19squadron

Exactly.

For Clarity's sake ;- K5054's wingspan is given variously between 37ft and 37ft and 1/2 inch, the same as the single piece Spitfire wing in drawing MAC 2620 [37ft] in 1936 the Airmin issued a requirement for a redesign for both Hurricane and Spitfire wings for detachable wingtips, since it was felt that they were going to get damaged in service and a wingtip was an easier and cheaper remedy rather than an entire wing change. The result was the production wing with a detachable wingtip and a reduced span of 36ft 10inches for the Spitfire. This wingtip was of the form shown in the photograph I posted and has 4 radii in the wingtip curve. K5054 had two pure curves and a simpler shape.

I apologise, my mistake, that is the original Supermarine drawing actually from 1935. It is the one piece wing with no separate wingtip which has a 3 1/2 inch wider wingspan [ie the same span as K5054] than the drawing with the detachable wingtip used for production aircraft.

And here by comparison and without pointing to any issue is a Kotare built from the box?

And here again the Cheap Hasegawa built OOB

That is true, However had this thread not been written, many people would have gone on with the assumption that the Kotare was as well designed as WNW's kits with the obvious exception of the SE5a and it's exhaustively discussed rib-tape free stabiliser, [which even had an aftermarket corrected resin replacement!] and was as well researched as the latter. Those assumptions are clearly very wrong in my opinion, however if others wish to build "OTB", that has a very long tradition that is very well recorded on this forum's "Ready for Inspection" pages,and has been true of all Revell's and Hasegawa Spitfire kits for very many years. Here Lock's Spitfire built OOB from a Hasegawa kit, for very little money [£20].

With respect Don, you do not have Supermarine's drawings, you have A.L. Bentley's drawings for modelers which is not the same thing at all. You please yourself with the kit, but The Kotare wing is not correct when viewed by comparison to an original Spitfire wing, most obviously the wingtip. FYI here are the Supermarine Drawing of the wing drawn in 1935 and in 1937, they include the version with no detachable wingtip, and the version where the wintip is bolted to the main plane with two bolts. The numbers in circles refer to further notes and drawings to detail elements of this general drawing.

The differences are also both drawn and described in this drawing, which is from original Supermarine drawings.

Yes and I find them totally different shapes, but so the real Spitfire wingtip is a very different shape to the Kotare.

Don, the wingtip for you, a completely different shape to the Kotare, note how the curve on the leading edge before the winglight changes, and in fact has two radii between the winglight and the tip. The Kotare has just a continuos curve along the leading edge all the way to the tip. That is not true to a Spitfire.

Don You said exactly the opposite to much of your post here, You might look at the photo of the Spitfire wingtip and compare that with the Kotare to see the issues, rather than try and compare the Tamiya to the kotare, that might be easier. As far as the CS prop control goes - I don't have the "Early Spitfire kit" so I never mentioned that boxing though you are entirely correct to say that any profile dated 1938-1939 should have the two speed de Havilland prop push pull in the cockpit. However in their K32001 "Mid Spitfire Boxing Profile A. N3180 with a Rotol prop should have CS control, all Rotol props were always CS control, and it is not in the Kotare which is an error. profile B. N3277 is dated August 1940, when it was without doubt converted to CS control, An error on Kotare's part. profile C. P9495 is dated june to july 1940, it was converted to CS in the last week of june, so you have a few days there, but NOT if you want to represent this aircraft during the Battle of Britain. Kotare K32601 Profile A only. P9386 represented at 19 squadron on or after 3 september 1940 when it had most definitely been converted to CS control, therefore an error by Kotare But in fact from both the written list of new parts and on the pic of the new sprues for Kotares forthcoming Spitfire MkVa there is no new port side fuselage interior panel with a throttle quadrant with CS control suggesting that they were not going to correct this error even for an aircraft fitted with a Merlin 45 and a Rotol prop. We will see if subsequent to this discussion a new part appears on a sprue or perhaps there will be a new sprue with a corrected fuselage port side? who knows???????

