World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
Eduard and Tamiya Spitfire Mk IX nose width
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Monday, April 29, 2013 - 08:55 AM UTC
Hi Edgar

Now you've done it! They were never all the same size in the first place, and they changed still further in service! Heeeeelp!

On a serious note, I've come across plenty of anecdotes of parts not being interchangeable - but an overall discrepancy of two inches or so is quite an eye-opener (and, of course, a nightmare to anyone who likes to pin things down to the nth degree!). I wonder what the point was at which the Erks coined the over-used modelling phrase and declared a full-sized airframe "fatally flawed"!

Many thanks for the info, and 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: Monday, April 29, 2013 - 03:22 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Due to the strain of arrested landings, the FAA found that Seafire fuselages stretched slightly; should we now demand that kit manufacturers should supply two fuselages, so that we can have the option of building a brand new, or heavily worked, airframe?
Edgar



Perhaps we should also ask for an instrument panel with a large dent in the centre about the size and shape of a pilot's helmet (referring firmly tongue-in-cheek to Hot Shots !)

ludwig113
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: February 05, 2008
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
AeroScale: 1,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 01:13 AM UTC

Quoted Text



Perhaps we should also as for an instrument panel with a large dent in the centre about the size and shape of a pilot's helmet (referring firmly tongue-in-cheek to Hot Shots !)




lets face it, if your "wash out" you'll never be able to measure things properly !

paul
drabslab
_VISITCOMMUNITY
European Union
Joined: September 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,186 posts
AeroScale: 1,587 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 03:44 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi Edgar

Now you've done it! They were never all the same size in the first place, and they changed still further in service! Heeeeelp!

On a serious note, I've come across plenty of anecdotes of parts not being interchangeable - but an overall discrepancy of two inches or so is quite an eye-opener (and, of course, a nightmare to anyone who likes to pin things down to the nth degree!). I wonder what the point was at which the Erks coined the over-used modelling phrase and declared a full-sized airframe "fatally flawed"!

Rowan



Has anyone considedered that airplanes are made of metal? When heating up metal expands (e.g; Al expands 22.2 10-6 m/m K). I mean it may be of huge importance when measuring the 0.1mm differences one has found on this thread. Can someone confirm that the measurement was taken at the standardised 20°C for measuring lenght.

Further, plastic does expand in a different way compared to Al (or other metals) so you have to make sure that yuo measure model and real thing at exactly the same temperature

GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 08:30 AM UTC


I said three quaters of an inch (about 0.35 mm), on smaller items like the spinner. Not the whole thing...

It would help if you could display some basic reading skills...

Ever seen a carpenter make 3/4" errors?

Gaston
TheModeller
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 09:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text



I said three quaters of an inch (about 0.35 mm), on smaller items like the spinner. Not the whole thing...




Actually you started by banging on about a 2" error...


Quoted Text

That"s over two inches of total discrepancy (About 2.2 inches: 56 mm total, possibly 60 mm if the Eduard cowl is closer than my measurement), roughly evenly split between cowl and spinner.



But that seems to have been revised down in light of the fact you're talking cobblers again...


Quoted Text

It would help if you could display some basic reading skills...



Ah, that legendary sense of humour coming to the forefront again...
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 05:40 PM UTC

Quoted Text

It would help if you could display some basic reading skills...


It would also help if you occasionally displayed a little common courtesy.

Quoted Text

Ever seen a carpenter make 3/4" errors?


Seen? No. "Heard about? Definitely. As related to me by a woodworker of this town:-
While making Mosquito parts, especially wings, it was common for there to be gaps, as big as one inch, at times, and the instructions were to cut a piece of wood to size, and glue it into place.
Some malcontent, for reasons unknown, decided he would sabotage the aircraft, by just stuffing paper into the gap, and pouring glue over it. Inevitably he was caught, and, together with the company management, was hauled up into Aylesbury Crown Court, where they were charged with treason.
Charges were dropped when the R.T.O. reported that they'd discovered that his "method" was stronger than the approved one.
Edgar
drabslab
_VISITCOMMUNITY
European Union
Joined: September 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,186 posts
AeroScale: 1,587 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 09:04 AM UTC

Quoted Text



I said three quaters of an inch (about 0.35 mm), on smaller items like the spinner. Not the whole thing...

It would help if you could display some basic reading skills...

Ever seen a carpenter make 3/4" errors?

