Hi Jessie

"Silly enough" is a bit harsh.

Hi Jessie

Where I'm totally with you is if anyone feels dragged down a path towards adding upgrades that they're not experienced enough to use. The "my model isn't worthy" notion is toxic - and I've seen really enthusiastic modellers totally demoralised at club meets by thoughtless comments by so-called "experts".

I'll use what works for me in upgrade sets and pass on items that don't offer an improvement that justifies the work.

There's a classic example in the Spit Mk I; Eduard include etched undercarriage locks, but drilling holes in the styrene parts is a lot less hassle and good enough for me.

All the best

Rowan

PE has its strengths and weaknesses. I find that it works best for flatish details such as instrument panels, seatbelts and apliqué details like strengthening strips, or perforated spoilers and the like.

Eduard has been doing some very adventurous things using simple folds which make 3D detail easy to achieve.

It's absolutely worst at portraying items which are made of tubing in real life. Remember Airwaves and their etched pitot tubes which looked like cardboard cutouts?

Quoted Text

---

...their Weekend kits are supposed to be able to build without anything extra. If the buyer wants to be silly enough to throw PE at it, then Eduard will be more than happy to sell it

---

Hi Jessie

I love it - all this debate on the basis of 5 etched parts.

"Silly enough" is a bit harsh. But, I totally agree with you that the point of Weekend kits is that they are simpler than ProfiPack boxings and more akin to other manufacturers' releases.

Hence my wondering aloud what the Weekend Spit Mk I releases will be like, seeing as Eduard have designed things to require a little bit of photo-etch for both the early and late versions. They can't ignore both - that'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

So - my hunch is a small etched fret with each.

That would make sense financially as a "taster" in their Weekend kits of what else is available in their range, whether it's photo-etch or Brassin parts - a painless entry into the world of aftermarket upgrades.

I should probably make clear - my primary interest from the 1980s was short-run resin and vacuform kits, so I welcome seeing some of what that did well being adopted as "mainstream" - albeit with higher production standards.

All the best

Rowan

Looking good so far Rowan. Just the dangly bits, decals and dull coat and they are done then .
Andy

Hi Curt and Dennis

To misquote Star Trek, the whole point here is:

"It's Sky, Jim - but not as we know it..."

In the summer of 1940, when the change in regulations came through regarding underside colours, squadrons were left to make their best interpretation as to what the intended colour actually was. Eye-witness accounts of the resulting paint jobs refer to vivid "Eau de Nil" (rather like what we've got here) through to "sky blue" almost as dark as the later official Azure Blue.

So - as a recap of my earlier posts - the underside colour on my BoB Spit isn't intended to even remotely replicate the accepted later "standardised" Sky (I've added the "" because even that varied a lot in period accounts); in fact, I chose this scheme specifically because it doesn't.

@ Dennis - re: the camouflage pattern. I masked it with Tamiya's flexible tape and masking fluid. Every photo I've checked of BoB Spits shows a sharp definition between the top-side colours. I don't use commercial masks, because there's clearly a difference in photos between individual aircraft - which I interpret as evidence of manufacturers using multiple masks which were cut to roughly the same pattern, but which weren't even close to identical. (The official patterns are so generic, there's enormous scope for variation.)

All the best

Rowan

Ah-haaa! So (Type S) refers to the SHEEN of ALL THREE COLORS, POST the Battle of Britain!

Tell me Jesse, where do you get all of your RAF information? You must have some very good reference material or favorite sites on line.