Tamiya Spitfire Mk IX Kicked Up A Notch: Last Post

[chuck540z3]

Terrific progress, Chuck! A quick question about the coloured wire if I may: can any of the 'yellow' colours be used for the yellow wiring (electrics?) found in Luftwaffe aircraft? I don't see a good match in the photos, so would like to know what you think.

 

Kev

 

Hi Kev and thanks.

 

The wire set I have doesn't really have a yellow (Gold and Orange only), but I Googled "Yellow Fly Tying Wire" and I found some matches, so you might try that.  For slightly bigger wire, you can maybe use "Spark Plug Wire" from the Model Car Garage like the sets below.  Having said that, if you can find old telephone wire, it is usually composed of several colors of wire within, which are identical and a lot cheaper to acquire.

 

Cheers,

Chuck

 

 

[Dpgsbody55]

Great progress so far.  I like your flaps up too.  Flaps were always retracted on touchdown to kill lift with RAF aircraft.  Also, your Flight Sargeant would give you a huge rebuke as taxying over grass fields with your flaps down is likely to cause mud and dirt to accumulate in the mechanism, meaning more work for already hard working ground crews who would have to strip and clean the mechanism.  If one flap malfunction on landing, you're highly likely to land on your head as the plane will flip in that situation.  Modelers like to build extended flaps in too many instances and it definitely wasn't applicable to WW2 RAF aircraft.  On some planes, the flaps might droop after some time on the ground due to the dissipation of pneumatic pressure, and the Mustang is one of these, but most pilots retracted flaps after landing for the reason above.  US Navy carrier aircraft were different as well, as there was no time to retract flaps, and take off was usually at full flaps down too.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

[DonH]

I remember seeing a note attributed to Edgar Brooks that stated that the rivets in the wing were filled on the first 1/3 of the chord. That conveniently brings it to the main spar line. So, everything in front of the main spar should be smooth.

 

Now, I say "should" but nothing I say is certain.

 

I also don't know if this applied to the underside of the wing. I think it is likely but I just don't know. Someone does though.

 

And there will be photos that contradict all of the above.

 

Did I mention I wasn't sure?

[ade rowlands]

Underwing was puttied the same as the top, to the spar, the access panels (circular holes on underside) should be left unputtied. It's a bit of a relief after fairing in the gun inserts in the wings to not have to put detail back in that the sanding has taken away.

[damouav]

Superb work as always Chuck.

 

I'm sitting in the back row watching you create another masterpiece.

 

I look forward to your next update, it may give me motivation to progress my own project.

 

Damian

[chuck540z3]

Thanks for the info on the wings guys.  This reminds me of the puttied wings debate on Mustangs that still rages on.  For my P-51D build, I puttied the wings to remove most, but not all of the rivet and panel line detail, in an attempt to replicate that over time and wear, some of the detail underneath would start to show through.  Big mistake.  At a model contest I had a deduction for "Inconsistent Panel Lines" which in all fairness to the judges, was correct.  They had no idea what I was trying to accomplish and even if I had written it down on the entry form, in my experience from other contests they wouldn't have read it anyway, because they are too busy judging.

 

Looking at the pics I posted earlier of the Spitfire Mk I, even though it has an "A" wing and not a "C", I can see in close-ups (not posted) that the front of the wing is smoother than the central portion, BUT, I can still see the odd bit of rivet detail.  With that info and the above experience, I'm going to go with the added rivets and leave the rest of the wing alone.  As often happens in modeling, sometimes too much information can suck the fun out of a build.

 

Cheers,

Chuck

[Martinnfb]

I would say if you have a picture to show the detail, that's the end of story. Every airframe was different and in order to replicate the look of it in the best possible way you have to follow available photographic evidence. 

Now I feel silly to bother you with that

Cheers

Martin

[chuck540z3]

I would say if you have a picture to show the detail, that's the end of story. Every airframe was different and in order to replicate the look of it in the best possible way you have to follow available photographic evidence. 

Now I feel silly to bother you with that

Cheers

Martin

 

Thanks.  Apparently I did post some close-ups of the wings.  Case in point....I see rivets everywhere.....

 

 

 

Cheers,

Chuck

[Gazzas]

Some heavy tin-canning there.

[Skyhawk174]

Great work so far Chuck. I like your idea of not putting in detail you would not see. Sure would be a time saver in your case and sure makes perfect sense.

 

I am following your build even tough I would never build this spitfire in 1/32nd but a lot of what you do is transferable to the 1/48th version. Have about 6 Spitfires in 1/48 and one of them will be detailled.

 

Cheers

Chris

[dodgem37]

Rivets?  I don't see no stinkin' rivets!

 

Sincerely,

Mark

[BloorwestSiR]

Great progress Chuck. It's always fun to see you work your magic on a kit.

