Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 19squadron

  1. Mk IX's were basically MkV's re engined, and retained most of the internal layout of the MkV including 24v regulators on the back of frame 11. Mk VII Mk VIII, MkXII and MkXIV etc were all total redesigns of all srtuctures bar C wings and all systems and they do not have any regulator mounted on the back of frame 11,
  2. The Voltage regulator fitted to the back of frame 11 on a MkI, Mk II or MkV Spitfire is a 12 volt regulator that has a simple on off toggle swith to operate next to the volt meter and ammeter on the instrument panel. The Voltage regulator with twin barrels fitted to some Spitfire Vc's and MkIX's is a 24volt regulator fitted in comnjunction with a major rediesign of the whole aircrafts' electrical system in late 1942. The dials and switch remain in the same position on the instrument panel. All spitfires built with a Merlin II engine - ie K9787 up to K9980 had a differen
  3. And what is interesting about these shots is that there are ;- no pads on the wing leading edges no inspection hatch between cowl and carb intake and no [visible] rib tape. so what are the odds that WNW finished the tooling? or that Meng had a hand in those final details?
  4. Exactly very odd because what you say might well have been true were Wingnut Wings conceived or run as any other normal commercially driven company - but it wasn't, it was the personal plaything of one individual who started the company, paid it's way out of his own pocket, selected himself all the aircraft to be CAD Modled and released, and always did as he chose rather than consider any other priority, including profit. Personally I am so glad the Gotha G1 was produced, but you have to remember this is a man who built his own flying Handley Page 0O/400 and his
  5. They are protective pads that the wing rested on when the wing was dismantled and set on the ground, the pads changed positions throughout F1 /Dr1 manufacture. See Windsock Dr1 special for details.
  6. Yes, the wing tape is wrong too -
  7. I agree, except that I suspect the production run of Gotha' G1's etc that is not yet sold is held in storage at WNW warehouses, and therefore technically went "OOP" at the point they were announced [ with the recent somewhat surprising WNW reissue of the Fokker DVII and Clerget Camel] However I make the point that CSM sales of Nieuports on ebay were very low by comparision to WNW Gotha G1's even before the Covid Lockdown and WNW shutdown, which makes the point that Wingnut Wings sales were NOT just driven by subject, but also by their reputation, rapidly growing towards an ever wid
  8. That's the oddest thing I have seen written in a long time!
  9. Personally I love the fact that WNW did them because they are part of the history of WW1 aviation, and the evolution of aircraft design, and precisely because no other kit manufacturer did them, I am so glad that WNW did rather than for instance a ... Spad.... for which there are already Roden kits. As far as sales are concerned the EWNW Gotha G1 and UWD seem to outsell CSM Nieuports on ebay manyfold if you lock at the ebay "sold" lists and I note this from Dave on the WWI Aircraft form just recently. "With the closure of Wingnut Wings, modellers' expectations for new r
  10. Why not? - Meng's product line is pretty haphazard.
  11. I think the Roden kit is excellent and exceedingly buildable, it just misses the research and fine detail that Wingnut Wings were so good at. You are right about the SE5a, in fact the Junkers J1 is the weakest of the WNW kits in my opinion - since cleartly WNW got better and better as time went by to reach the standard of their Dolphin and Camel. All of which misses the point - which was since the Meng release appears to have clumsy rib tape on the main wings or at least the middle wing, it would seem reasonable to guess that it is their own design rather than a purloined or bought
  12. I agree Radu, plus there are some awkward details on the "Meng" CAD - noticably the clumsy rib tape on the middle wing, which are mistakes Wingnut Wings would not make.
  13. Well you get the codes in the Revell MklIa kit, probably the best that can be said about that kit.
  14. You are absolutely right, the Hobby Boss is wrong there, but The Revell kit looks pregnant and the nose is too long, and I'd say those are EVEN worse faults than the Hobby Boss failure. All in all it says a lot that THE most important aircraft ever designed, THE most beautiful aircraft ever designed, engaged iin the single most important aircampaign ever fought, has not been well molded and made available in 1/32. AND it makes the demise of WNW as the one company who singlemindedly researched and produced beautiful accurate models in 1/32 is in serious trouble or foreve
  15. The Tamiya kit is dimensionally accurate and compares well to original Supermarine drawings I have, the Revell kit is and looks all wrong. the Revell kit is 3mm too long in the fuel tank armour and engine cowl combined, and its about 3mm too wide across the fuselage at the cockpit door.
  16. hobby boiss isn't perfect, but it is enormously better than the Revell.
  17. Yes - I have all the mismeasurements in photos on photobucket, but cannot seem to make them upload anymore - however if you measure a Tamiya MkIXc which has exactly the same fuselage behind the engine firewall, you will find the fuselage width 24.5mm wide. At the same point the Revell is 27,5mm wide. - the Revell is too fat, and it looks it. Ditto length of nose from front of screen to the front of the engine cowling.
  18. You might want to wait for the upcoming Eduard Spitfire Mk1 in 1/48 due out in august. There has been an enormous amount of research put into getting that kit correct with several early variations, and it may well be useful to you as a template for a 1/32 model.
  19. There is a more significant problem in that the nose of the Revell kits is too long by 3mm forward of the canopy, and the fuselage is too wide and the wrong shape midway along the fuselage. To my mind the "new" Revell Spitfire mk 11a is one of the most inaccurate and the worst kit released in 1/32 for a very long time. Much better to start with a Hobby Boss mk V and alter the wing canon armament, the Revell just is all wrong.
  20. In 1938 the straight topped canopy's were rapidly replaced, and in the press shots of the squadron lined up there are aircraft with both balooned tops and straight tops, so you'd have the option in 1938. The hydraulic resevoir behind frame 11 fed the manual undercarriage lift, it was present on K series L series and P series Spitfires and even the first MkII's built at Castle Bromwich. The hydraulic resevoir moved to underneath the engine cowling on aircraft with non manual undercarriage lift. The pilots oxygen tank is always in the same place behind frame 11 underneath the hydraulic rese
  21. 19 Squadron were the first to be issued Spitfires in august 1938 - 8 gun Spitfires. They were the first to be issued cannon armed Spitfires in June 1940, these first MkI b's were armed with two 20MM Hispanos and no Browning MG;s, the guns were so unreliable that the squadron was soon begging to have browning armed aircraft back.
  22. Only Gotha G1 remain on Kitlinx
  23. There's just about no unsold dealer stock left anywhere in the world as we speak, and "even" the unloved Gotha I is selling fast from Hannants and on ebay, give that a few more weeks and they will all be gone too. So how many other manufacturer's could ever say their kits have sold so fast for so much money in such a short time? and where are the Tamiya kits or any other injection molded manufacturer selling for £200 - £300 plus? If that does not show just how prized thes kits are, and what a demand there is for them, then cows can fly as far as I am concerned. I am in
  24. yes definitely the fuel pressure pump, used to get the engine started before the pump on the engine provides fuel once the engine is running.
  • Create New...