_GOTOBOTTOM
World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
FEATURE
Preview: Eduard's Spitfire IX
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 09:14 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The problem in the spine is probably nothing to worry about: Well within the range of the plastic thickness, and thus the easily correctable...
Gaston


Hi Gaston

What is the supposed problem with the spine?

All the best

Rowan
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 11:27 AM UTC
That's all very nice and plausible, except the top line of the fuel tank cover is not parallel to the lower panel line/datum line; it slopes down, slightly, as you move forward from the windshield to the frame 5 bulkhead.
I would dearly love to know what a straight line is doing on the spine, since (and you've been told this before, but are seemingly choosing to ignore it) the Spitfire spine is not straight, but is slightly humped, which Eduard (like Hornby/Airfix before them) seem to have got precisely correct.
Edgar
P.S. Just in case there's an urge to argue, see below, and we all know how much more believable photos are than drawings, don't we?
TheModeller
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 01:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text

However, until you have the plastic in your hands and you have compared its shape to the shape of the real thing, you cannot make pronouncements the way you have been about whether it's accurate or not. Relying on photographs is extremely questionable, because you cannot tell what sort of shape errors have been introduced by the lenses, the film (or CCD), the reproduction, the printing and duplicating processes which all happened even before the photos were scanned, uploaded and displayed on your monitor which in turn introduces a whole new raft of errors into the process.

Be cautious and wait and see. The time to rip a kit apart and declare it unbuildable is after you look at the real thing, not when you're looking at pictures on your monitor.


Not to labour the point but you do realise that you're wasting your time trying to explain such matters to The Butcher of Quebec don't you?

I'll make no such comments about the kits outline without the plastic in my hands but of the other images posted here and elsewhere I'd suggest that, just as with his slagging off of the Airfix XII and Seafire XVII, Gastons input is being emitted from a place where the sun doesn't shine.

The mans knowledge of the nuances of the Spitfire is about as detailed and insightful as a tea-leafs knowledge of the history of the East-India Company!

Of course, YMMV...
TheModeller
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 01:52 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The problem in the spine is probably nothing to worry about: Well within the range of the plastic thickness, and thus the easily correctable...
Gaston


Hi Gaston

What is the supposed problem with the spine?

All the best

Rowan


There is no problem with the spine, or the forward fuselage, the problem is Gaston can't help being the first to spoil the party!

As Edgar has illustrated and explained in great detail, neither of the 'issues' Gaston has highlighted with his trademark scribbled lines are valid. There are actually no 'straight' lines in a Spitfires profile.
Jessie_C
_VISITCOMMUNITY
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 01:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Not to labour the point but you do realise that you're wasting your time trying to explain such matters to The Butcher of Quebec don't you?


Perhaps Gaston may not listen, but new members who have not yet encountered him and therefor be inclined to mistake him for an authority probably will.
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 09:01 PM UTC
Hi Edgar

That's a wonderful shot of the fuselage! - Much better than the wartime one I had ready to prove the same point.

It was the line that Gaston had drawn along the spine in Jean-Luc's photo that had me worried too - hence my question, as he didn't explain his concern.

Hopefully your photo will put to bed any notion of a "straight" spine once and for all.

All the best

Rowan
AussieReg
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
AUTOMODELER
#007
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 01:52 AM UTC
I think Gaston is correct, and it looks like Supermarine got it even more wronger than Eduard, so I have drawn some lines on Edgars photo to support my view . . . .



Mcleod
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Alberta, Canada
Joined: April 07, 2010
KitMaker: 1,028 posts
AeroScale: 939 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 02:44 AM UTC
Aussie, you missed the line proving the wall siding is not at a perfect 90deg angle with a spitfire
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 06:40 AM UTC
Quote, Jessica-C: "You cannot possibly know whether Jean Luc's picture was taken at exactly 90 degrees normal to the longitudinal axis, yet you are basing your pronouncements on the premise that it was. You are drawing conclusions that the available evidence cannot support."



You realize, of course, that Jean-Luc has the part in hand, and can confirm or not that the top of the nose tank is on a slope compared to its bottom scribing, when it should be completely straight, don't you?

If he did, and finds that the top and bottom are not paralell, would you then recognize that your caveats are wrong in this case?

Gaston

andrewj
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: April 23, 2012
KitMaker: 14 posts
AeroScale: 14 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:28 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quote, Jessica-C: "You cannot possibly know whether Jean Luc's picture was taken at exactly 90 degrees normal to the longitudinal axis, yet you are basing your pronouncements on the premise that it was. You are drawing conclusions that the available evidence cannot support."



You realize, of course, that Jean-Luc has the part in hand, and can confirm or not that the top of the nose tank is on a slope compared to its bottom scribing, when it should be completely straight, don't you?

