Spitfire MkVb to MkIX conversion 1/24 349 sqn

[red Dog]

Some colour depth for the grey and green added.

It's too visible on purpose for now as I expect further treatment to tone this all down:

 

First the grey: with a drop of Medium seay grey added rather than white

 

 

looks like my 3 coats of scratching effect are already working, paint comes off even with no scratching …. i have the feeling it may have been a bit overdone

 

Then the green: (base colour + a drop of white.)

 

 

Minor chipping started as I couldn't hold it any longer  

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by red Dog

[red Dog]

and the chipping frenzy got worse on the other side:

I usually use chipping fluid with tamiya or gunze acrylics, it is the first time I use them with MRP, and I'm happy to report that (as expected) it works fine. Maybe even too fine - probably a consequence of my 3 layers of chipping fluids, I won't do that anymore)

For the chipping effect, I apply water with a brush where I want the chipping, let it soak for a bit then scraxt with the two sponges or the needle and rub accordingly.

IMHO it's much better than any result I can get with a fine brush and silver paint.

 

 

Next step was to paint the yellow ID bands and the propeller tips.

Masking the ID band and the prop tip wasn't a problem and a base coat of white was airbrushed. I still prefer airbrushing the light colours on a white coat otherwise I Always end up with too thick a coat of paint which tends to have a step effect from the camouflage colours.

 

After white paint was applied on the prop tips, I discovered yet another air Bubble in the resin, which screamed to be filled

 

For these corrections, I usually use water based Vallejo putty which is not very good for large correction because it sinks a lot.
But it quickly dries and two quick applications of putty each being wiped with a watered Q-tip made short work of the hole

 

 

 

The ID bands and the prop tips where then sprayed marker yellow

Previous to that the wingtip lights were added and sanded flush with the wings. That removed paint but I will correct that later on. I'm sure I will have many other paint correction soon...

 

To try to keep these to a minimum I coated the model with semi gloss MRP twice, hoping that would prevent the paint to lift too much during the masking sessions.
Now I realise that using 3 coats of scratching effect was Indeed overkill and that it would have been better to plan ahead and avoid scratcing product where masks are supposed to be applied at later stages …

Edited February 17, 2020 by red Dog

[Subodai]

Really nice work, I need to start adding tone to mine, need to pickup the MRP white me thinks. What ratio of main colour to white where you using?

[red Dog]

Usually I have the base colour in my airbrush and I dip a brush in white and add it to the cup and mix it.

I also add a bit more thinner (Mr colour levelling thinner) and lower my PSI.

Depending on how visible I want the effect to be it is 1,2 or 3 drop max.

 

I also tend to block my trigger on my H&S airbrush. That prevents me from pulling too far aft and have too much paint getting out on the same spot.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by red Dog

[red Dog]

Getting ready for masks:

 

For the roundels I used a set in kabuki paper initially bought for the Typhoon in 1/24.

There are enough masks to paint multiple aircraft. I checked the masks size against the airfix spitfire decals and they all matched except the top wing roundels being just a tad smaller. Something I can live with!

 

First step is to find the correct spot for the masks

 

Then I always prefer to base coat in white, I use straight XF-2 from Tamiya.

I also always mark my masks accross all the different parts to ease up the alignement process often needed when removing and replacing masks:

 

The red paint is a mix I made for the previous spitfire in 1/32. I made more than necessary knowing I have quite a few RAF subjects in the queue that may benefit the colour.

 

Because of the scratching effect applied previously around the wing gun bay doors, I elected NOT to mask the blue part of the wing top roundels.

The red part was sprayed in the centre and I had to find a way to ensure that the red mask was perfectly placed back in the centre.
Usually I do that by aligning masks against each other, but here obviously I had no guide. I thus used the diagonals I always draw and by marking the edge of the circle on two strips of tamiya tape, I could ensure the mask was positioned back in the centre.
To avoid the kabuki to be too sticky, I repeatedly stuck it on the desk, hoping that would be enough to prevent the paint from lifting upon mask removal

 

I thought I had MRP marking blue but all I had was insigna blue, so I had to revert to H326 from Gunze with a bit of colour variation for the large blue area

 

 

Removing the masks damaged the initial camouflage paint around the gun bays, which was expected. But I'm glad the paintwork for the masks wasn't damaged at all.
Repairing the camouflage bits is a no brainer and will be done after fitting the tail which will need a lot of putty anyway

 

 

Final result of the fuselage and tail work. IMHO it's always better than using decals, especially in this scale where these decals are so huge and hardly of good quality

 

 

 

[DonH]

That looks really good. I also prefer masks to decals, especially at this scale. You have done a great job with them, the colours of the roundels look perfect.

