spacewolf Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 From what I've seen myself and from comments that others have said about the old Revell kit I think that there would be less to fix..certainly they got the riveting and lapped panels right. Orher than needing the gull mod to the lower fuselage I think there would actually be less work involved. Anyone have info/ more knowledge on this ? Cheers Vaughn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 From what I've seen myself and from comments that others have said about the old Revell kit I think that there would be less to fix..certainly they got the riveting and lapped panels right. Orher than needing the gull mod to the lower fuselage I think there would actually be less work involved. Anyone have info/ more knowledge on this ? Cheers Vaughn I think that this is my impression as well Vaughn; I suspect that the (original) Revell Spitfire Mk.I and Hasegawa Spitfire Mk.V will be very close together in terms of shape - I want one even more now so that I can assess it! Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Bellis Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Looking good, Derek! But, MAN that's a lot of work! From what I've seen myself and from comments that others have said about the old Revell kit I think that there would be less to fix..certainly they got the riveting and lapped panels right. Orher than needing the gull mod to the lower fuselage I think there would actually be less work involved. Anyone have info/ more knowledge on this ? I did a fairly comprehensive comparison of the two kits (original '60s Revell and the new Revell) a few months ago when the new kit first hit the shelves, but can't find the notes I took on them at the moment. What I do remember is that the shape of the horizontal stabilizers (or tail planes) are the worst part of the original kit. That, and the gull shape of the underside of the wings you already mentioned. Otherwise, the old kit is very close in overall shape to the new kit. Of course, the cockpit detailing in the old kit is very soft, and the main wheel wells are just holes. Given that the radiator & oil cooler need to be reworked or replaced in both kits, I didn't pay much attention to those parts in either kit. As for which kit would need the least amount of work, I'd say that it's a toss up either way. I might end up using the cockpit, stabs, gull section and other, better details from the new kit to kitbash the old one into a reasonable model. Both kits sell for about $20 each and are readily available (even though the old kit is long OOP), so the end result would still be less expensive than just one of either kit plus all the resin aftermarket required to fix it. If I can find my notes, I'll post them. D Derek B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Looking good, Derek! But, MAN that's a lot of work! I did a fairly comprehensive comparison of the two kits (original '60s Revell and the new Revell) a few months ago when the new kit first hit the shelves, but can't find the notes I took on them at the moment. What I do remember is that the shape of the horizontal stabilizers (or tail planes) are the worst part of the original kit. That, and the gull shape of the underside of the wings you already mentioned. Otherwise, the old kit is very close in overall shape to the new kit. Of course, the cockpit detailing in the old kit is very soft, and the main wheel wells are just holes. Given that the radiator & oil cooler need to be reworked or replaced in both kits, I didn't pay much attention to those parts in either kit. As for which kit would need the least amount of work, I'd say that it's a toss up either way. I might end up using the cockpit, stabs, gull section and other, better details from the new kit to kitbash the old one into a reasonable model. Both kits sell for about $20 each and are readily available (even though the old kit is long OOP), so the end result would still be less expensive than just one of either kit plus all the resin aftermarket required to fix it. If I can find my notes, I'll post them. D That sounds like a reasonable compromise D. (and one option that I hadn't considered). It would be interesting to know what you noted between the two kits if you can find your original review notes (i.e. Both old and new Revell kits), but I am sure that you are correct in your assumptions. I would be particularly interested in an assessment of the Hasegawa kit Vs. the original Revell kit if anyone has these for comparison? Many thanks Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) I have not had a great deal of time to do much to this kit - especially since the arrival of our grandaughter at the end of September - but I have made a little progress towards carrying out some cockpit work. The cockpit parts benefit fron careful clean up prior to any modification or assembly. The rear bukhead and aft frame ( and seat supports) were drilled out to enhance their appearance. The forward cockpit parts were cleaned up and drilled out and can be seen here assembled. First stage of modifying the seat was to create and open out the hand hole slot in the seat backrest using the lower part of the moulded cushion detal as a guide. Some 0.5mm plastic card was used as the basis of a new seat back rest cushion after removal of the incorrect kit seat cushion detail (leaving only the moulded lower edge area around the hand hole). New cushion formed. New seat cushion glued in place. Seat completed. I decided that I needed to start to partially paint some of the cockpit components and after research, it seems that the cockpit interior of the Spitfire Mk.I aircraft differed in colour from the usual later cockpit grey-green colour. I could not find an exact match to the colour required (which is much more of a lighter bluish green apple colour), so decided to mix my own shade. After looking at what paints I had, I managed to find some old tins of Humbrol enamel (some over 35 years old now). I have a very old and rare tin of Humbrol 1 (Eau de nil), which is not too far off the colour I need, Humbrol 90, which looks like a sky blue colour, and Humbrol 88, which is lime green - I can add a spot of this to bring the green colour strength back if I need to. I also did not like the idea of applying my interior green mix directly onto the Revell plastic without some form of undercoat to use