Spitfire Mk1. Differences between Mid and Late

[Archimedes]

I wasn’t going to post further to this topic until I pulled out an old Revell Mk1 kit last night and sat a few parts next to those from Kotare. The Revell kit I have (ironically) has markings for Alan Deere’s K-LB just like the ‘lead’ set of marking from the Kotare kit.  Bu that is not what i am focusing on here.  I just wanted to take a brief look at what the major parts showed me. 

 

Fuselage:

The two are engineered entirely differently but we can say the length is the same. The major landmarks are within 1 mm of each other. 

 

Notable features: The Kotare kit engineering provides a range of variants of early Spitfire. The Revell appears strictly for a Mk1 though I am no Spitfire expert (@19squadron or @Shoggz you may want to comment?)

 

The Revell kit’s two obvious bugbears appear to be the amount of flash and the cockpit hood rail. This cavity is so deep and so wide I found Luke Skywalker doing a trench run to blow up the Death Star in it.  The Kotare kit, by contrast has a much finer location rail for the hood. I have not got a set of drawings reduced to 1/32 yet so I will not comment on how either compare to the real aircraft. 

 

Here is where I really got my first look at the surface finish of both kits. the Kotare kit has prominent raised rivets at the rear of the fuselage and a few ‘flush rivet’ representations ahead of the cockpit door. The Revell in contrast has both raised and flush rivet representations but they are much finer and the surface of the panels is smoother. The raised rivets on the Kotare kit look a bit overdone to me. Surface finish on the fuselage; Revell get the win. Curiouser and curiouser…

EDIT: What neither kit have is any representation of the dimples from bucking rivets nor damage to panels in use. Checkout this image of a Mk1 showing the dimples next to the guy on the right’s left knee and the bloody great ding in the top cowling (both circled in red).

 

More to follow later together with some comparator period photos of Mk1’s. 

 

Kind regards,

Paul

Edited January 4 by Archimedes
Updated

[Archimedes]

Let’s move onto the wings.

 

Here is a real Spitfire wing: It is notable that the gun access panels are, very obviously, level with the rest of the wing. Thanks to the raking light in this shot we can see the rippling of the panels (due the ground crew’s ammo boots no doubt…)

 

Here are the two kit wings (Revell on the left, Kotare on the right.

 

Here is a later Spitfire wing showing the gun access panel detail:

 

Again the fit of the gun access panels is visible.  Kotare have got the bump on the outer gun access panel (on the right of this picture) and Revell give only an outline. Revel miss some details but whomever tooled this kit must have really cared about the surface finish because it is the only kit I have seen with true representations of flush rivets (which are little circles on the Revell kit just like the real thing. Zoom in on the kit wing image and then see the image below for what I mean regarding rivet heads:

 

Again, I’d give Revell bouquets for the surface finish but brickbats for missing the wing bulges for the landing gear. Kotare get a demerit for having the gun access panels raised when clearly they are not on the real thing.  That said it is a minor sand down and redo the surface detail for that particular set of features on the Kotare kit. Finally, Kotare have not gone with rivet detail on their wing upper surface which is a bit of a miss.

 

Kind regards,

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4 by Archimedes

[19squadron]

52 minutes ago, Archimedes said:

Let’s move onto the wings.

 

Here is a real Spitfire wing: It is notable that the gun access panels are, very obviously, level with the rest of the wing. Thanks to the raking light in this shot we can see the rippling of the panels (due the ground crew’s ammo boots no doubt…)

 

Here are the two kit wings (Revell on the left, Kotare on the right.

 

Here is a later Spitfire wing showing the gun access panel detail:

 

Again the fit of the gun access panels is visible.  Kotare have got the bump on the outer gun access panel (on the right of this picture) and Revell give only an outline. Revel miss some details but whomever tooled this kit must have really cared about the surface finish because it is the only kit I have seen with true representations of flush rivets (which are little circles on the Revell kit just like the real thing. Zoom in on the kit wing image and then see the image below for what I mean regarding rivet heads:

 

Again, I’d give Revell bouquets for the surface finish but brickbats for missing the wing bulges for the landing gear. Kotare get a demerit for having the gun access panels raised when clearly they are not on the real thing.  That said it is a minor sand down and redo the surface detail for that particular set of features on the Kotare kit. Finally, Kotare have not gone with rivet detail on their wing upper surface which is a bit of a miss.

 

Kind regards,

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

Well said Paul.

[thierry laurent]

One very nasty issue of the Revell kit is the wing tip profile. This results in a too short wingspan and is quite obvious when you compare an upper view with the one of other kits. Originally I compared with the Tamiya one. Hopefully this is not so obvious as such. Nonetheless, the engraved details look amazing and even more when you think the kit was designed with the technology of the sixties (1967)!

