New Revell Spitfire Mk II build

[Cees Broere]

A naughty bench perhaps?
Cees

[Royboy]

In fairness Roy, I think the yellow card was shown more than once, on top of gentler warnings... The red one appears sadly justified in this case, although it is a pity that adult people cannot just adjust their behaviour and abate their own incense before that...

 

Hubert.

 

I was thinking ahead of other possible miscreants on this board Hubert, a fair comment made in this particular case though. 

[Bill Cross]

I hate to see someone banned.

 

But not being a part of the behind-the-scenes, back & forth the mods were, I will defer to their better judgement.

 

This place tolerates a certain amount of "hard tackles" (to continue the soccer/football metaphor). I've been tackled a few times, yet am none the worse for wear. But like footballers, we should extend a hand to the person we tackled and move on with the game.

 

At the end of the day, this is a modeling forum run and moderated by volunteers. No one person, no matter how smart, can be allowed to turn it into a combat zone.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, this person was very kind to me personally and sent along a detailed PM with information about backdating this kit to a Mk.I (and fixing its problems).

[airscale]

had to happen in my opinion and 100% the right decision..

 

..it's a shame to lose what I am sure is valuable insight, but the 'experience' of getting that insight I have to say personally as a member, advocate and supporter of LSP was perpetually toxic, frustrating and corrosive to this place

 

a price not worth paying and glad action has been taken..

 

now, about that MkII - didn't that variant have a nosewheel?

 

Peter

[LSP_Mike]

Bill, if you care to edit a tweak list from your PM, I'd think that would at least provide a start line or base for the general membership to utilize.

 As regards BoB Spittys, I think personally that the only way to fight the attrition would be to get the machines back in the air as fast as possible, which would account for the seeming variations.

Am I entirely off base with that viewpoint? (1940-ish?).

[Artful69]

As regards BoB Spittys, I think personally that the only way to fight the attrition would be to get the machines back in the air as fast as possible, which would account for the seeming variations.

Am I entirely off base with that viewpoint? (1940-ish?).

 

No ... not off base at all! ... Quite the opposite!

 

I'm no where near as well read as Edgar - So he might have a different take.

 

However ... I have recently read a couple of accounts of the rather rapid re-organisation and stream-lining of aircraft production and tweaking of repair organisation during May/June 1940 ... interesting! ... New classifications (based mainly on repair timeframes and seasoned with a heavy dose of common sense) were given to damaged aircraft and so speed of repair increased markedly during this period ...

 

Already, due to several differing repair bodies being utilised (some civilian, some not), a strict set of guidelines conducting and advising on repairs must have been followed (as Edgar rightly points out with use of records), in order that all aircraft remain basically the same so different pilots could be immediately familiar and able to fly any aircraft put in front of them (again, a common sense approach).

 

Any "Field Mod" (or in this case, damaged part replacement) would thus be an upgrade that would be mirroring the 'new' aircraft production lines. In short, documented as a requirement to ALL existing aircraft either in production or repair

 

As to variations during the BoB period ... there would not have been a large amount of these, I would think, as only the Mk.I and Mk.II (later) Spitfires were in production during this time. However ... I believe that some of the earlier conflagration on the thread here was revolving around the obvious later model parts on early model aircraft (photographic aircraft supplied). Earlier comment quoted below to save time reiterating ...

 

 

 ... anything salvageable, was. Common sense to do so, really, but I wouldn't have thought about this otherwise ...

 

It's the same with motor vehicle repairs ... if a part needs replacing in a vehicle model that is now obsolete, you can either find a reconditioned used part, or find a new part - not specifically made for that model - but one that fits exactly the same and may be, in some ways, better! ...

 

Taking the Salvage/Repair/Upgrade approach it is little wonder that later on ... Circa 1941-1943, we find Mk.II spitfires with various Mks of replacement parts!!

 

Rog

Edited July 4, 2014 by Artful69

[Edgar Brooks]

During the early 70s, I was fortunate to work with an ex-609 Squadron erk (how I wish I'd questioned him more closely, now,) who was with them during the Battle, and he told me how they would do a patch repair, then "slap on any paint, green, brown, black, sky-blue-pink, didn't matter what, just get it on ,and get them up."

One of the hardest things, in all this, to persuade modellers not to think as modellers, but as officialdom desperately trying to stop aircrew, friends, and their families being killed, and their orders were issued with that in mind, not to make an airframe look nice.

Reading "They would have done ........."(fill in the gap as it suits) always depresses me, because "they" would have done as they were told, admittedly sometimes with improvisation, but rarely out of bloodymindedness, since that was fraught with danger.

Local Technical Committees discussed every change, however minor (as an example, there's one full-blown Spitfire modification regarding the change of material in a washer,) before approval, and every factory had a Ministry-appointed Resident Technical Officer, whose job it was to ensure compliance.

