Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 19squadron

  1. On 3/4/2020 at 12:07 PM, thierry laurent said:



    It looks I'm particularly gifted to question myself about obscure topics or items that should not be taken for granted too quickly...! ;-) Edgar, where are you...?


    For some weird reasons, it is very difficult to find pictures of that device in situ whereas there are multiple airframes that were preserved and restored with that configuration (N3200, X4650, X4590, R6915 or P9444).


    There's one good picture of Mk.Ia X4650 on Wikipedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supermarine_Spitfire_I_‘X4650_-_KL-A’_(G-CGUK)_(40121560291).jpg#filelinks) but again that area is not very visible.


    By the way, I also observed that system changed noticeably during the Spitfire long life. Initial Mk.Is had none. Than, the dome-shaped cylinder system appeared during the Mk.I run up to the beginning of Mk.II batches. It was then replaced by the more common double cylinder-shaped system. And finally it disappeared during production of the Mk.IX and on subsequent types.


    The quest goes on...



    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. On 3/4/2020 at 12:07 PM, thierry laurent said:



    It looks I'm particularly gifted to question myself about obscure topics or items that should not be taken for granted too quickly...! ;-) Edgar, where are you...?


    For some weird reasons, it is very difficult to find pictures of that device in situ whereas there are multiple airframes that were preserved and restored with that configuration (N3200, X4650, X4590, R6915 or P9444).


    There's one good picture of Mk.Ia X4650 on Wikipedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supermarine_Spitfire_I_‘X4650_-_KL-A’_(G-CGUK)_(40121560291).jpg#filelinks) but again that area is not very visible.


    By the way, I also observed that system changed noticeably during the Spitfire long life. Initial Mk.Is had none. Than, the dome-shaped cylinder system appeared during the Mk.I run up to the beginning of Mk.II batches. It was then replaced by the more common double cylinder-shaped system. And finally it disappeared during production of the Mk.IX and on subsequent types.


    The quest goes on...



    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 different wiring, no regulator and a twist switch with three positions - OFF, HALF, FULL so once 12.4 volts had been reached in flight the pilot would switch to "HALF CHHARGE" and leave it there unless the voltmeter showed less than 11.5 v. In other words the pilot was the regulator. You will not find this in any published book including Shacklady.  There is an issue as to when the wiring changed, some people I know are convinced it coincided with the introduction of the Merlin III, personally I am not convinced of that since no L series Spitfire I know has a regulator fitted on frame 11. N series Spitfires on all had the 12v regulator fitted in the well known position on frame 11 behind the headrest with the wiring protected by a metal shield and running down the port and starboard

    side of the frame.

  3. 8 hours ago, Trak-Tor said:

    So here is WNW's Dr. I as presented in Telford last year:






    Scale ModelWorld 2019 - Telford


    The sprues look similar to me...




    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. 12 minutes ago, LSP_K2 said:


    Not really. The implication here is that by dumping large quantities of time, money and effort into development of huge oddball aircraft, limited resources (namely time and energy) were snatched away from other projects (the Dr.I, for instance) that would have netted larger net sales for the company.

    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 own Lancaster bomber as well as his own Albatros FE2, Dolphin, RE8  etc etc etc.



  5. 18 minutes ago, cbk57 said:

    Ignorance is bliss, don’t know what wing stacking pads are, care to share, don’t know what is wrong with the wing tapes either. 

    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. 26 minutes ago, Palm-tree said:

    The wing stacking pads on the 3D cad are wrong, should only be one on each leading edge per side, not two.


    Hope the wings are correct on the moulds.

    Yes, the wing tape is wrong too -

  7. 8 minutes ago, Kagemusha said:


    It's worth factoring in that the WnW's kits are oop, which the CSM ones aren't. 

    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 wider clientelle, as the best manufacturer of Aircraft model kits in any scale. CSM's efforts however laudable cannot begin to complete, the rib tape detail is both inaccurate and clumsy, and the engine really crude by comparison to any WNW kit.

  8. On 6/17/2020 at 11:24 PM, cbk57 said:

    Those gotta G.1's to me were the least desirable kits that WNW tooled.  Neither had the least appeal to me.  

    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 releases have shifted to companies such as Copper State Models, and it's fair to say some of the  expectations imposed on them are unrealistic.

    There are assumptions that CSM will somehow fill the Wingnut gap with a ramped up production line of new aircraft kits every few months. The reality is different.

    Unlike Wingnuts CSM does not have a multi millionaire funding the business. Edgar Liepinsh  of Copper State says kit sales fund development of new projects and at the moment WW1 armoured cars are generating more income than sales of aircraft kits.

    Consequently the Hansa Brandenburg DI project is on hold, due to low sales of CSM's 1/32 scale Nieuports - both the 17 and 21-23 variants.

    Edgar says the Hansa Brandenburg moulds are very expensive so Copper State is looking for a way to get some money for this project.

    He notes armoured cars are doing much better for CSM, so they are trying to earn more money from armoured cars to re-invest into 1/32 scale aircraft.

