They already have started on their Facebook page

Hi all,

Eduard have just posted a picture especially for us on their facebook page...



One thing's for sure their sense of humor is the right shape!

Jean-Luc

Brilliant work Eduard, now we wait for the re-post of the same pic with a few lines and circles added to it

brilliant

paul

a simple way to sort this.
does anyone on this forum have access to a spitfire, tape a piece of paper over the wheel well and trace the outline! (like doing a brass rubbing)

simples!

if someone wants to get me access to raf hendon's spitfire, i'll go and do it...

paul

Canadian Warplane heritage is so lax I bet I could just crawl up in there and no one would question it!

It still looks too oval, and not in any way different from the previous pictures in this thread...

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/075551211_zpsc88cdc97.jpg

The excess in oval shape seems all to be towards the back end: It is not a big deal to fix.

On another note, the slope of the nose fuel tank seems completely absent from some of the further wartime pictures I saw, so it definitely was very, very discrete... This is again not a big problem: It is typical of model companies that when trying to depict a detail, they depict it a little too coarsely...

My only objection to this kit so far is the inclusion of the windshield base into the fuselage, and not on the windshield clear part itself (like Airfix thankfully did on their Mk XII): On the Tamiya P-51D canopy, the separate sliding frame had the perfectly valid justification that the real clear part is "blown" with an undercut in this join area, even if slightly, and thus displaying that shape provides a real, if theoretical, advantage: Here there is no benefit to the modeller, and it is one of the most critical parts of the entire build...

I would be sorely tempted to chisel an Airfix Mk XII windscreen in there, just to make sure I can hide the glue...

Gaston

I still don't get it? I for one will be building this superb looking model as is, thank you Eduard :-)

@Gaston, with all this talk about incorrect lines and perfect shape why is it that you insist on using the wrong colours, and camouflage pattern, on your model (posted earlier)? That just makes a mockery of all this talk about perfection!

It's also typical of some "experts" that, even when they can't see over the rim of the hole, they just keep digging.....


And I'll be tempted to use the system used by Eduard, since the item that they've included on the fuselage is just the cover for the anti-draught seal, and there's part of the framing (just as on the real thing) included on the clear windshield. It means that I'll be able (just as any other modeller can) to use paint to hide the glue (if I'm clumsy enough to let it show, of course........)

Edgar

Hi Edgar

Yep - the framing is clearly visible at the bottom of the windscreen in several of Jean-Luc's photos, so I think Eduard have tackled it in a very sensible way.

At the risk of going off-topic by introducing another kit, I see Airfix have come to a similar conclusion to Eduard about the shape of the wheel wells with their new Mk. XIX:



With the original drawings showing what are basically circles (give or take), and the kit manufacturers stating that they've measured full-sized aircraft, I'd love to get to the bottom of what's going on with these pronounced ellipses...

All the best

Rowan

Unfortunately, my days of crawling under aircraft are long gone; well, I could get down, but would never get up again.
Edgar

Hi again Edgar

It's times like this that I wish I was still up in London; as a volunteer at RAF Hendon, I could probably have measured their Mk.V with no problem. Sadly I'm out of touch now, and couldn't get up to The Smoke anyway.

All the best

Rowan

Oh yeah? And what is wrong about the colours? Can you enlighten me instead of vituperating? DL-K's pattern was not standard by a long way btw...

G.

Touché

Yes, there is a frame, but instead of 2 mm + of hiding area you get on the Airfix Mk XII, you get 0.3/0.4 mm at best, for no benefit.

This is like Tamiya's 1/48th Me-262, which was widely applauded (and rightly so), for including a portion of the fuselage with the windscreen, and that is indeed the right thing to do.

From my point of view, the Eduard way makes it harder to brush paint the canopy separately, and then glue it after the main fuselage painting is done...

I have found masking such small clear areas is actually inferior (for me) to brush painting them separately. Also leaving the masks on for months, even over "Futured" canopies, is disapointing if you expect good results when the masks are pulled...

Gaston

Hi Gaston

Don't leave the masks on for months. It's not a good idea on canopies or anywhere else on a model. Conventional wisdom is to remove them as soon as practically possible - ideally, before the new coat of paint has fully cured.

All the best

Rowan

At the risk of being ever so slightly off topic, why not use decal painted up in the correct colours, Gaston.

Or follow conventional wisdom and mask, paint then remove the mask as soon as possible as Rowan says?

Even a mug modeller like myself knows to do that.......