Gaston



Apologies, but 3/4 inch is 19.04mm, instead of 0.35 mm. That is basic math
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 09:42 AM UTC
I think you'll find Gaston's working in 1/48 scale (and sizes.) Just trying to avoid you being the latest recipient of "violence of the tongue."
Edgar
drabslab
_VISITCOMMUNITY
European Union
Joined: September 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,186 posts
AeroScale: 1,587 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 07:54 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I think you'll find Gaston's working in 1/48 scale (and sizes.) Just trying to avoid you being the latest recipient of "violence of the tongue."
Edgar



Oops, but in 1/48 scale it is still 0.396875 mm which is significantly more than 0.35
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 09:45 PM UTC
Are you possibly inferring that our own, self-professed, expert has made a miscalculation? The earth-shattering potential of such a statement will have ramifications, such that you have never dreamed.
ejasonk
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2007
KitMaker: 314 posts
AeroScale: 71 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 11:35 PM UTC
Gaston,
This hobby is for sure not made for you.
AussieReg
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
AUTOMODELER
#007
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 11:55 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Are you possibly inferring that our own, self-professed, expert has made a miscalculation? The earth-shattering potential of such a statement will have ramifications, such that you have never dreamed.



No miscalculation, the buttons on his calculator are just slightly out of scale.
tinbanger
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ontario, Canada
Joined: February 04, 2008
KitMaker: 2,507 posts
AeroScale: 1,814 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 11:57 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Are you possibly inferring that our own, self-professed, expert has made a miscalculation? The earth-shattering potential of such a statement will have ramifications, such that you have never dreamed.



No miscalculation, the buttons on his calculator are just slightly out of scale.


drabslab
_VISITCOMMUNITY
European Union
Joined: September 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,186 posts
AeroScale: 1,587 posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 - 03:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Are you possibly inferring that our own, self-professed, expert has made a miscalculation? The earth-shattering potential of such a statement will have ramifications, such that you have never dreamed.



I would not dare!!!

I am only stating that his ESTIMATION is 0.046875 mm off. Considering that this is approximitaly 13.39% it is significant.

By the way, a few layers of paint easily build up to a thickness of 0.03 mm. This means that we are adding a thickness of 0.03*48 (scale) = 1.44mm of paint to our model.

Real life (airbrushed) airplanes have a paint thickness of roughly 0.07 mm. We have 1.37mm of paint to much.

Are we ruining our models by painting them?

shuber57
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United States
Joined: September 28, 2010
KitMaker: 22 posts
AeroScale: 10 posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 - 05:39 AM UTC
The potential for paint build up on the Tamiya Spitfire would be significant. Instead of one surface there are six surfaces involved. Outside of cowling, inside, inside frame, then opposite side of the plane repeat. Each surface is primed and painted. Since there are magnets and stainless steel etch in my case there was first metal primer, then white primer, then paint. The plane is camo so in some areas there are two paint layers.
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2014 - 06:16 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The potential for paint build up on the Tamiya Spitfire would be significant. Instead of one surface there are six surfaces involved. Outside of cowling, inside, inside frame, then opposite side of the plane repeat. Each surface is primed and painted. Since there are magnets and stainless steel etch in my case there was first metal primer, then white primer, then paint. The plane is camo so in some areas there are two paint layers.



So if the Tamiya looks wrong, it's the fault of the builder, not Tamiya...

Somebody just brought up this old thread on another site, and I know I never posted here these (devastating) photos of unpainted kits before, so I'll post them now. Whatever the dimensions may be, the two kits look very different, but feel free to dig your head in the sand about it... If you want to dig it even further, convince yourself the Eduard is wrong and the Tamiya is correct... After all, it has to be right! It costs five times as much...:





























Here below an interesting discrepancy: 539 mm on Eduard vs 574 mm on Tamiya. Real dimension was in between, and slightly closer to Eduard.





Airfix P.R. XIX wheel wells correct: You can see the slightly wrong uneven shape of the Eduard wheel well:



The most serious error in the Eduard kit is that the cockpit width is 12 mm instead of 12.5 mm. (576 mm vs 600 mm actual). This is (to me) bad, but actually not too bad overall, and it might be "improveable", though it is too much to be fully fixed given the rigid glass around it. The spine is also a trifle high at the front. In terms of accuracy, I still prefer the Airfix P.R XIX, since its (alledged) 0.7 mm too narrow nose/spinner is easily fixable. The obscure variant type is harder to fix...

I was amused to be reminded how the utility of comparing two kits in different scales was questioned... I am curious about the benefits of less information...

Gaston

MichaelSatin
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
AEROSCALE
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 3,909 posts
AeroScale: 2,904 posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2014 - 06:52 AM UTC
And a year later, he's back! With pictures of someone else's models that conclusively prove... Um... They're both Spitfires?

I know I feel better!

Michael
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2014 - 07:37 AM UTC

Quoted Text

... I still prefer the Airfix P.R XIX, since its (alledged) 0.7 mm too narrow nose/spinner is easily fixable. The obscure variant type is harder to fix...