as a base to which the top colours can key to. I decided that zinc-chromate would be appropriate and dug out my old tin of Humbrol HD 4 authentic enamel which was an absolute joy to paint as it covers extremely well even when thinned (this is the first time that I have picked up a paint brush in years and it was a blast!). You will also notice that I removed the moulded crow bar detail from the inside of the entry door prior to painting it. Edited December 12, 2014 by Derek B Uncarina 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share Posted December 3, 2014 Next stage is to address the fixed aft glazing issue. Because of the small square cut out at the top of the fuselage immediately aft of the entry door (which is non-existant on the real aircraft), this glazing is too far aft by approximatelt 2mm. The glazing is also about 2mm too deep (everything seems to be about 2mm out somewhere in this kit!). After considering which material to use for the corrections, I eventually decided upon using the same kit material. For this I employed the use of sections of scrap sprue which had been reduced to 2mm by filing/sanding two flats on them. 'Flattened' sprue strips glued in place. That's all for now. Derek Christoffer Lindelav 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peterpools Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Derek Wonderful progress on the front office. Any progress is still progress and enjoying the journey is the best part. Keep 'em coming peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alburymodeler Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Interesting if that rear canopy section is too deep: I will test fit on a Tamiya kit so see if it is useable for a Mk VII. I hope so. Derek B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony C Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Have only just discovered this project, stunning work, inspirational research, with proper modelling as a result! Learning a lot, for example, I would never have thought of correcting the prop blades in the manner that you have! Looking forward to the next instalment, Tony Derek B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 Have only just discovered this project, stunning work, inspirational research, with proper modelling as a result! Learning a lot, for example, I would never have thought of correcting the prop blades in the manner that you have! Looking forward to the next instalment, Tony Thanks Tony. That is the fun part of the modelling - working out what is correct and then trying to be creative enough to carry out those corrections, in this case, without recourse to any AM accessories whatsovever (I have always maintained that there is almost nothing that cannot be corrected or scratch built using palsticard and epoxy putty). Cheers Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loic Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Good to see you work on this one mate Derek B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 Quick cockpit assessment. Although parallex error makes it difficult to assess in the photograph, the drawings indicate that although the front edge of the cockpit entry door is almost in the correct location, the rear door edge is too short by almost 1mm (the door width on the drawing is close to 15mm, the kit door length is 13.98mm - this pretty well aligns with the first vertical row of rivets just after the kit rear door edge). This is perhaps why Revell have this quirky non-existant square cut-out just behind the door at the top of the fuselage cockpit sill? In addition to this, the aft fixed glazing is, as we know, about 2mm too deep - which I have now addressed by adding sprue to correct the height. The fact that the door length is a little short alters the positiong of the kit aft fixed glazing and dependent upon the datum that you use (I am using the rudder king post as mine - which produces its own problems with the fin leading edge, but I shall address that later), the glazing will have to be moved forward to bring everything back into alignment again (in this case, my aft fixed glazing needs to be moved forward by approximately 1.5mm in order to meet the correct door length). This, of course, means that I now have to modify my entry door to widen it by about 1mm. This picture provides a better idea of the door width issue and where the aft fixed glazing needs to be repositioned to be correct to drawing. Adjusting the door and aft fixed glazing will have an impact upon the positioning of the internal cockpit fuselage frames 11 and 12 at these points, so I loosely assembled them in the kit fuselage at the normal kit location points to assess how far out they would because of my intended corrections. As you can see, frames 11 and 12 pretty well line up correctly with my marks, which indicates to me that the cockpit internal details have actually been designed correctly and it is the external fuselage that has the issues - this gives me a degree of comfort in the knowledge that I must be heading in the right direction (and also that the drawings are pretty accurate as well) Derek Tomek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peterpools Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Derek Amazing detective work and what a fix! Keep 'em coming Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 Derek Amazing detective work and what a fix! Keep 'em coming Peter Thanks Peter. I think that it is partly due to my inherent desire to get details correct and also partially due to my daytime professional role Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor K2 Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Hi Derek, fantastic work so far, you always have had an amazing eye for detail. Will you have to address the rivet line to align with the frames as well (these look out by at least the width of the frames). It's says something that this kit is providing such feedback, in one camp it will suit the "if it looks like a Spitfire it will do for me" then there are the perfectionist's who are not afraid to spend time to address the issues and show the rest of us "mere mortals" how achievable it is to produce an acceptable compromise with a limited amount of material. Thanks Derek for yet another inspirational and informative master class. Bob Derek B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now