On page 7.48 of Montforton there is a 1/24th scale wing skinning diagram, I've taken measurements from there as I consider that given the detail and research (and caveats) that went into the book I reckon its about as accurate as its going to get, either that or someone owes me 150 quid!

The Montforton diagrams yeild measurements for the skin opening of the wheel well of 28.5" front to rear and 25.5" left to right. Rounding that out I make the 1/48th dimensions to be 17.5mm x 15mm, near as makes no odds.

The recent Airfix PR.XIX matches these measurements exactly, or at least as exactly as I can be bothered to measure, I'll take a scale ruler to my Tamiya Mk.IX later and check that too.

If (thats a big IF!) Montfortons measurements are correct then the Spits wheel well is not a 'perfect circle' by any means.

And as an aside, take it for what its worth, an engineering friend of mine commented that its hard to see how a perfectly circular skin opening could accomodate a retraction mechanism as employed on the Spitfire, the wheel actually moves through two arcs simultaneously, up and back, while the camber of the axle means that wheel itself is never at an angle perpendicular to the movement arm of the gear leg nor at right angles to the wing skin.

As the wheel reaches full-retract its dimensions relative to the wing skin are not 'circular' the camber angle means that the wheel is narrower spanwise than chordwise if you get my drift, it may be hard to imagine all the angles and movements working in unison, I needed an hour to get my head around it!

The result is that the wheel won't fit through a perfectly circular aperture, unless you made it larger and as Mitchell was no idiot I expect he knew the effect a larger opening would have on drag and aerodynamics.

The reason we're not seeing the subtlety of the shape in Edgars Supermarine drawing I think is because, as he admitted, it was photographed from a computer screen and may well be distorted as a result, the true dimensions aren't really obvious until you take a ruler to it.

As for any percieved issues in fitting the windscreen, well it just goes to show that you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Hey Gaston, if gluing a windscreen on cleanly with cement is such a trial had you considered using good old-fashioned PVA wood glue? no mess, no damage and cleans up with a wet Q-Tip... I'm sure you've got plenty of those laying around!

There's one thought that has just struck me:-
we know that the 2" extra forward rake of the axles, from the Vc onwards, necessitated that the wheel should hang lower in the well (to stop the tyre scrubbing on the upper wing surface, and therefore brought with it the first curved wheel/oleo covers, but what if it also altered the relationship of the wheel with its "hole," and changed it from a circle to an ellipse? The drawing, that I have, is a 300-- series, which relates to the Mk.I; what I don't know is if there's a different drawing for the later Marks.
Sorry, but lateral thinking takes some doing, at times.
Edgar

Excellent point Edgar, I was trying to think why the shape might be different for the later marks but couldn't think of a reason, I'd forgotten about the geometry change as well!

Possibly the increased rake was the 'straw that broke the camels back' and dictated a new panel, but unless you're research at Kew turns up something we might never know for sure.

Well, I've found a drawing of the lower plating of the IX, and, even though we know it can't be taken as a scale drawing, it certainly appears to indicate an elliptical hole.:-

Edgar

Because I want to build at my own pace, if you don't mind...

I find unmasking often gives uneven broken-looking edges (in my experience), if less so when masking with bare-metal foil (which is a bit difficult to remove, as it tears up into so many small pieces)... Bare-metal foil masking is very useful on smash-moulded canopies, because the absence of frames on those makes brush painting impractical...

As far as the colours I used being wrong, they look pretty close to any period colour photo that don't depict brand-new aircrafts, although it is true the red roundel centers (and yellow surrounds) should then look a bit more faded (they might improve a little with the flat coat, but otherwise I'll just let them slide):





Most Spitfire wartime pictures look like the above...

I was going for a stronger tonal contrast, which seemed typical of the majority of wartime photos:




The colours Tamiya offer in their range are maybe good for brand-new, but for most pictures they are way too dark with too low a contrast: In particular the gray faded much faster, giving the typical wartime look of high contrast...

But if you want your Spitfire to look like an airshow fashion victim (with heavy weathering!), be my guest... Don't worry, you'll get there, eventually...

Gaston

And you'll always be able to rely on Gaston/Sherwood/Robertson for the odd, throwaway, insult for us lesser mortals considered unfit even to tie the master's shoelaces.
Edgar

Hi Edgar

Fantastic find! That puts the debate over the round vs oval shape to bed for me.

All the best

Rowan

Hi Rowan,




Same here! After more than 5000 unique visitors for the test shot feature, 3 pages of discussions with over 70 replies and more than 2300 views, it seems that we came to the conclusion that Eduard have got the shape of the wheel wells opening right after all...

Jean-Luc