    Edgar assures forum members that Copper State has not abandoned the Hansa Brandenburg D.1 project, merely paused it to develop other kits to fund it, mindful that customers now expect WW1 kits to be of a particular quality.

    Now for the good news- Copper State is completing its next 1/32 scale aircraft model, one not previously done, which is a  single-engine multi-purpose French two-seater. For now he is not disclosing the subject name so let the guessing begin!

    And there's also another one that's been in development for a while now, which he describes as "not another boring PC-10 British aeroplane (although it has also PC-10)". No clues to its identity have been offered.

    CSM will feed the armoured car market with its forthcoming Minerva armoured car ( A Belgian WW1 vehicle). An Italian Lancia armoured car is also in development and scheduled for later this year as well.

    So for a small company Copper State has a full production slate but while they would like to expand their aircraft range, they can't afford to release a new 1/32 aircraft kit every six 6 months."

    Dave Wilson
    Gold Coast

  9. 59 minutes ago, ringleheim said:

    I take the exactly opposite position.  This almost has to be the WNW kit; Meng did the tooling for the WNW project.  The WNW project has been announced for a while now.   No way Meng was going to venture into WNW's territory with their own project.





    Why not? - Meng's product line is pretty haphazard.


  10. 29 minutes ago, monthebiff said:

    So two CAD images in and already a pile of cr#p and maybe heading towards unbuildable  :frantic:Dont forget the SE5.a and the mistakes they made on the lack of rib tapes on the tail plane so maybe it is from the WnW tooling :hmmm:


    Regards. Andy 

    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 Wingnut Wings design.



  11. 20 minutes ago, Radub said:

    If this was the WNW mould, MENG would have said it. Anything associated with WNW is "hot property" right now. Why miss an opportunity to cash-in on the hype? 


    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.

  12. 13 hours ago, Archimedes said:

    Does anyone do 1/32 19 Squadron decals that would be appropriate for the Battle of Britain?



    Well you get the codes in the Revell MklIa kit, probably the best that can be said about that kit.

  13. 18 hours ago, wunwinglow said:

    No way. The fuselage is utterly borked. Beyond redemption. Look at the fuselage cross section immediately behind the canopy rear, it is elliptical, when we all know the upper flanks of the fuselage are pretty much flat, as is the rear canopy.  Classic case of some CAD monkey using a plan and a side elevation and just sweeping a vague shape along it, with no knowledge, or care, of what the actual cross sections are.  Awful model. Yuck.


    In my humble opinion!!

    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 forever gone! Appalling on both counts!


  14. 22 minutes ago, RLWP said:


    Comparing one kit to another seems a bit misleading.


    Presumably both have to arrive at the same compromise - fitting a 'scale' interior into a 'scale' exterior while having the fuselage thick enough to injection mould. Has Tamiya made the interior underscale allowing a scale exterior? Has Revell made the interior scale (and easier to see) which compromises the external dimensions?


    Without referring to  credible drawings how can I know and make a choice?


    Likewise, has the whole length of the Revell nose been stretched uniformly, or is all the 3mm in one panel?


    I'm not trying to be awkward or augmentative, I would genuinely like to know


    Have you got a link to your Photobucket folder?



    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.

  15. 51 minutes ago, wunwinglow said:

    Really??!! The Hobbyboss kit is a completely weird shape all over!  I gave mine away, and I don't do that very often....

    hobby boiss isn't perfect, but it is enormously better than the Revell.

  16. 42 minutes ago, RLWP said:

    Oh dear - here we go again


    As a no-nothing on the shapes and problems with the various kits, would it be possible for people to demonstrate exactly what the shortcomings are with each? Preferably pictures backed up with supporting images of real aeroplanes or credible drawings to show the issues


    I would find that very useful as it allows me to understand and make a choice. At the moment, it seems like every kit is branded 'wrong' and 'unacceptable' by someone leaving uninformed modellers (like me) very confused



    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.


  17. On 5/29/2020 at 8:46 AM, Aviacom said:


    l’ve always wanted to do a very early Spitfire Mk1 of 19 Sqn when they were at Duxford in 1938.


    I have the 1/32nd Revell Spit Mk2a (New version) but can’t seem to find and aftermarket for it regarding the Watts 2 Blade Prop, Resin Cockpit, Correct Oil Cooler, Etc.


    As it’s been an ambition of mine to do this for my lounge display cabinet, I’d like to throw all that I can at it to make it the ultimate Spitfire model.


    Can anyone point me in the right direction please of what aftermarket items I would need for this project, and where to get them please, as I’ve spent hours searching but not come up with anything.

    Thanks in advance

    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.

  18. 23 hours ago, RLWP said:

    You can also decide how you feel about the representation of the rivets on that version of the kit:






    They're representing countersunk, flush fitting rivets - I'd fill them in personally




    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.

