Cheetah11

Hi Carl, It will work but the shock cones will need to stay in the original position.

Hi Ryan just look at what happened on the real aircraft and it makes sense. 12 inches were added to the C fuselage behind the cockpit to produce the E. At the same time the intakes were shortened by 4 inches. Italeri got the fuselage stretch right going from the C to the E but omitted the shortened intakes. Hope it now makes sense. heers Nick

Ryan if you want to fix it just take 3mm off the front of the intake and the splitter plate. Your choice as it is not that much. Italeri just took a short cut and used the same intakes length on both kits where the E intake should have been the 3 mm shorter. The E intake is basically the same as that of the dual seaters. If you have the Heller 1/48 kit you can see the difference clearly. Note the Mice is in the same position so it sticks out further on the E. (Mice was used in singular and plural form to describe the intake cone) The top is the C intake and the bottom the B/D/E intake. Cheers Nick

Hi Ryan' the E does have the splitter plate stand offs. The intake is just shorter by 3mm in 1/32. Not a lot but again right next to the canopy, so it is obvious. Unfortunately Italeri made a real mess of the differences between the C and E and a few other details. Here is the E intake from the front. ( actually a Mir III RZ but identical to the E ) Cheers Nick

Hi Dennis And we thought late Luftwaffe colours were a modelling minefield. Thanks for the information. Cheers Nick

Hi Carsten Italeri made the IIIE as well as the IIIC. The Revell kit is the Italeri IIIE just under their own brand. The IIIE from both boxings can be used as a basis for the IIIS. Ryan sorry for the thread hi-jack. Cheers Nick

Hi Ryann Nice work on the tanks. Just remember to move the tank location outwards. Italeri has used the same wing for the Mirage IIIC and the IIIE. On the E the hardpoint moved out to accommodate the larger tanks. It is not much but the proximity to the wing notch makes it obvious. Mirage IIIC wing Mirage IIIE wing If you are interested in correcting the intake it is 3 mm too long as Italeri used the IIIC intake. The Mirage III series aircraft had 3 different length of intakes. The III B/D/E had 100mm shorter intakes than the C and the NG and Mirage 50 had another 6 inches shorter to accommodate the larger mass flow of the09K-50 engine. Mirage IIIE intake Carsten I think you are looking at the Mirage IIIC from Italeri and not the IIIE. They are essentially very different aircraft. Any more questions just ask Cheers Nick

Hi Tom On page 30 of Wingleader Photo Archives no 1 is a photo of a Mk I with both head and seat armour a light colour, likely the cockpit interior colour. Cheers Nick

With the cockpit almost done most of the work on the fuselage is done. Now time to do the wings. First blanked off the ejection ports of the guns with channel section to fill the spaces. I also cut slots in the radiator duct to deepen the duct. Fortunately two radiators are supplied as the one spruce is common to the Mk ix. I used the second one to deepen the radiator face. Strips were added to the ailerons and then sanded down to just above the surface. I also used a half round piece of plastic cut to size to modify the oil cooler. (I think a 1/48 mk82) All for now Nick

Hi Denis I like this build a lot. Just a caution on Tamiya extra thin or similar glues. They work fantastic but there are a few things to watch for. Sometimes the capillary action lets it run around the tape as well. What I have come to do lately is to use clamps which does hold the piece but not close to the area being glued with the extra thin. Another way is to tack the parts with superglue, and once set use the extra thin. Warning, any fingers near the extra thin will leave a fingerprint onto the plastic. This stuff runs everywhere. Cheers Nick

Hi Ryan Nice fix. Just a note, the protruding piece is not an air data probe but the antenna of the BF radar warning system. The tip is normally black. Cheers Nick

Hi Derek Wow, what a great "review" of the kit. It is an interesting exercise. I also measured a Mirage F1's major panel lines on the real aircraft a while ago to clear up the 1/48 kits dimensions (Kitty Hawk scales out at 1/45). I see you are also kept busy with the dimensions of the Trumpeter Lightning. I am not going to fix the dimensional errors but concentrate on the details and colour scheme. I will only enlarge the cockpit door and narrow the front fuselage a bit to fit the spinner backplate. I did compare the Tamiya kit with the Revell one and found something interesting. If the engine bulkhead is used a a reference, my corrected cockpit is in the same place as that of the Tamiya kit. The rudder hinge line is then 2mm too far forward, maybe the 2mm too much at the front you found. The fin of the Tamiya kit is also smaller and the wings a little too far forward. The wing root fairing is fixed thanks to your observation. Difficult to see but immediately apparent if one moves your finger over the surface. Well spotted. In the mean time I started painting the cockpit. Cheers Nick

The kit IP does not look bad at all but represent a later mark IP. My local hobby shop has a Red Fox IP for a Mk II but I wanted to try and do one from kit components. The easiest way to get something looking like an early Mk I IP was to modify the Tamiya IP. I drilled extra holes in it and then sanded it paper thin. It was the glued onto a piece of plastic card. Now time for the 00 brush and the magnifier. Cheers Nick

Some more small adjustments to the model. I found something interesting on the cockpit dimensions. The Tamiya cockpit door is about 1 mm longer than the Revel one. The rear clear part of the canopy the same. By cutting and sanding the cockpit door opening to fit the Tamiya part, the small cut-outs which needs to be filled is reduced and then by filling them the Tamiya canopy part fits. Someone's measurements were a bit off. (I know who I would blame ) )The bulkhead on which the seat is mounted needs to be moved 1mm forward for everything to fit. The formation lights were filled and sanded smooth. Now the test fitting can start and the details of the sidewall changed to represent an early Mk1 The empty flare rack was fitted with disks representing flares. (No use having a flare gun with no flares.) Cheers Nick

