Italeri 1/32 Macchi Mc.202 Folgore

[Shoggz]

Just pure painting porn...

[JayW]

Wonderful work on an unfamiliar (to me anyway) beast.  Come back soon.

[scvrobeson]

Excellent work on it, I'll look forward to you getting back to it after a future project.

 

 

Matt 

[Thunnus]

I'm going to re-start the Folgore build now that the Spitfire XIVe conversion has been completed.  Lots of aftermarket on this one... Aircraft-in-Pixels 3D printed stuff... Eduard photo etch... gonna have to review and re-orient myself.

I DO know that the main hurdle before me was attaching the Eduard brass flaps.  There was lots of grinding and sanding of the kit interior to make the flap bays fit and I just lost interest in it.  I've verified as best as I can that the flaps will fit so I'm going to commit them to glue.  First the main flap bays are glued onto the upper wing interior. A bead of CA glue on the trailing edge was used to seal visible joint between the wing and flap bay.

 

Verifying that the glued-in flap bays fit onto the lower wings and fuselage.

 

After the main flap bays are locked down, I glue the inner flap bays onto the fuselage parts at the trailing edge of the wing roots.

 

Ok, I think I got past that mental hurdle.

 

The inner flap bays were one thing on the checklist before the fuselage halves can be glued together.  Another is the tail wheel.  It doesn't make much sense that you'd have to install the tail wheel so early in the build but that's the way Italeri designed it.

 

I've decided to chop up the tail wheel so that I can paint the wheel and center the flat spot later.

 

Now I can glue into the attachment point but the yoke and tail wheel can be added later.

 

One of the enhancements I purchased was the Aircraft-in-Pixels spinner and backplate.  I don't know if I'm sold on it yet... something about it seems off, IMO.  Let's break it out of its printed prison and take a comparative look.

 

Three Folgore spinners for your consideration: A-i-P on the left, Quickboost in the center and the Italeri version on the right.

 

[ROM]

Hi!

I think the AiP spinner is deformed. the wall thickness might be too thin...

[Dpgsbody55]

Nice to see this one back on your work bench, John.

 

Your tail wheel looks good so far and it was a good call to separate the wheel yoke and leg.  I broke mine during later construction and it would have been an easier fix if I'd done what you've done here.  I may well do the same as you when I get to my C.205.

 

Regarding the spinner, both the Quickboost and kit efforts are wrong.  The kit part is too long and traffic cone shaped, and on both the hole in the spinner tip is too big.  I used the AiP part which needs to be handled very carefully.  It's thin.  Having spent a lot of time looking at pictures, I also think the shape is better than the other two as well.  The real thing has a slight curve in it's profile around the prop blade root and that curve continues with a flatter radius to it's tip.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

[Thunnus]

22 hours ago, ROM said:

Hi!

I think the AiP spinner is deformed. the wall thickness might be too thin...

Thank you for pointing that out!  I've contacted Bo at AiP and he was gracious enough to acknowledge the defect and agree to send out a replacement part right away.  I don't think it will affect the overall shape of the spinner but rest assured that AiP has great customer service.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Dpgsbody55 said:

Nice to see this one back on your work bench, John.

 

Your tail wheel looks good so far and it was a good call to separate the wheel yoke and leg.  I broke mine during later construction and it would have been an easier fix if I'd done what you've done here.  I may well do the same as you when I get to my C.205.

 

Regarding the spinner, both the Quickboost and kit efforts are wrong.  The kit part is too long and traffic cone shaped, and on both the hole in the spinner tip is too big.  I used the AiP part which needs to be handled very carefully.  It's thin.  Having spent a lot of time looking at pictures, I also think the shape is better than the other two as well.  The real thing has a slight curve in it's profile around the prop blade root and that curve continues with a flatter radius to it's tip.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

Thank you Michael.  You may be right and I may be wrong but I've always thought that the Folgore had a distinctive "traffic cone" look to its spinner and the AiP spinner looks too curvy to my eye.