  19. 11 hours ago, Pete Roberts said:

    Okay, a few things to look for with the first production Spitfires:


    1. Two blade wooden fixed pitch propellor. I believe this similar to that fitted to the Hurricane. I may have one here you can have, but need to check.

    2. No gun sight. Ring and bead sights were used, ring mounted where you see the gun sight on later versions, and a 'bead' mounted on the cowling

    3. Early windscreen - no armour plate panel

    4. The sliding canopy is flat topped and sides

    5. Early undercarriage retraction mechanism - pump action lever

    6. I don't think the voltage accumulator (?) was mounted behind the head rest, but rather lower down on the port cockpit wall, near the seat pan - no hard evidence for this

    7. Hydraulic fluid reservoir mounted behind the frame carrying the seat, starboard side. I believe this may have been the same as that used in the Walrus. 

    8. Given point 7. above, I think the oxygen tank may have been initially positioned beneath the seat. No hard evidence for this. 

    9. Mechanism to open the cockpit door is a simple ring with wire attached to each spring loaded locking pin. No crow bar.

    10. Metal seat

    11. There are two flare chutes behind the cockpit, exiting through the wing lower centre section.

    12. No armour plate, no rear vision mirror, no clear view panel in canopy

    13. Pole type aerial mounted on what looks like a spring base attached to the usual insulation plate 

    14. Guns have flash suppressors on them and some project beyond the leading edge of the wing

    15. I don't have the kit but suspect the belly needs to have two flare chute covers scribed to match the tubes behind the seat - this is why the wing join panel line on one side has a kink

    16. No IFF, no IFF insulators in the fuselage sides

    17. Two pronged pitot tube

    18. You kit is a Mk II so you will need to excluded or eliminate the Coffman starter bulge on the starboard cowling and the inspection windows each side of the forward fuselage. I am not sure which oil cooler is in the kit, but Mk I's had the early version - a sort of half circle when viewed from in front.

    19. All control surfaces - ailerons, elevators and rudder - were fabric covered

    20. Note the undercarriage retraction indicators in the upper wings


    I think that covers most of it but that is off the top of my head. I would suggest you look at getting the Eduard cockpit set for this kit as a good start, together with the Barracuda Update set and wheels. The Grey Matter update set has the early undercarriage retraction mechanism you need for the cockpit. You should be able to find some generic ring and bead photo etch. HGW provide some nice Sutton Harness sets. One is an 'early' version with what appears to be leather inserts at the ends. I am not sure if these were used on the early Spitfires. May be worth a check of reference photos.Your biggest head ache I think will be the canopy/windscreen.


    There are also some good walk around photos over on Britmodeller of a restored early build Spitfire - the restoration is very good and very close to what was (but has the IFF insulators in the fuselage sides!) so has some good references. When first delivered these aircraft had painted aluminium lower surfaces, the serial repeated under each wing, and I think 'B' type roundels - decals may also be an issue, but at 1/32 you could probably use stencils.


    Hope that helps






     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 resevoir on early aircraft.

    All early Spitfires had no voltage regulator at all [except the pilot] the battery charge was controlled by a three way switch on the instrument panel, 12v voltage regulators were fitted to reduce pilot workload in N series aircraft. All these early aircraft had Merlin II's which had significantly different wiring/instrument panel etc than aircrft built with the Merlin III.

  20. On 5/29/2020 at 9:16 AM, RLWP said:


    What's the betting you have started with the wrong kit...


    I have Modeller Datafile 3 from the year 2000 - which predates that kit and the evolution of aftermarket parts. That recommends using the Revell MK.I for a 1A, or the same kit with the Hasegawa MK.Vb wing for a 1B


    It has 19Sqn having MK.1B aeroplanes with cannons but no machine guns



    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.



  21. On 5/18/2020 at 1:50 PM, GrahamF said:

    You don't have to be an Einstein to work out what went wrong, basically they were expensive and not many people are into biplanes and the shops are full of unsold stock, the Lancaster was the last throw of the dice and they got it wrong because HKM released theirs.

    Turning up for the first time at Telford with their un finished Lancaster was an act of desperation at the very same time as HKM's launch which personally I thought was a bit unintegrous but probably water off a ducks back to a Chinese company.

    I have a suspicion that the moulding system they were using/hiring was some super cool thing that takes CAD data and turns it into tooling 'hands off' so that was obviously very expensive too.




    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 no doubt the kits are far far better than Tamiya or anybody else's.


    I am sure there are other issues that only those that worked directing that company really understand that are at play here, right now what has happened is a tragedy, and that is enough! everything else is somewhat churlish speculation which serves no one, and achieves nothing.


  22. 6 hours ago, airscale said:



    ..this is pretty much what Richard said at Telford - the surface finishes with stressed quilting & rivets is enough to have put them off anything with that kind of structure


    sadly, it's a one-off



    yes and Daniel Craig said he'd never do another Bond flic after Spectre such was the effort.....


    time and space always give perspective, the thing now is to appreciate what WNW and all who work there have done in bringing the Lancs into being!

  • Create New...