[rsanz]

1939, 1940+ and modern build Spitfire gun panels not fitting as flush as Mitchell (and some modellers) would have liked.

 

Edited January 5 by rsanz
typos+context

[rsanz]

One of the unfortunate pitfalls of relying on a modern (Mk.Vb?) restoration as evidence of what WWII Mk.I flush/puttied rivet surface detail was like. Also, check out those ill-fitting & bent panels. 

 

[19squadron]

2 hours ago, rsanz said:

1939, 1940+ and modern build Spitfire gun panels not fitting as flush as Mitchell (and some modellers) would have liked.

 

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.

Edited January 5 by 19squadron
addition of pic

[19squadron]

1 hour ago, rsanz said:

One of the unfortunate pitfalls of relying on a modern (Mk.Vb?) restoration as evidence of what WWII Mk.I flush/puttied rivet surface detail was like. Also, check out those ill-fitting & bent panels. 

 

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.

[19squadron]

1 hour ago, thierry laurent said:

One very nasty issue of the Revell kit is the wing tip profile. This results in a too short wingspan and is quite obvious when you compare an upper view with the one of other kits. Originally I compared with the Tamiya one. Hopefully this is not so obvious as such. Nonetheless, the engraved details look amazing and even more when you think the kit was designed with the technology of the sixties (1967)!

Absolutely, I agree.

 

[Johnny Cloud]

13 hours ago, 19squadron said:

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.

 

People can grow.

 

Your knowledge is clearly much appreciated but you should refrain from assigning intents to others, you just don't know what happens in people's minds.

Please, try to assume that the folks at modeling companies strive to do their best.

Do you seriously believe the guys at Kotare wake up in the morning thinking: "how can we disrespect Spitfires and Mitchell today"?

Come on.

 

Take Edgar's advice and stick to the kits, I know I would appreciate your input even more.

[DonH]

OK, back to the wing tip, if I may, as I was quoted earlier in this thread.

Here is the Tamiya wing tip overlaid on a Mk.I wing drawing. It is drawing number 30008-1-H, if I remember correctly. To my eye, it is a very good match.

 

 

Here is the Kotare wing:

 

I don't see any difference in plan between Kotare, Tamiya and the plans.

 

Here is the Tamiya wing tip overlaid on the Kotare wing. Hard to tell from this picture, but in the flesh, they line up all the way round.

 

And vice versa:

You will have to take my word for it that the Tamiya wing tip is under there and lines up perfectly.

So, a match IN PLAN between factory drawings, Tamiya and Kotare.

When it comes to the compound radii of the wing tip (not the plan view), I find it hard to tell with my eyeballs. There may be a difference between Tamiya and Kotare, but I don't have the technology or will to try and figure it out versus the factory drawings. My point being, it looks fine to me (having said that, I have trouble telling the difference between a Rotol and DH prop)

One caveat: this is based on the plastic I have in my hand. Your kit may differ.

 

Surface finish. I note the comparison with the Revell kit (above) and my built Tamiya Mk IXs. Tamiya has rivets on the leading edge so +1 to Revell and Kotare. I wonder what RJ Mitchell would have thought about Tamiya's effort.

 

Both Tamiya and Revell have rivets on the back part of the wing. I don't have Revell plastic to compare, but I like the very subtle rivets on the Tamiya wing. Kotare don't have any. So, back to the topic of differences in MKIs, do I need to add some subtle rivetting on the Kotare wing aft of the spar? Or was there a time when the whole wing was treated to a smooth puttied surface? It's easy enough with a rivet wheel, but I will probably not bother. The Tamiya rivets all but disappear when painted. A decision for future me.

 

On the subject of the gun covers - they are raised on the Kotare kit, I can feel it with my fingertips. Without an optivisor, I cannot see it. Clearly, opinions differ, but IMHO, this is far from a joke or a mistake on Kotare's part.

 

Back again to the topic of differences between MkIs - constant speed props. This is a very interesting topic and I have learned a lot from the various contributors on this thread, many thanks. Sorry to bring this up, but in my opinion, the majority of Kotare profiles are correct for the time period they are quoting.

 

Starting with MkI (early) - Profile A and B are fine because they have the two bladed prop and not constant speed props. The title on profile C is misleading because it states August 1940. Due to the timing of CS fitting at squadron level, I would expect this MkI to have a cs prop in August 1940. However, the profile with a two speed prop is still valid between early June and when the cs prop was fitted. That is a pretty narrow time window. If you want to show it with a CS prop, it is a simple mod to the throttle quadrant. 

 

For MkI late - Profile A has a cs Rotol prop, so technically, is wrong due to the throttle quadrant (easy fix). Profile B is again misleading with the title (August 1940). If you want to show this as a two speed prop, it is the same narrow time window as Profile C above. Finally, profile C- same comments. 