At one of the local furniture factories, producing Mosquito wings, instead of filling a mismatch hole with a piece of wood cut to shape then gluing it into place, one man decided (reportedly for deliberate sabotage, but that's debatable) to just stuff the hole with paper, and pour the glue on top. He and the entire factory management were arraigned in Aylesbury Crown Court, charged with sabotage (which incurred the death penalty.) No further evidence was proffered, though, when the RTO reported that his "sabotage" was actually stronger than the approved method.

There were four grades of modification, which varied from immediate incorporation onto the production line, incorporation when feasible, incorporation during repair, and able to be done by the operating unit (and there were variations in those 4 classifications.) As a(nother) example, modification of the universal wing from "C" to "E" armament was supposed to be done only by a Supermarine-approved working party, since it involved removal, and blanking-off, of some of the wings' internal plumbing (it's believed that some Canadian Squadrons may have ignored that, and done it anyway, but they were famous for their "independence.")

Sorry for the length of this, but it's a very complex subject.

Edgar

[Cees Broere]

Thanks Edgar,

This includes patching a large hole with a piece cut from an oilcan as I read somewhere?

Cees

[PhilB]

During the early 70s, I was fortunate to work with an ex-609 Squadron erk (how I wish I'd questioned him more closely, now,) who was with them during the Battle, and he told me how they would do a patch repair, then "slap on any paint, green, brown, black, sky-blue-pink, didn't matter what, just get it on ,and get them up."

Very true.

My late father was an engineering officer with 249 and 126 squadrons on Malta from 1941 to 1943. (Likewise I wish I had questioned him more closely but hadn't got back into modelling then).

It always makes me smile when I see arguments about the colours of Malta spits especially the codes.

I remember him telling me that when the seige was at its height they worried more about spares to keep them flying rather than paint.

Codes were any visible colours they could get their hands on, yellow, white, sky - it didn't matter, sometimes no codes at all.

[Tony T]

I hate to see someone banned.

...

In the interest of full disclosure, this person was very kind to me personally and sent along a detailed PM with information about backdating this kit to a Mk.I (and fixing its problems).

In the interests of complete disclosure, would you kindly share that information here?

 

Judging by the head of steam it created I'm inclined to consider Simon as mostly reliable - I think he and Edgar differed over relatively minor points. And in his defence, while researching latter day USAF history, I often find the official paperwork contradicted by first hand experiences - oftentimes paperwork projects a plan that is not adhered to in real life, but the paperwork plan becomes the official history, ignoring reality.

 

On the Revell Spittie, I very much want to know how to go about "...fixing its problems".

 

Thanks

 

Tony

[mozart]

"I very much want to know how to go about "...fixing its problems".

 

And despite all that's been written, frequently very knowledgeably, your question (and that of others) hasn't been answered yet Tony!

Max

[wunwinglow]

The manual stated clearly the size of bolts holding in the windscreen of BAC 111 on flight 5390, but the repair was done with slightly smaller ones, and we all know what happened next. That was a mistake of course, but it goes to show things are not always done 'by the book' . Only this morning, there was a news report about passengers seeing an authorised Speed Tape repair on their aircraft come apart in mid-air; can't imagine what they thought at the time!!

 

In a pressure cooker environment such as the Battle of Britain, things MUST have been adjusted, fixed, ignored, improvised, held up by supply issues, manpower, skills and so on. But it is so important to know what COULD be done, WHEN it could have been done, WHY it was done, HOW it was done, so that in the absence of a 200 pic walk-around set of your chosen subject, you can make at least an educated guess on what to do, if you feel it is necessary. And that is why threads like this are so fascinating, even if passions get a bit fiery at times!

 

Real aircraft are NOT like plastic kits; they are not all banged out of the same mould, so are NOT identical. Small groups might be very very similar, but all aircraft get modified, repaired, up-dated, from almost the moment they leave the factory. 

 

Thanks Edgar and Simon, for your efforts. I am sorry to see anyone told to leave the forum, I think we are, as a group, the poorer for it, but I fully understand why the moderators have made their decisions. Tough call. Lesson to be learnt, of course.....

 

Tim

[AlexM]

I would bet that Revell will release a BoB Mk.I sooner or later. It seem to be a business strategy to release a less popular variant that will nevertheless find enough costumers (for example because there's no alternative) before a more popular variant that everyone has been waiting for will be released. We had the Ju 88 A-1 before the A-4, and the He 111 P-1 before the H-6. The same could be said if Tamiya would release a later Corsair variant, since for many people the Birdcage seems to be the most unpopular varian.

[Guest Peterpools]

Alex

Wouldn't that be perfect .. a BOB Spit without needing all the corrections

Peter

[AlexM]

There is obviously a conspiracy going on between Revell and the AMB (Aftermarket-Brotherhood) that forces us to spend our money for conversion sets