If he did, and finds that the top and bottom are not paralell, would you then recognize that your caveats are wrong in this case?

Gaston



But Gaston , Edgar has already told you the topline and the datum line are not parallel on a real Spitfire in his post above.

Andrew
TedMamere
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Moselle, France
Joined: May 15, 2005
KitMaker: 5,653 posts
AeroScale: 4,347 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:32 AM UTC

Quoted Text

That's all very nice and plausible, except the top line of the fuel tank cover is not parallel to the lower panel line/datum line; it slopes down, slightly, as you move forward from the windshield to the frame 5 bulkhead.


This is exactly how it is on the Eduard kit.

Jean-Luc
Jessie_C
_VISITCOMMUNITY
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:37 AM UTC

Quoted Text

You realize, of course, that Jean-Luc has the part in hand, and can confirm or not that the top of the nose tank is on a slope compared to its bottom scribing, when it should be completely straight, don't you?

If he did, and finds that the top and bottom are not paralell, would you then recognize that your caveats are wrong in this case?


No. Regardless of the fact that the top and bottom lines of the tank are not in actual fact completely straight, you do not have the plastic in your hand, so drawing the kind of conclusions you drew based on one picture makes my caveats completely correct. You base your conclusions on evidence which does not support them. You have a bad habit of doing that, and one day it's going to turn around and bite you.
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 09:28 AM UTC

Quoted Text

You realize, of course, that Jean-Luc has the part in hand, and can confirm or not that the top of the nose tank is on a slope compared to its bottom scribing, when it should be completely straight, don't you? Gaston

It would appear, from this, that you are refusing to accept that the top line of the fuel tank cover is not parallel to the bottom line of the cover, so I can do no more than refer you to (a fellow Canadian) Paul Monforton's book "Spitfire Mk. IX & XVI Engineered," Section 2, page 32, in which he has written, above said line, " sloping straight line," and, since he, with others, measured five original (in some cases, never rebuilt) airframes, and was present while some were disassembled for rebuilding, I take his word above any photograph of a kit part (or scale drawing, for that matter.) The book might well still be available, from Paul, himself (an individual who is very easy to talk to) or Monforton Press, ISBN 978-0-9784001-0-1; I really can't recommend the book highly enough, if anyone has a real interest in the Spitfire, rather than trying to score points from a false position.
By the way, you still haven't told us what the fault with the spine might be.
Edgar
darreng
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 21, 2006
KitMaker: 789 posts
AeroScale: 118 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 09:56 AM UTC
Jeez all this moaning about a little bit of plastic. What is the internet coming to? I thought this hobby was meant to be relief from the real world. Or am I wrong?
raypalmer
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 29, 2010
KitMaker: 1,151 posts
AeroScale: 985 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 02:09 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Jeez all this moaning about a little bit of plastic. What is the internet coming to? I thought this hobby was meant to be relief from the real world. Or am I wrong?
This is what the internet was invented for.



Damian it is a rare thing that I should literally "lol," good for you sir.
AussieReg
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
AUTOMODELER
#007
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 03:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text



Damian it is a rare thing that I should literally "lol," good for you sir.


russamotto
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Utah, United States
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
AeroScale: 375 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 04:40 PM UTC
I hope this release comes out in my price range. I'd love to do a Mk IX in the markings of the 4th FS. I've never built a Spitfire before.
Holdfast
Staff MemberPresident
IPMS-UK KITMAKER BRANCH
#056
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: September 30, 2002
KitMaker: 8,581 posts
AeroScale: 4,913 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 06:57 PM UTC
I have resisted posting her because of the inevitability of Gastons hacking of the kit fuselage when he asked Santa-Luc for a photo. When it was posted who else thought, "that's an accurate looking fuselage, I hope that it looks as good when I get the kit"!!!!!! Not right lets see how many faults we can manufacture for this!
For me Eduard are to be applauded for even attempting a Spitfire as "every" other kit has had it's faults, but they look to have done a very good job. Wheel well opening aside, which is no big deal, and I will be buying a couple of these, even though I have moved up to 1/32 scale. In the end You just can't have too many Spitfires, especially of this quality
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 08:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text

That's all very nice and plausible, except the top line of the fuel tank cover is not parallel to the lower panel line/datum line; it slopes down, slightly, as you move forward from the windshield to the frame 5 bulkhead.
I would dearly love to know what a straight line is doing on the spine, since (and you've been told this before, but are seemingly choosing to ignore it) the Spitfire spine is not straight, but is slightly humped, which Eduard (like Hornby/Airfix before them) seem to have got precisely correct.
Edgar
P.S. Just in case there's an urge to argue, see below, and we all know how much more believable photos are than drawings, don't we?


