplane is supposed to be shown in flight
 
Jets are easier to display in flight because the prop models need an extra solution about the spinning prop and no real solution exists, at least none suitable for me. I either ends up motoring the prop or leaving it alone. 
 
Stand wise, I love round rods because I feel they are more aerodynamic and hence less visible than square section.
Whenever I can I use transparent rods but to be honest, your mind quickly omits the rods when you look at the model and IMHO even metallic or black rods are not quite noticeable.
What I notice more is a vertical rod than a angled one. Indeed, angled is more dynamic and often can be placed to actually help the dynamism on the scene you want to represent.
The method I use is usually boring hole in a MDF base cut to desired shape. In the aircraft model I always try to insert the rod into a hollow round cylinder which allows easy removal of the model from it's rod but at the same time is tight enough to prevent movement, and especially rotation. If rotation is a problem (like it was on my intruder AAR) I usually place a pin somewhere preventing rotation.
 
And if possible, always seek to seat a pilot in there, that's often one of the great challenge of the in flight scenes
luckily with a visor down and an o2 mask, you don't have to paint carnations. 
 
Have fun
 
 

One last installement (oops) for te lower avionics bay cover. This had the ALR-29 dispensers filled with Evergreen, as the dispensers from the kit sit deeper and are flat, making filling the holes more difficult.
I then marked out the shape of the bulge and set up some Evergreen scraps to make it a bit firmer. The shape was then slathered with Milliput and roughly sculpted, and, like the wingtips, several rounds of filling, sanding and priming followed.
The flange was recreated by marking the shape with doubled-up tape and brushing Mr Surfacer on it. With hindsight I should have airbrushed it, as it's a bit uneven. Not perfect but I'm not ready to start over again, and again, I leared quite a lot from this little adventure!



 
The final result, the bulge itself looks pretty good IMHO, the flange, especially at the rear, could have been better But I find it acceptable for now

 
Now to read up on all those great inspirational builds here...!
 
Best regards, Jeroen

mojo
 
 
noun
  informal
 
 
a quality that makes you successful and full of energy:
·        He's definitely lost his mojo. ·        He needs to get his mojo working if he's going to finish that model  
 
Well, I lost mine over the last few months in a big way. For many reasons I just lost interest in my Fw190 and so it has been shelved for now. It's one of those inexplicable things, those that remember the 1/24 Tigercat maybe know I have form in this area ..
 
 
Instead, I have found a new source of mojo which has seen me back at the bench, enjoying my modelling which is what it is all about right?
 
 
This is new for me, I don’t think I have ever built a biplane, certainly not scratchbuilt so it will be a journey of discovery I hope to share
 
 
The Hawker Fury needs no introduction from me, all I can do is show you the picture that set me thinking and ultimately on this path…
 
 

 
 
..look at that beautiful form, the polished metal nose panels, the state of the art in it’s day. I don’t know yet which airframe I will model, but likely it will be a Tangmere bird as that was but a few miles from my childhood home.
 
 
I gained the confidence to take the plunge from John Alcorn’s books ‘Scratchbuilt’ where various masters show how they achieve the impossible in relation to fabric covered structures such as those shown below – if you don’t have the books, get them, they are superb..
 
 
Need fuselage stringers? A few methods are shown..
 
 
 

 
 
 
Wings? Just like the originals..
 
 

 
 
I started with the Westburg plans, four sheets sourced from a 1970’s RC Model magazine I found as a PDF that my printer scaled for me..
 
 
..these are widely acknowledged as the most accurate out there..
 
 

 
 
..and so onto building & making a start..
 
 
..the first element I thought would be a rigid structure that supports both the landing gear and the cabane struts atop the fuselage. This would need to be very strong and so was made of brass parts..
 
 
The very first of which is here – the main gear mount..
 
 

 
 
..then the transverse rods that link to the main gear trailing arms and the mounts for those mounted on the mainspar tube.. I used (badly) my new Proxxon mini milling machine for those..
 
 

 
 
..all the parts were made up over the plans and ultimately soldered together, including spigots for the cabane strut mounts..
 
 
..the firewall looking square is to add rigidity and the hole is the prop datum that will carry forwards into the nose..
 
 

 
 
..more of the fuselage framework was constructed of carbon fibre rod – this stuff is super stiff and easy to work with – I used an RC modeller trick in pinning the rods to a scaled plan to get everything lined up..
 