 

To check to see if my eyes are deceiving me, I decided to do a little photographic analysis.  This is not conclusive nor exact but since we are evaluating the spinners by comparing to known photos anyways, why not do a little superimposition exercise?  Yes, the angles are not going to be exact and there will be perspective distortion to consider but I think it can be a useful visual exercise.  I've chosen three photos of Folgores during wartime (not restorations) that show the spinner in approximate profile.  Please note... photos not taken in exact profile may make the spinner appear shorter, but NEVER longer, than actual.

 

On these photos, I've traced the spinner shapes in AutoCAD using red lines.

 

 

 

 

The red lines are then superimposed upon the photos of the three spinners.  The backplate base diameters are used as the primary sizing and rotation point of reference.

 

Spinner Example #1 (Italeri, Aircraft-in-Pixels, Quickboost, left to right)

 

 

Spinner Example #2

 

 

Spinner Example #3

 

[nmayhew]

It’s like Italeri hired the Trumpeter C team for both their 202 and 205 kits… so disappointing.

[Alain Gadbois]

In spite of the opinion often heard, it looks like the Italeri spinner is close to the real thing!

Thanks for the research snd comparison Thunnus!

[Dpgsbody55]

Interesting comparison, and more scientific than my Mk.1 eyeball.  It looks like the Quickboost option is the better way to go from this.  I may need new glasses .

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

[Paulpk]

I also think the kit spinner is good. Seems the blade opening proportions are more accurate

 

[scvrobeson]

Now I'm even more confused by the spinners. I know that you'll make the best choice for your build, no matter which brand it's from.

 

 

Matt 

[Erick Candanedo]

i came to this post because i have this kit and i read about the spinner issue.  That the kit is not really correct.

Now, it looks like the kit spinner is not that bad.. LOL.. I am even more confuse now. 

I actually thought i could sketh one in fusion 360 and print it.  Dont look to difficult, but dont know now if it will be worht it. 

[Thunnus]

Honestly, it is puzzling to me too.  When I first brought up the idea of super-imposing photos of the spinner as a check, it was vigorously dismissed.  That initial comparison showed that the kit spinner was pretty close but maybe a tad too long.  And interestingly, the modeler chose to cut the kit spinner down in length just a tad later on but never crediting the  photo comparison as being valid in any way.

 

I know that my eyeballs can deceive me.  There are just some things that are tricky to determine by eye alone.  As a fisherman, I know that my weight estimates can be WAY OFF so I rely on a scale to bring me back to reality.  As a traffic engineer, I've seen people's perception of vehicle speeds get skewed based on what their ears hear. 

 

This superimposition tool is intended to help me determine which spinner to use.  Based on my analysis of the three Folgore examples that I've chosen, I'm leaning towards the QuickBoost spinner.  The kit spinner would be a solid second choice for me but I think these results verifies my initial test of the kit spinner being slightly too long.  The A-i-P spinner deviates enough from the three examples that I'm dubious of its accuracy and it confirms what my eyes have been telling me about it being too short and squat.

 

That's where I'm headed but I'm in no way ultra confident that I am correct.  I dunno... maybe the Folgore used different versions of the spinner???

[Thunnus]

The installed Eduard PE flaps have been given a primer coat.

And the fuselage halves have been glued together, trapping the cockpit and engine and remembering to pinch the upper half of the tail wheel assembly between the two halves.

I found these pieces of piping in the box and remembered that I was going to add them after the engine was installed into the fuselage.

The flaps have been painted in the interior green color (Mr Hobby Aqueous IJA Grey H-62)

Checking the view into the landing gear wells with the wing bottom temporarily in place. I may re-route that newest brown piping as it looks like it would be in the way of the landing gear.

The front fuselage is comprised of many separate panels.

The panels all fit pretty darn well but not firmly enough to sit properly without glue.

Before the engine panels get glued into place, I think I'll have to install the A-i-P exhaust stubs.

They are very fragile and difficult to insert and it might be smarter to do it while I have additional access to the engine.