I never said the spine was perfectly straight -you certainly didn't get that from the line I drew- and you didn't say by how much the top of the tank is not paralell to its bottom panel line...

I have a feeling the real gas tank's top slopes down by less than the near two inches that is visible on the Eduard kit... In any case it is not beyond the plastic's thickness, if only that canopy frame was not in the way...

It does look like around an inch: You learn something new everyday...:



If you have the number on the tank's front edge vs rear edge height, why not share it?

Gaston



GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 08:54 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The problem in the spine is probably nothing to worry about: Well within the range of the plastic thickness, and thus the easily correctable...
Gaston


Hi Gaston

What is the supposed problem with the spine?

All the best

Rowan


Merely that it peaks a little too high near the rear of the cockpit, which could be consistent with the slope of the front tank also being peaked a little too high at the rear...
.
It could mean the cockpit canopy will look a little "perched high" on the fuselage, a problem identical to what I found in the Modelsvit Yak-1b, and probably easier to fix on the Eduard kit than it was on that!

I'll concede though that the real gas tank does indeed taper a little, and the Eduard kit thus might need no carving there...

Gaston
TheModeller
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 09:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I never said the spine was perfectly straight -you certainly didn't get that from the line I drew-


Ummm, yes he did, as did I , because you drew a straight line and then didn't qualify your comment, so what you're now saying is that its the right shape but somehow from a snapshot image taken with an unknown camera you can tell its a fractional measurement 'too high'? Methinks you doth protest too much!


Quoted Text


You learn something new everyday...:


But you don't Gaston, knowledgable people tell you new things everyday and you ignore them!


Quoted Text


If you have the number on the tank's front edge vs rear edge height, why not share it?


Thats a little rich, Edgar has consistently shared far more reliable data concerning the Spitfire, researched himself from original documents, than you have posted in your entire life!

You won't find that kind of data by Googling other peoples pictures! If you want the information why not do what others have done and buy the references yourself? That way you can pick and whine and moan and complain over every obscure fractional error you can find.
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 09:44 AM UTC

Anyway... Didn't the same guys argue there was nothing wrong with the Airfix Mk XII? I guess Airfix didn't agree, since they fixed their PR XIX beautifully...

Don't worry: My Mk XII will fix it all, and its spine DOES have some curve to it, just not too much...:



Here's two pictures that show why the actual Eduard tank slope might matter...: My line resolution is not the best, but it does show something might need a bit of adjustment...

In blue is where the tank's line exits the spine on the Eduard kit...




And I never said this was unfixable, or not a great kit!

Gaston
Jessie_C
_VISITCOMMUNITY
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 10:26 AM UTC
Gaston, you're doing it again. You are assuming that both photos were taken at exactly 90 degrees to the horizontal aixs, that there's no distortion caused by lenses, duplication and copying and that your drawings are exactly the same on each picture, then you're making pronouncements as though all of those are inconsequential.

You also assume that the same toolmakers at Airfix made both the XII and the XIX.

In each case your assumptions are based on so much marsh gas. Your conclusions are unacceptable because the assumptions you base them on are not proven by the evidence available. You are becoming widely known and derided for this habit. Already many people discount everything you say, meaning that even when you are correct, people do not believe you. Witness the replies to the ICM Yak 3 thread.

If you wish to regain your credibility, you are going to need to base everything you say upon real concrete evidence. Facts, not inferences drawn from photos taken by who knows what. If you don't do that, you will become a laughingstock, dismissed by all. The choice is yours.
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 11:11 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Anyway... Didn't the same guys argue there was nothing wrong with the Airfix Mk XII?

Well, no, in fact we didn't; we said that the fuselage was too deep by an average of 1mm. We arrived at that figure by measuring the fuselage with a set of professionally calibrated digital calipers (correct to two decimal places,) and comparing those measurements with the dimensions annotated on Supermarine's original drawings, divided by 48.
The same thing can probably done with the Eduard kit, but it isn't possible to measure it until it's actually in our hands, so don't ask us to insult the intelligence of the others on this site, by resorting to guesswork.
And, no, I don't know by how much the fuel tank cover slopes, because, quite frankly, I don't care; you started by saying it should be parallel, now you're arguing about degrees of slope, which, initially, you tried to say didn't exist.
I would hate to play football against you, since you keep shifting the goalposts.
russamotto
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Utah, United States
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
AeroScale: 375 posts
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013 - 01:32 AM UTC
http://www.eduard.com/blog/spitfire-mk-ixc-late-version-148-release/

Eduard will be releasing information on this kit every day for the next 40 days.
 _GOTOTOP