 

What struck me with the photos is that 1/24 can look very toy like and clunky. Your model is not like that at all, you have really achieved a great look and the finished article is going to look exceptional.

[bdthoresen]

RD-

 

Wow, that’s looking hella nice. Your windshield mods changed the profile enough to make it look more correct. And you paintwork thus far is excellent!

 

Keep it up. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel!

 

THOR   

[red Dog]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2020 at 11:41 AM, DonH said:

What struck me with the photos is that 1/24 can look very toy like and clunky. Your model is not like that at all, you have really achieved a great look and the finished article is going to look exceptional.

Thank you very much Don.
It's funny you mention that because it's exactly how I see my previous 1/24 builds  
 

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2020 at 2:57 PM, bdthoresen said:

Wow, that’s looking hella nice. Your windshield mods changed the profile enough to make it look more correct. And you paintwork thus far is excellent!

Keep it up. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel!

 

THOR   

Thanks you Thor, I see that light as well and while I am glad to get there, It's been a great project all the way.
But after this one I confess I will need something simple 

[red Dog]

I asked DN models to cut custom masks for a series of my planned builds and the GE & L + serials for this model were part of the custom set I asked them to cut.

They were very patient with my design phase and the custom masks were swiftly delivered after I gave my OK on the last test proof they sent.

 

There is no real font used for the RAF code letters I read and these might be always different from one aircrfat to another and from one squadron to another.
The 349th sqn letters style is very typical and these were created accordingly.

 

The vinyl was actually less aggressive than the kabuki earlier and I could mask the squadron code and individual letter and serial with no further chipping of the base paint.

Another advantage of that semi transparent vinyl is that I found them easier to align correctly compared to using opaque masks such as Kabuki paper.

 

 

Quick spray or MRP sky

 

Serial PT723 was painted with masks from the same custom cut order and after mask removals the model really came to life

 

There was a bit of a headache going on trying to identify if codes were L-GE on both sides of if one side was L-GE and the other GE-L

I came to the conclusion that all 349th aircraft were coded with the GE closer to the canopy and the individual letter closer to the tail.

SO the other side is coded GE-L

 

[red Dog]

Having Sky colour in my airbrush cup I quickly sprayed the prop spinner in sky.
It will be repainted in black later on but I was hoping to scratch the black and see the sky under.

So here is a unique chance to see the model with a sky spinner, which IMHO is much prettier than the black spinner painted circa 1944.

 

 

It's also the first time I dryfit the props, the inner hole of the spinners had to be milled to allow precise positionning of the 4 prop blades.

I reckon I haven't see often a 4 bladed spitfire in this scale so this model might be a spitfire very often seen, but it has Something very unique … at least to me :-)

 

 

[red Dog]

Speaking of the prop,

Spitfire props are wood, right? So you can't really scratch them.

 

 

But the leading edge is covered with a strip of metal for increased protection.

It's barely visible on the real prop so I decided to add a strip of self adhesive thin aluminium paper to each prop blade leading edge.

That will hopefully make the resin casting defaults less visible and provide a good base for scratching effect of only the leading edge after a coat of black paint.

 

 

The spinner has been repainted in black and chipping was attempted. Unfortunately the sky colour went away with the black and chipping revealed only the aluminium base colour I first sprayed.  I remember I Indeed coated the aluminium spinner with mig scratching effect. Nice failed attempt

 

 

[Sparzanza]

2 hours ago, red Dog said:

Speaking of the prop,

Spitfire props are wood, right? So you can't really scratch them.

 

I think they gave up on wooden propellers after the Mk1, but I am not 100% certain.

[Markjames1968]

8 hours ago, Sparzanza said:

 

I think they gave up on wooden propellers after the Mk1, but I am not 100% certain.

Nope, even Griffon spits had wood props, 

[Skyraider3D]

On 9/11/2019 at 3:02 PM, red Dog said:

thanks Mike,

 

I have that picture but it doesn't give any further indication. As you can see it's well past the war, probably circa 1946 when 349 and 350th were fully under Belgian command. (They stayed Under RAF command till 1946) It's very obvious from the belgian roundels. They both remained in Germany till late 1946 (Fasberg) and then came back to Belgium to Beauvechain air base (which is still operationnal today)

In 1945, these aircraft all had the RAF roundels and fin flashes - and some were Mk IX and not (yet) Mk XVI.
The 349 traded Mk IX for MK XVI in May 1945 and 350th traded their Mk XIV for MkXVI in November 1945.

The first aircraft GE-C is definitely 349th with a blue spinner and the rest are 350th sqn with red spinners.
SG17 was never a serial of 349th, but definitely one of the 350th.