 

I've built a couple of the Tamiya Spitfire so far and only puttied the wing on one of them, which was my PR XI conversion. I did the forward 1/3 up to the wing spar as mentioned above.

 

As for the RB radiator screens, they're supposed to be folded in a trapezoidal shape. This way they fill the gap between the rad core and the cover. At least that's how I've done them. Hopefully you can make them out in this pic.

 

 

Carl

[MikeMaben]

           ...sometimes too much information can suck the fun out of a build.

 

Brother

 

[chuck540z3]

Great progress Chuck. It's always fun to see you work your magic on a kit.

 

I've built a couple of the Tamiya Spitfire so far and only puttied the wing on one of them, which was my PR XI conversion. I did the forward 1/3 up to the wing spar as mentioned above.

 

As for the RB radiator screens, they're supposed to be folded in a trapezoidal shape. This way they fill the gap between the rad core and the cover. At least that's how I've done them. Hopefully you can make them out in this pic.

 

 

 

Ahhh, "User Error" it is!  Thanks for the tip.  What threw me was that that the little tab(s) at the top of each grill did not fit into the hole and I was having some trouble getting the housing to fit flush with them installed because, I thought, they are wider than the kit parts and held the housing up.  The reality in hindsight, is that the kit parts are a bit too short to begin with, so there's a small gap at the top of each radiator that the RB parts fix if you fiddle with them properly.  Next time!

 

 

Brother

 

 

It appears that I should have explained my comment, "too much information can suck the fun out of a build", a bit better.  What I meant by that is that all my builds are super detailed as I attempt to replicate each aircraft as accurately as possible.  The more information I have, the more detailed my models become and trying to replicate every tiny detail can bog the build down, sometimes to the point of frustration and the build becomes more work than fun.  I see this in other WIP builds in this forum as well, where the model takes many months and sometimes many years to finish and the modeler complains of losing their Mojo for their project.  I should know, because my last 4 models took an average of 18-21 months to finish- each!  Ignorance of details can sometimes be bliss, because if you don't know that something about the model is wrong, you have no reason to care- or worry about it.  Modeling is just fun and damn the details!

 

Cheers,

Chuck

 

 

[ade rowlands]

Not to be anal about it or pick a fight with anyone, as this is Chuck's masterpiece and fully understand getting bogged down in details. But my response about the wing being puttied from the leading edge to the spar was more in response to the post above my answer than anything and I hadnt seen that Chuck had gone past that point with his kit on the previous page. The practice became commonplace at factories sometime in 1942. I had asked Edgar at one point in time a few questions I had in regard to Mk IX spitfires, the bi colour undercarriage bays being one of them along with wing putty. Chuck, the image you posted of the Spitfire on the ceiling of the IMW is a Mk. II if I recall correctly so wouldnt have had the wings treated (Pre-1942). But again, no criticism of your model is intended, I can only wish for talents like yours. 

 

This is what I found  as the answer to my putty question from Edgar. 

 

On August 7th., 1942, a meeting was held, to discuss Supermarine's proposal to use smooth, rather rhan matt, paints, and paints to D.T.D.517 were eventually settled on. This new finish started, under mod 697, from September 25th., 1942,covered by drawing 30000 Sht.28 (of which I have a copy,) and 30000 sht 54 (which I don't, yet.) These drawings originated in October, 1939, and, with various updates, lasted throughout the war, though I only have a copy of the 1942, and post-war, versions of sheet 28. 

All of the airframe received an undercoat, of either U.P.1, or U.P.2 (haven't found them, yet,) grey undercoat, and special attention was to be paid to the front 20% of the wing l/e (top & bottom,) just like the Mustang. 
On the Seafire, this involved a coat of SOBAC primer, thinned 10-30% with SOBAC thinner "applying the thinnest coat possible consistent with complete covering," with a minimum of 1hr air drying. "Rivet recesses, joints, etc., require to be levelled by the application, with a thin bladed knife, of I.C.I. putty 147-524. Air dry at least two hours: longer may be necessary in some shops." 
After "dry scuffing" with grade 220 Gydro-durasil paper, two coats of I.C.I. grey filler 146-5 (not absolutely sure of the numbers, they're almost illegible)thinned around 10% with SOBAC thinners. One coat required 6 hours drying time; if two coats were needed, two hours had to be allowed between them. This was rubbed down again, although a heavily thinned coat of camouflage colour could be applied, first, as a guide. On the Seafire "D.T.D.517" drawing, it states that SOBAC Hard Grey Stopper could be used instead of I.C.I. Putty 147-524, and SOBAC Grey Oil Filler instead of I.C.I. Filler 146-5. The Spitfire drawing just says that the l/e, back to the spar, must be "stopped" and filled....etc. 
The minutes of the meeting stress this "20%" business, especially with regard to the span-wise panel line of the l/e-mainplane line.

Edited February 8, 2018 by ade rowlands