Here are pics of an original unrestored Spitfire showing the flush rivets in the engine cowl. These rivets were never puttied.

Absolutely, I agree.

The engine cowls were never puttied, only the leading edge panel on the wings. And while some newly made panels are not made as they were during the war years - it is always a mistake to rely on low resolution wartime photographs to try and understand finer details without resorting to factory drawings, instructions and documents that detail and record production methods. An error Kotare has fallen into repeatedly.

Really - the first pic, a photo of a 54 squadron aircraft shows well-fitting panels, the second a well-fitting panel with a slight edge on the trailing edge, third pic flush, seventh pic with fitters working The Kotare kit on the other hand has the gun covers 0.5mm proud - a joke, which only comes from those at Kotare making a huge mistake.

Well said Paul.

Yes - If I am really interested in something, I care about it. And caring about something means giving the respect to do justice to whatever it is, not simply exploit it. That is the way I am made.

Revell made a lot of mistakes in their kit, but they don't set themselves up as an authority on the aircraft, in fact on the contrary. Eduard made mistakes in their 1/48 Bf109g and withdrew the whole kit, and issued new tooling. Personally, I found the people at Eduard incredibly hard-working and dedicated, despite an extraordinary workload, to make accurate kits, there is no doubt despite a very few small niggles they did a far far better job than Kotare. Eduard are also quite extraordinarily generous and grateful when they receive the help that they judge valuable. The lack of respect I see in Kotare is towards Spitfires and the efforts of R J Mitchell, B Shenstone and J Smith. Their clients will make of the kit what they will, and some people will be moved as with Revell's kits, to add to, or correct the kits. The important thing as Edgar Brookes always used to say is to hold a kit up for what it is and discuss the problems, which is surely one of the reasons for forums such as this?

Whether it is "a crime" or "a misdemeanor" the important first step is to acknowledge the errors. The Revell Spitfire MkII is not very good either, not only do I wish Revell every success, but I wonder - am I not right to say that all the errors in that Spitfire were not only much discussed, but Edgar Brookes wrote a list of the errors for LSP and Brtitmodeller?

I'll forgive you. But I recognise that many many people, especially in the US do not hold the Spitfire up as THE most beautiful aircraft of all time, but instead hold the P51 as highest in their esteem, others may feel the same about a Bf109, or an F16? To me the Spitfire holds a very special place, and deserves to be both appreciated and respected for what it is - to me.

I disagree, because if you read the accounts J Mitchell's philosophy towards his Racers and the Spitfire plus the records for correcting the ill-fitting access panels on K5054, then a model, which is quite different from a Work of Art is best when it is not only sensitively and accurately done, but pays heed to the original design philosophy. And the Kotare does not do that. So for me the Kotare kit is carelessly executed, and certainly not with the care that both Eduard and Tamiya have exhibited in their work.

Service damage, which is a very different thing from the whole panel being proud of the wing surface, including and critically, the leading edge which is what Kotare have done, in the face of the whole design philosophy and the reality of manufacture of R J Mitchell's beautiful machine, which in my view is unforgivable and illustrates a fundamental lack of respect for the design and the designer, not to mention all who maintained the aircraft.

Here is the wing of a totally unrestored Spitfire R6915, showing not only the wing surface typical of anything but an airframe still in the factory, but despite all the age and use here, gun covers lying as they were designed to do, entirely flush with the wing surface - as I said this was both a design feature most carefully directed by RJ Mitchell and executed by Joseph Smith, but also a service issue which is why you might find the odd quiver on the trailing edge of an access panel or cover, but never on a leading edge. It was also for that reason a maintenance issue for fitters to ensure all panels and particularly leading edges were flush. The Kotare kit runs a coach and horses through R J Mitchell's very specific requirement and J Smiths execution in this matter.