 

The fitting of cs props is fascinating and an incredible achievement by all concerned to get them fitted to frontline squadrons in such a short period of time. From a modelling perspective, specifically on the Kotare kits, you could elect to show your model with a two speed prop or mod the throttle with a slliver of plasticard painted black to represent the cs control lever (remember to remove the two speed control, with a sharp knife).

 

That's all I have related to MkIs and Kotare (I hope). I have some other questions, to follow.

[DonH]

OK, so....

Questions on differences to MK.Is:

Canopies:

When was the flat hood replaced with a blown version with straight sides?

Was the full blown hood used on the Mk.I or did it come in with the Mk.II? Were Mk.Is retrofitted?

 

Radios:

Is there a definitive time for changes to radios and aerials? Again, were early Mk.Is retrofitted? I have seen photos of squadrons where there was a mix of aerial types and presumably different radios as a result.

 

Cheeswires:

Were IFF aerials ever fitted to Mk.Is? If so, from when (date or serial number range would be lovely)?

 

 

[19squadron]

2 hours ago, rsanz said:

One of the unfortunate pitfalls of relying on a modern (Mk.Vb?) restoration as evidence of what WWII Mk.I flush/puttied rivet surface detail was like. Also, check out those ill-fitting & bent panels. 

 

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

[19squadron]

1 hour ago, DonH said:

OK, back to the wing tip, if I may, as I was quoted earlier in this thread.

Here is the Tamiya wing tip overlaid on a Mk.I wing drawing. It is drawing number 30008-1-H, if I remember correctly. To my eye, it is a very good match.

 

 

Here is the Kotare wing:

 

I don't see any difference in plan between Kotare, Tamiya and the plans.

 

Here is the Tamiya wing tip overlaid on the Kotare wing. Hard to tell from this picture, but in the flesh, they line up all the way round.

 

And vice versa:

You will have to take my word for it that the Tamiya wing tip is under there and lines up perfectly.

So, a match IN PLAN between factory drawings, Tamiya and Kotare.

When it comes to the compound radii of the wing tip (not the plan view), I find it hard to tell with my eyeballs. There may be a difference between Tamiya and Kotare, but I don't have the technology or will to try and figure it out versus the factory drawings. My point being, it looks fine to me (having said that, I have trouble telling the difference between a Rotol and DH prop)

One caveat: this is based on the plastic I have in my hand. Your kit may differ.

 

Surface finish. I note the comparison with the Revell kit (above) and my built Tamiya Mk IXs. Tamiya has rivets on the leading edge so +1 to Revell and Kotare. I wonder what RJ Mitchell would have thought about Tamiya's effort.

 

Both Tamiya and Revell have rivets on the back part of the wing. I don't have Revell plastic to compare, but I like the very subtle rivets on the Tamiya wing. Kotare don't have any. So, back to the topic of differences in MKIs, do I need to add some subtle rivetting on the Kotare wing aft of the spar? Or was there a time when the whole wing was treated to a smooth puttied surface? It's easy enough with a rivet wheel, but I will probably not bother. The Tamiya rivets all but disappear when painted. A decision for future me.

 

On the subject of the gun covers - they are raised on the Kotare kit, I can feel it with my fingertips. Without an optivisor, I cannot see it. Clearly, opinions differ, but IMHO, this is far from a joke or a mistake on Kotare's part.

 

Back again to the topic of differences between MkIs - constant speed props. This is a very interesting topic and I have learned a lot from the various contributors on this thread, many thanks. Sorry to bring this up, but in my opinion, the majority of Kotare profiles are correct for the time period they are quoting.

 

Starting with MkI (early) - Profile A and B are fine because they have the two bladed prop and not constant speed props. The title on profile C is misleading because it states August 1940. Due to the timing of CS fitting at squadron level, I would expect this MkI to have a cs prop in August 1940. However, the profile with a two speed prop is still valid between early June and when the cs prop was fitted. That is a pretty narrow time window. If you want to show it with a CS prop, it is a simple mod to the throttle quadrant. 

 

For MkI late - Profile A has a cs Rotol prop, so technically, is wrong due to the throttle quadrant (easy fix). Profile B is again misleading with the title (August 1940). If you want to show this as a two speed prop, it is the same narrow time window as Profile C above. Finally, profile C- same comments. 

 

The fitting of cs props is fascinating and an incredible achievement by all concerned to get them fitted to frontline squadrons in such a short period of time. From a modelling perspective, specifically on the Kotare kits, you could elect to show your model with a two speed prop or mod the throttle with a slliver of plasticard painted black to represent the cs control lever (remember to remove the two speed control, with a sharp knife).

 

That's all I have related to MkIs and Kotare (I hope). I have some other questions, to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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???????

Edited January 5 by 19squadron
addition of pic

[19squadron]

 

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.