Supermarine Spitfire and Seafire

[The Wooksta!]

Still easier to put that spacer in instead.  Think of all that sprue that goes in the bin!

Alternatively, fill the gap with slivers of plastic card. 

[sequoiaranger]

You might first try "decal" over the gap that will overlap several millimeters on each side (or cut to conform to nearby panel lines). If the decal is "stretched" properly it won't shrink into the gap when dry (80% of the time); you will have a nice, smooth transition. It also is "cheap", no PSR, and you can test it without making any scratches, etc. DO NOT USE the usual "set" or "sol"---you don't want "snuggle-down" and you won't care if there is "air" under there (there WILL be!) as you will be painting over it anyway.

Viel Gluck!

[PR19_Kit]

You do realise Kit that you could be up in front of the "Court of nit pickers" at Telford ? Never mind we'll get Radish to defend you 

I've made so many aircraft with extended wings a mm. or so shorter would balance things up.


A bit.......... 

[kitnut617]

A question that's probably been asked before but I can't find it at the moment --

I'm after a couple more 1/72 Spitfire Mk.21's, and there's two kits available.  The AZ Models offering and the Special Hobby one.  Which one is the better one ? or are they the same kit ?

[The Wooksta!]

Special Hobby all the way.  The AZ one is nice but there's something not right about the rear fuselage that I can't quite put me finger on.  It's really their 22/24/46 kit with an extra sprue containing a mk 14 fuselage, new canopy and resin tailplanes.  My opinion is that it's better as a 22/24.

Plus the SH one has LOADS of spares, props, rudders, canopies, rocket stubs, tanks, cannon barrels... Plus it includes the sting section and 47 u/c doors which are ideal to convert the Airfix 22 to a Seafire F46.  They're about the same price too.

Fitwise...  The AZ wing needs a lot of sanding to get it to close and overall the kit lacks the finesse of the SH.  I've only taped up the latter but the fit is far, far superior.

Only thing that the AZ one does better over the SH is the contraprop.  Both are fiddly assembly but the former has a wider diameter which matches, Airkit, Aeroclub and CMR.  SH one by comparision is a good 3mm smaller.

The AZ one does give a 22/24 fuselage and tailplanes as extras though.  The SH box is better, being a top and bottom as opposed to a Revell style boxvelope. And their artwork is far superior.  I'm tempted to frame mine.

[kitnut617]

Cheers Lee, figured you would know.

[The Wooksta!]

I don't think there's many Spitfire kits in 72nd that haven't passed through my hands at some point.  Well, maybe some of the older CMK ones - the MPM 18 and 19 (the original, not the one in the BBMF Millennium set which is a copy of the Fujimi kit) are both based on CMK resin masters.  The CMK 18 I bought some time back was identical to the MPM kit and has the same awful nose.

The AZ 22/24/46 kit is actually rather good once it's done - I'm really pleased with the two I've finished so far.

[NARSES2]

Right if this is covered elsewhere I apologise.

I'm going to build a French Spitfire Mk II serving on the Syrian Front against the Turks in 1941. (In my scenario France fights on from the colonies and Turkey joins the Axis to invade Greece)

Now the French received 1 Spitfire Mk I in 1939/1940 which was then captured by the Germans. I have found a couple of rather blurry photos of this machine in a rather decrepit condition but I swear in a book I have there is a slightly better photo which appears to show the standard French 3 colour upper camouflage pattern (not sure about colours). Now I can't find the thing now. Am I going barmy and dreaming this up because I want to build it that way or was it like that ? Anyone know ?

Ta

Chris

[JayBee]

Am I going barmy and dreaming this up

NO. Ops normal if you ask me 

[Mossie]

I had an idea that sprung the other day when I read about the inverted V configuration being seriously considered for the Merlin early in it's development.  First thought's were obviously that this might make an interesting modelling exercise, Spitfires and Hurricanes with a similar nose to the DB powered versions:





Then I looked in the Morgan & Shacklady Spitfire Bible and found something that screwed that idea completely, a basic mock up of the inverted PV.12:


The thrust line remains the same as the Spitfire, more like aircooled inverted V's like the Isotta Fraschini Delta, Ranger V-770, Argus As411, so you end up with a nose similar to the Caudron C.714 but without the airscoop:



With the original for comparison:


Not pretty.  Interesting, but doesn't do anything for the Spitfire's good looks.  Changes to Hurricane would be less pronounced as it's not as closely cowled, but it'd end up with a Bruce Forsyth chin.  Would look a little better on the bombers, but I don't think it would look great on the Mossie, definitely no good on the Hornet!

This does beg the question what would the Bf109 series look like with an upright?  Apparently Daimler Benz wanted to go that way but the Ministry knew better.  The DB602 was an upright but with the same low thrustline as the DB601, so maybe along those lines?

Any thoughts?

[Thorvic]

A bluchon ?

[Mossie]

If it retained the lower thrust line (like the upright DB-602 diesel) of the inverted 601 , it'd probably look very similar to the 109 as we know it but with the exhausts immediately under the cannon and a frontal section like the Buchon.

It would look Buchon-ish if they changed the thrust line to the higher position like the Merlin.

[jcf]

Put a standard Merlin gear-reduction housing on the inverted PV-12 and the
thrust line drops down.

[Mossie]

Ah, had a feeling I was missing something, thanks Jon!  Here's the Merlin with the reduction gear in place, look very similar to the captured machine with the DB605:



It's almost a case of turning the Merlin upside down, except the spinner had to come a little bit higher as the reduction gear doesn't quite sit central.

[kitnut617]

The only problem with dropping the thrustline down so far is that the propeller diameter would have to be miniscule in size, probably getting towards what was installed on the Trent Meteor (about 96" diameter)