Gaston



Hi Gaston

Yep, you've got to curse Airfix for producing a version that was only in service for 10 years...

I never quite understand your reasoning - you moan about companies endlessly producing done-to-death subjects, but then also come down on them when they tackle interesting (some would argue more interesting) less obvious versions. Anyone could be mistaken for thinking you like moaning for the sake of it...

It's a shame the photos aren't yours, because I was going to compliment you on getting a digital calliper at last.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you make of Trumpy's Whirlwind (if it's not too obscure for you) - from what I've seen so far, that really does look worth savaging.

All the best

Rowan
tinbanger
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ontario, Canada
Joined: February 04, 2008
KitMaker: 2,507 posts
AeroScale: 1,814 posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2014 - 10:37 AM UTC
There is only one person on this web site that I have used the "Hide User" tab guess who that is?

Robbd01
#323
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Arizona, United States
Joined: February 13, 2013
KitMaker: 791 posts
AeroScale: 213 posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2014 - 11:01 AM UTC

Quoted Text

There is only one person on this web site that I have used the "Hide User" tab guess who that is?




My son says they are called cringelords ( http://imgur.com/nNJOMBD ). I of course have a more colorful description
AussieReg
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
AUTOMODELER
#007
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2014 - 06:25 PM UTC
Gaston has a valid point here guys, because we must assume that Supermarine took their aircraft apart down to the last nut and bolt every time they flew and measured every component for consistency against every other aircraft of that marque, and also for dimensional accuracy to their drawings.

Of course they also frequently compared every one of their measuring devices against each other for consistency against each other as well as calibration against the standards.

Please excuse me now, I need to get back to writing my fairy tales !

TheModeller
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2014 - 10:44 PM UTC

Quoted Text



So if the Tamiya looks wrong, it's the fault of the builder, not Tamiya...

Somebody just brought up this old thread on another site, and I know I never posted here these (devastating) photos of unpainted kits before, so I'll post them now. Whatever the dimensions may be, the two kits look very different, but feel free to dig your head in the sand about it... If you want to dig it even further, convince yourself the Eduard is wrong and the Tamiya is correct... After all, it has to be right! It costs five times as much...:



Me Gaston, I brought this thread up on Hyperscale, and much amusement was the result. Why? Because nobody, nobody with a genuine interest in the real aircraft, gives a rats backside about your constant whining that either kit isn't up to your demanding standards.

I'd question your use of the word 'devastating' I think a far more accurate word would be 'inconsequential'. The two kits don't look "very different" Gaston, they both look like scale replicas of a Spitfire Mk.IX, they don't look like anything else Gaston, they can't be mistaken for anything else Gaston.

They look different but as we've already murdered several million 0's and 1's providing you with accurate dimensions that you've chosen to either ignore or question then there is not an awful lot more to be said is there, two plastic kits, from two different manufacturers in two different scales don't look identical.

I'm not really surprised, as far as I'm aware one of Tamiyas sources was Montfortons detailed and well researched data while Eduard primarily used an existing museum airframe in thier design work. Different interpretations, which is more accurate? Do you actually know Gaston? Have you done the detailed research yourself Gaston? All you've proven is that the two kits are not identical in outline or scaled dimensions, which is surprising in what way exactly?

Nobody cares what you have to say anymore Gaston, and dressing yourself up in alternate pseudonyms like "Jean Stravinsky" or "Stravinsky75" while banging on about the exact same heinous crimes of kit manfacturers isn't going to convince anyone to pay any more attention to you.

I've said it before Gaston, so has Rowan, scale modelling really isn't the right hobby for you, you need to take up something far more demanding that will sate your constant hunger for attention and % point dimensional accuracy...

I'd suggest juggling. It seems to be a pre-requisite skill for a clown!
Mcleod
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Alberta, Canada
Joined: April 07, 2010
KitMaker: 1,028 posts
AeroScale: 939 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 12:24 AM UTC
Most days I simply ignore it all.
Today, though, I thought I would scan the writings over morning coffee. That being done, I can now leave it all behind and continue on with life carrying the sound belief that everyone/anyone is allowed an opinion. I need not let it interfere with my right to think freely
shuber57
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United States
Joined: September 28, 2010
KitMaker: 22 posts
AeroScale: 10 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 01:03 AM UTC
I see your pictures and your caliper reading but I don't get your point. I see miniscule differences in shape in a couple spots. If one of the planes is a little off in width I don't see the issue. Otherwise they look an awfully lot alike, however there is no seem on the Tamiya cowling to clean up. I have built two Mk IX's and the plane is a joy to build. It looks great when finished and you can leave the cowlings so that they are removable which I am sure reduces accuracy more but I don't really care.