349th code was GL and 350th code was MN.

 

 

I think that GE-L profile might be wrong ,

349 had a blue spinner in these days and 350th had red spinners. That was official but hard to see the difference on the original b&w picture. Although it is clearly noticed in the picture above.
So IMHO GE-L should be a blue spinner in that profile.
 

TB991 is Indeed the famous Liège, which is a city in Belgium and came from the code letter LG E on one side of the aircraft

It's a Mk XVI operational from 24 May 1945 to 20 Octobre 1946 by 349th sqn.

 

The GE-L I am building is PT723 operational from 31 August 1944 to 22 February 1945 in wartime with RAF roundels

It's not the same aircraft

 

Between the two, there was another GE-L from 30 April 1945 to 24 May 1945: TB581 which was also a MkXVI

 

 

Just a little heads-up... the aircraft in your photo above is TB581, an LF Mk XVIe. It is indeed the same aircraft as the one dubbed "Liege". If you look carefully you can just make out the "T" of the registration. Don't let the "colours" fool you, appearances can differ greatly in b&w photos depending on the film that was used and codes and spinners could've been overpainted at one point or another.

 

You said the missing stub on the wing was troubling you, that's because you are looking at an LF Mk XVIe with E-wing.

 

If I am not mistaken PT723 was built as an LF Mk IXc with round wing tips, C-wing and round rudder. It looked very much like the machine "GE-E" on the French-language book on 349 Sqn by Bar & Roba, which was another PT###-range LF Mk IXc.

 

 

Another shot of GE-E. Note the round wing tip of the sister machine and of course the location of the green navigation light.

 

I think I am correct in my assessment above, but please double-check my comments with an expert first!

 

Great work by the way!

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Skyraider3D

[red Dog]

Very Interesting, thank you very much for your feedback.

 

TB581 was indeed a Spit LF Mk XVI with a Merlin 266 engine but it was not the Liege one

It flew with the 349th from 30/04/1945 to 24/05/1945

 

Liege was actually TB991 also a Spit LF Mk XVI used from 24/05/1945 to 26/10/1946 then on Belgian airforce Loan and it crashed 03/02/1947

Liège had Belgian roundels. (but TB991 served under RAF command as well earlier in its assignement)

 

This is clearly identified by the 349th roster list as seen below:

 

Here's in another proof: 

Serial for Liege is clearly visible and it's not TB581 but TB991

 

indeed all TB coded Spits were mk XVI

the Mk IX were in the MH, MJ, MK, ML, NH, PL, PT, PV, RK and RX code serials.

 

So the Spitfire I am building in this topic is definitely a LF Mk IX with a Merlin 66 engine.

From the same 349 Roster List:

 

 

I think Mk IX with clipped wings and pointy tails were quite possible, these are not telltale signs of a MkXVI

here is a picture of the 349 where we can see GE-X viewed from the right.

It as a pointy tails and clipped wings. 

You could tell me this is a MkXVI and I couldn't deny it as I can't make out its serial.

 

But Y-GE further back on the picture is should be a Mk IX with also a pointy tail and most probably clipped wings

There was (as far as I can tell from the 349 roster list) no Mk XVI coded Y GE or GE Y for that matter, Y-GE was (still from the 349 roster list) a Mk IX with serial NH419 (15/06/44 - 10/08/44) or another mk IX serial PL451 from 10/08/1944 to 28/09/44 or another mk IX serial PT851 from 07/09/44 to 22/02/1945.

 

The absence of tail band on these Spitfires makes me think that the picture above was taken around op Bodenplatte (If I am not mistaken, that's when the RAF instruction to remove the SKY tail band was issued) which  happened very early January 1945. So Y-GE in the picture above is most certainly PT851 as both the other 2 candidates are 1944 and thus before Bodenplatte and should have the Sky fuselage band. 

If I take Y-GE being PT851 in the above picture, then the only GE-X in that timeframe was serial PT830, referenced as a mkIX in the roster list as well and it definitely has also the pointy tail and the clipped wings (note the obvious wingtip light  )

 

Therefore chances that PT723, LF MkIX operating in the same timeframe (sept 44 to february 45) has the pointed tail and clipped wings as well are quite possible as well, although I have no picture to prove it

the removal of the sky band often deleted the serials that were overpainted as well and probably not directly repainted, that makes the ID around that time quite difficult

 

In any way I thank you very much, I enjoyed the few hours of research I made trying to validate either points

You made me doubt but at this time I still think my theory is still valid but being an amateur at history and research and Spitfires in general I reserve the right to be wrong  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by red Dog