Hi Ryan Most Mirage instruments are unique. About the only ones you can use from a generic set is the altimeter and airspeed indicator. All is not lost. The Italeri sheet has the right instruments but for the Mir IIIR option. If you can punch or cut them out they are perfect. Cheers Nick

Thanks a million for the info Dennis. I think I will go with a metal seat without a backrest then since K9953 was built before the intro of the plastic seats on the production line. Tamiya have put a a number of pieces into their photo etched frame accompanying their Mk IX and XVI which is usable on a Mk I like the instrument panel without the rounding on top. Since I used the Eduard pieces in the Tamiya Spit, I now have these surplus to use on this build. I wonder if they had plans for an earlier Spitfire? Cheers Nick

Thanks all for the interest and replies . Thanks for the heads up. I will scrape the fuselage a bit and then clamp and superglue when I get to that point. Hopefully closer than OOB. Hi Mark, I have some of Roy's products for the Me 109 and they are excellent. Our post system has collapsed so getting these from half way across the world will take too much time and increase the cost substantially. So I will see what I can use in the spares box and modify the rest. Hi Dennis, thanks for the link, it will certainly help to get the config right . I am still unsure of two aspects of the seat. K9953 was built in 1939 so a metal seat would have been fitted. The two uncertainties are whether the seat was fitted with a leather backrest and if the slot for the harness was present in the seat back. The confusion is in part due to a photo of a Spitfire metal seat with neither which was posted on Britmodeller discussion on the 1/48 AM seats. I suspect that seat is incorrect but uncertain at this stage. Hi Tom Wow , nice build and interesting scheme. Certainly good info on the wing bumps. I am not sure I will go that far. I am going to leave the raised rivets (Just glad there are rivets.) Cheers Nick So starting from the front I will address the spinner and blades. I found this side on profile on the net. I enlarged it to 1/32. A 3mm disc was added to the spinner and then sanded to hopefully fit the profile. The blades were thinned towards the tip and set in fine pitch. I have no idea why Revell would put a feathered prop on the model when almost all period photos show fine pitch. In the mean time the spares box was raided for surplus parts from the Tamiya Mk XVI. Cheers Nick

The surface detail is not too bad. The rivets are a bit heavier than the Tamiya Spits but to be honest under a coat of primer and paint it should look good. The compulsory fit check of the main components. Not too bad at all. It seems not too much filler will be needed. I am compiling a list of changes required to the kit. I have downloaded the PDF from the Eduard 1/48 Mk I and hope the config from Eduard of K9953 is correct. Things to do as follows. Please feel free to pitch in as I am no Spitfire expert. Revise the spinner profile Sand blade profiles a little thinner. Fix blades in fine pitch. Open the exhaust. Add some and delete other bumps on the cowling. Fill formation lights and IFF entrance holes. Rebuild IP (Revell one looks more like a Mk IX IP) Older style antenna mast. Add a few corrections to the cockpit to reflect a Mk I cockpit Sand seat to reflect a metal seat. Cut codes and roundels on the Silhouette Fill rivets on ailerons and reduce the detail on the rudder and elevons. Revise oil cooler shape. I have a few surplus parts from the Tamiya Mk XVI like the five spoked wheels, PE parts and rear cockpit I will try and fit into the build. I still need some information on the seat harness. I am not sure of the harness on the metal seat or if backrest cushions were fitted to them. The other unknown is the underside colour. Sky or Type S (I never realized they were different paints) were to be painted on the underside from June 1940 but due to a shortage some units used their own mix. According to Paul Lucas in the On Target Profile series at least five different colours were linked to British Fighters from June to Sept 1940. I still need to decide on which colour and which paint. Nick

Hi Tom, Yes what a machine. I wish we could see a Vietnam era CH-53. BTW I think the absolute helo altitude record was set in 1972 by a SA315B Lama at just over 40800 ft. Cheers Nick

Well this is the model. I recently picked this one up at a general store for a ridiculous price. They had about 15 kits, mostly 1/72 and then this one and a 1/28 Fokker Dr1. The same price as it is sold for in Germany. Generally Revell kits are 2 to 3 times more expensive here, so impossible to resist a LSP at half the price of an Airfix 1/48 Sabre. I intend building it as a Mk I. The subject I like to do is K9953 flown by F/lt Sailor Malan Jun/Jul 1940 with 74 Sqn at RAF Hornchurch, I have read about all the problems with this kit. I will try and fix the obvious and just ignore the small ones. Hopefully the new Kotare kit will give an trouble free early Spitfire. Cheers Nick

So Sorry Chris, I would have said nothing if you already had the paint on

Hi Chris, just have a look at the bulges on the rudders. I might be wrong but I think they are only found on the F-15E. Tamiya used many E parts on the C which are not correct like the straps on the horizontal stabs. Cheers Nick

Hi Alain just an absolutely brilliant build and finish. Unbelievable hand painted woodpecker.( I prefer your La Fayette Indian head though ) Cheers Nick

Wow Sean, another fantastic build. Well done. Great work on the research and the metallic finish.

Great subject and execution John. Glad to see you modelling again. When I see these schemes from the desert I wonder to what extend the Italian cammo on the leading edges and sometimes the nose of the Hurricanes fooled the enemy. Cheers Nick