 

 
 
..soon I had both halves (at least the bits that can be seen) which will dovetail into the brass frontal assembly..
 
 

 
 
..the real airframe is bolted together with some quite rudimentary brackets – that’s good, I can do rudimentary..
 
 

 
 
..I should have made these from PE, but such was my renewed enthusiasm I made them by hand with the resultant rudimentary outcome..
 
 

 
 
..the structures were primed and painted with black MRP enamel and the assembly plates added..
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
..whilst I didn’t take any construction pictures, I did make up the seat based on the few pictures I have (that’s a problem I will come onto later..)
 
 
…essentially I drew parts as templates and cut them from litho, annealing & shaping them and bordering with fine solder wire..
 
 

 
 

 
 
..to finish up for now, the work to date dry fitted together…
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
..now for the appeal – I have zero drawings apart from the plans, I have the one Mushroom book I could find and that is 80% about the Nimrod, not the Fury and about 5 cockpit pictures all from the same angle from the internet..
 
 
I have written to both operators of existing Furies in the hope they have drawings they can share, but if anyone out there knows of any good reference, please let me know – drop links in here or PM me perhaps
 
 
So that’s it – a change in direction, for me the main thing is being motivated to pull up to my bench and enjoy myself and that I am now doing
 
..hopefully this one will see a competition table in a few years
 
 
TTFN
Peter

Some pics of the Gloster IV.
 
Overall a very enjoyable build, giving me yet another unique model to display in my cabinets.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome to The Battle of Britain 80th Anniversary Group Build!
 
Here are the parameters qualifying builds:
 
Any aircraft engaged in the battle starting from June 1940s nuisance raids through to the end of the peak bombing raids in November. Support units, RAF bombers and aircraft held in reserve at the time are all eligible. Also included are aircraft from the Battle of Britain movie, if you want to build Maj. Fohn's Buchon or Squadron Leader Skippers Spitfire as they appear on film. You can also build an aircraft of the Battle of Britain memorial flight or BoB commemorative aircraft, such as the Eurofighter painted as a Hurricane. 25% rule applies to entries, if you are unsure of how far along you are in a project and you wish to enter into the GB, please ask.
 
Have fun!
 
Kev

Thanks guys.
 
Some more work. I have painted the model now. I used Alclad pale burnt metal for the gold, and a significantly lightened mix of Gunze light blue. The cooling panels were painted with polished brass and the floats with a couple of different shades of Alclad Aluminium. Still a bit of work to do chasing around some areas of overspray, but fairly happy with how it is turning out.
 

Here is my 1/32 Kittyhawk OV-10A that I completed late last year.
 
This model was built to represent the aircraft that Squadron Leader Graham Neil and Flight Lieutenant Ken Semmler flew during the Vietnam war on the 6 JUNE 1970. Both of these men were pilots in the Royal Australian Air Force and were part of the group of 36 that served as FACs under the USAF during the conflict. Graham was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross for his conduct as a Forward Air Controller during this mission. I haven't had the chance to show Graham the completed model yet due to Covid19, but I was able to show him the partially completed model during its construction.
 
The model.
 
Additions:
Airscale instrument decals.
Master Pitot tube
AoA decals
Reskit wheels
AMS ejection seats
Eduard exterior photo etch
Aerobonus Helmet with hand painted Roo.
Archer raised rivet detail added to forward fuselage
 
Modifications/Scratch built items:
 
Raised cowl fasteners replaced with engraved ones.
5 x fuel caps scratch built.
Scribed the missing fuel panel on the centre of the top wing.
Scratch built the missing lower left access step.
Scratch built bomb beam inside centre pylon.
Added small bolts to front of spinners.
Scratch built cockpit access ladder.
Scratch built forward air vent in front of the windscreen.
Scratch built the air vent under observers canopy and tops of both crew canopies.
Added lots of wiring inside the cockpit.
Scratch built the throttle and pitch levers.
Scratch built canopy actuator and stay mechanisms.
Scratch built the canopy window locking mechanisms x 4.
Scratchbuilt bulkhead and armour plate behind pilots seat.
Added brake lines.
Faired in pitot tube to the nose cone.
Various antenna and aerial wire.
Scratch built stall warning tab outer right wing.
A few other things I have forgotten.
 















 
The actual aircraft after the mission mentioned above: