Hi everyone

A really exciting package arrived today - Eduard's limited edition dual-kit boxing of their new-tool Spitfire Mk. I. Major thanks to Eduard for sending us the sample and to our own Andy Brazier for giving me the first chance to tackle this beauty!

And what a beauty it is! My instant impressions are that Eduard have done an outstanding job. I'll be doing an in-box review alongside this build, but I'll post a "sneak preview" below to give an idea of the superb exterior finish, with it's crisp engraving and a mix of embossed and raised rivets, taught fabric control surfaces with restrained rib tapes, hollowed-out exhausts and guns, and neatly depicted Dzus fasteners on the cowl panels.

















Because this dual-kit covers the Mk. I from its introduction in 1938 through to the Battle of Britain, there are full alternative fuselages to allow for early and armoured windscreens. And, great news! - the runners confirm that Eduard are planning a series of early Spitfire kits (Seafires too?) through to the Mk. V.

For this Blog I'll build both a pre-war machine and one from 1940 and I aim to get underway in the next day or so. I'll showcase paints from a couple of different manufacturers - but more of that when we get to that stage. It's been a few years since I've built a Spit or a Seafire, so I'm really looking forward to this!

All the best

Rowan

Hi,
That does look very nice, your lucky I didnt give it a proper look over or you might not of got it lol.
Andy

Hi Andy

Looking at one of my photos, I just spotted a touch of shrinkage around one of the gun-ports. You can have it back - it's clearly un-buildable! (EDIT: What looked like sinkage at first glance is actually deliberate and a rather clever bit of engineering! OOPS! )

But seriously - I'm buzzing to get started on this one! It just gets better, the more explore the contents of the box!

I haven't quite figured out what Eduard have done with the decals, but it looks like they've come up with a neat trick to get 'round a tricky masking job on the national insignia for the colour schemes that have some field over-painting.

All the best

Rowan

Looks very good Rowan, and a really nice way to present these kits!

Looking forward to progress reports, I will definitely be following closely.

Cheers, D

Cheers Damian

I've spent this evening doing a test-fit of the main airframe parts, and it's basically perfect. Eduard have done some very clever engineering on some of the seams - the way they've tackled the gun-ports positioning is quite innovative - and the overall fit of the main components promises a really enjoyable build.

I'll take pics of the dry-fit tomorrow and then get started on the build.

All the best

Rowan

Hello Rowan, and of course, everyone else!

Hoping everyone is Safe and Healthy!

THIS is indeed, GREAT NEWS!!!

Re: Comparisons of EDUARD's Spitfire Mk.Is to TAMIYA's #61119 1/48 Spitfire Mk.I kit of late last year...

Though photographs, and GREAT ONES, I might add, are a great help in decision-making, (THANKS, Rowan!), there is nothing like comparing the actual EDUARD Mk.I plastic side-by-side to the 1/48 TAMIYA Spitfire Mk.I which we were "ooh-ing and ahh-ing"-over just a few short months ago.

Speaking personally, I already have several of the TAMIYA Spits, so it only stands to reason that I will be buying either the EDUARD "The Few" combo kit(s), OR a couple of EDUARD's "OVERTREES"-boxings, 82151X "Early" and 82152X "Late" Mk.I Spitfires. I have mountains of 1/48 WWII RAF decal sets, and purchasing a few of EDUARD's aftermarket bits and pieces for both the TAMIYA and EDUARD Spits, are literally "a no-brainer" for me.

There are a few personal $$$ savings to take advantage of by buying the "OVERTREES" sets. Instead of buying "The Few" PROFIPACK kit, and subsequently "augmenting" the "OVERTREES" kits with EDUARD's A/M bits and pieces according to my own whims- These options are limited only by how much money I happen to have in my wallet... (Oh, dear..!)

As far as my own personal "side-by-side comparos" are concerned, my curiosity NEEDS TO BE SATED...

I wound up doing similar "personal comparos" with the AIRFIX, EDUARD, HASEGAWA and TAMIYA 1/48 P-51D kits, the ACADEMY, HASEGAWA and TAMIYA P-47D kits and the ACADEMY, HASEGAWA and TAMIYA P-38 kits. Now, it's the TAMIYA versus the EDUARD Spitfire Mk.I kits' turn!!!

Sorry, at this point, I can't supply any photos- I need to buy a digital camera with USB, but I've been too busy to do so because I've been buying A LOT of models, instead!!!

STAY HEALTHY, ALL!!!

VR, Dennis

Hi, Rowan!

I have a question:

I was wondering how EDUARD chose to handle the oft-grumbled-about and imposing problem of nearly ALL Spitfire kits' Main Landing Gear-alignment?

TAMIYA solved this problem in a very innovative way- In TAMIYA's 1/48 Spitfire Mk.I kit, BOTH Main Landing Gear Legs are molded as a SINGLE assembly, integral to the Main Spar. THIS ensures proper alignment of the Main Landing Gear Legs without having to deal with the more commonly-associated fuss and bother found in this particular segment of most previously-kitted 1/48 Spitfire kits' building processes...

Thanks...

VR, Dennis

Hi again

Sorry this is a little later than promised (I was working on the review last night), but here's a shot of the dry-fitted kits, plus the way Eduard have tackled the gun openings that lie above the centre-line of the leading edge:









Hi Denis. Thanks for looking in. Eduard have followed a much more straightforward route than Tamiya, simply using rectangular lugs on the legs that slot in to set the angle of the undercarriage. Proof of the pudding will be in the eating (as the saying goes), but they fit snugly and promise to work well.

All being well, I'll get the build underway in the next day or so.

All the best

Rowan

Very nice progress, Rowan. This kit looks very tempting. It's my birthday this month and I believe my sister will have a nice present for me ....

As I looked at the box art I was just thinking if there's any other aircraft which had a propeller with 2 blades, with 3 blades, with 4 blades, with 5 blades and even with 2 x 3 blades during its developing history? I wouldn't know ....

Happy modelling and stay safe!
Torsten

I have to follow this build!

Watching with interest, Rowan

Looks to be a beautiful kit!

Good morning gents,

To quote a well known Battle of Britain ace 'This is absolutely top hole news and totally spiffing'. OK, maybe not, but wow and wow again. It looks lovely and I can't wait to see the build. Oh, and if a Vb tropical comes along I'll be feeling 'absolutely wizard'.

Hi, Rowan & Everyone Else!

Thanks Much for answering my question so quickly and straightforwardly!

Yes, I can see how "square lugs" fitting directly into "square cavities" would take care of the Legs' fitment. The question of "proper-alignment" the Legs remains, in that the "1:1 scale" Spit's Main Landing Gear Legs, the Legs themselves were canted FORWARD as well as OUTWARD, (towards the Wingtips, at the bottoms of the Legs), so here's hoping that EDUARD got both of these angles right.

Perhaps you could post a photo of the Landing Gear Legs "dry-fitted" into their respective mounting slots? This, I'm sure, would resolve the question...

As to the Armament apertures in the Main Wings, I have to give EDUARD A RESOUNDING "CHEERS!!!"

TAMIYA, on the other hand, chose to mold the Armament apertures in the most "conventional" way, that is, straight across both the top and bottom halves of the Main Wings' forward mating surfaces. Though this isn't bad, I like EDUARD's treatment a little bit better.

Some years ago, I bought the extremely-"Limited Edition RAF Hornchurch, 1940" decal set. I had to have that because it included all three of Ace Al Deere's "KIWI" KL-B Mk.Is' decorations. Beautiful set, I must say. I also bought an ULTRACAST Rotol 3-Blade Blunt Spinner cast-resin conversion set, originally meant for the OLD Tamiya Mk.I/II and HASEGAWA Mk.V Spitfire kits. Never got around to building one of Al Deere's "KIWIs"...

Once the new 2019 TAMIYA #61119 kit hit the market, these decals and resin bits were relegated to the first NEW TAMIYA Mk.Is I bought. Hm. Shall I go ahead, or shall I build a "KIWI" out of one of the new EDUARD Mk.Is..? My purchase of several EDUARD Mk.I "OVERTREES" kits is already a forgone conclusion. (possibly, today)

Surely, with the help of a few EDUARD A/M sets, I can build "absolute stunners" out of my TAMIYA #61119 Mk.Is...

Help me, folks!

Rowan- Thanks, again...

VR, Dennis

Good Morning, Steve!

AGREE IMPLICITLY with your little "top hole and absolutely spiffing" old saying!

And yes, a "Tropical Zone" Mk.Vb WOULD be "WIZARD"! So too, would be a "Temperate Zone" conventional Mk.Vb!

Here's hoping!

VR, Dennis

Hi Russell and Steve

Thanks for joining the fun - it's great to have you aboard.




Hi again Dennis

Just to put your mind at rest, I'll start the build with the wheel well instead of the cockpit.

All the best

Rowan

Hi again

So, let's get started.

And - how ironic! - by beginning out of sequence to explore how the undercarriage fits, we'll actually kick off with a typo in the instructions. Parts R18 and R19, which form the rear walls of the well wells are reverse-numbered. It's not the end of the world, because the parts will only fit correctly when you get them the right way 'round:



But, back to Dennis's question about how easy Eduard have made it to get the angle of the undercarriage (and hence the "sit") of the model correct.

The base for each gear leg is a 2-piece assembly which, when complete, forms a ready-angled unit with a rectangular locating hole:


This slots neatly into the boxed-in well:



Revealing the locator for the gear leg when the wing's turned over:



The leg fits firmly at the correct angle:



Bear in mind that I've left the locator dry-fitted at the moment so that I can paint the wheel well easier, but it's still clear that Eduard have made aligning the main gear pretty much a cinch.

It's obviously a very different approach to Tamiya's - and opinions will no doubt differ as to which is "best". I have to say I instinctively prefer Eduard's way from the point of view of ease of painting (I like to add gear legs late and I'm not a fan of the separate "drop-in" underwing panels that Tamiya had to resort to because of their one-piece gear-legs unit), and the assembly (apart from the typo in the instructions) was very straightforward.

Anyway, with that enjoyable detour out of the way, I'll aim to get back on track and start work on the cockpits. It'll be a busy day at work tomorrow, so I probably won't have a chance to post the next update until Sunday.

Meanwhile, take care and stay safe.

All the best

Rowan

Hi, Rowan!

THANKS SO MUCH for taking the time to photograph and clarify your "dry-fitting" of the Landing Gear assemblies and their fitments.

Well, "Me moind's made oop, Loov!", as a Liverpudlian girl-friend of mine likes to say... I have a "KIWI" girl-friend, as well- (Her English is equally delightful!) The English language is indeed, a wonderful thing!

It's going to be the EDUARD Spitfire Mk.Is for me, not that I'm going to let my TAMIYA Mk.Is go to waste. Perhaps I'll assemble them with their Under-carts up, Hoods closed, and with my meticulously painted Pilots in their Seats, watching for "The Hun in the Sun"- The earlier RAF "Vic" flight-formation will be "de-rigueur" for these three TAMIYA "birds". I envision them in a relatively tight, climbing turn to "port"...

That'll be two of #82152X (Late) Mk.I "Overtrees", and one of #82151 "Overtrees" (Early) Mk.I, for me. As I've said before, I've got those great "HORNCHURCH, 1940" decals to depict one of Al Deere's KL-B, "KIWIs"- Now I'll need to decide whether I want to "do" "KIWI", "KIWI II", or "KIWI III"!!!

As you all well may know, Al Deere decided "enough was enough" after having had all three of his "KIWIs" shot-up in combat. He never resumed naming his subsequent "kites" "KIWI", after "KIWI III" bit the dust!

So, once again Rowan, THANKS MUCH for your efforts in finally putting my somewhat anxious questions to bed!

VR, Dennis

PS- Really LOVE those rivets standing "proud" of the Lower Fuselage halves and just above these, the tiny Rivets which aren't quite as obvious- This is another feature of the early 1:1 scale Spitfires which has previously been omitted in most scale models of same...

Hi Dennis

No worries - I'm glad to help - and the way the detour from what I'd planned highlighted a typo in the instructions was an added bonus. Hopefully, that'll save a few folks from cementing the parts the wrong way 'round.

I aim too make a bit of progress tomorrow. As always, there are other builds and samples screaming for attention, but this is a Spitfire Mk. I and the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain is upon us, so I'll do my best to pull out the stops...

All the best

Rowan

Hi again

No progress to show, but I have been busy on sub-assemblies and confirming build/painting options. It would be a massive missed opportunity not to include one of the builds in our Battle Of Britain campaign, so that's focused me on the early and late options in the kit.

Valiant Wings' Airframe & Miniature #12 continues to prove its value in planning how to tackle the cockpit. The beauty of it is that it features so many vintage photos from manuals, and they've made me rethink some of my long-held preconceptions.

So... some of the choices I make will almost certainly raise a few eyebrows here and there - but I'll try to justify each of them.

I've got the day off work on Wednesday, so I'm aiming to get a good bit done then.

All the best

Rowan

Hello, All!

I ordered my EDUARD Spit Mk.I "Dual Combo Kit" in the wee hours of this morning. Should see it in my mail sometime within the next couple of weeks.

I'd like a few opinions regarding paints. I DO NOT like the "over-done", over-exaggerated, "beat-up", overly-weathered, FILTHY "look" on my model aircraft; I'll leave THAT for the "Armor Boys" and the "Panzer-heads" on another site which shall remain nameless...

Thanks in advance...

VR, Dennis

Hey Dennis,

I've recently started using AK Real Colours and they are lovely paints. I don't know if they make RAF colours but working with them is rewarding.

As for weathering, I want to politely disagree with you. Of course, how you finish your kits is entirely your choice, but I wouldn't necesarily characterise a heavily weathered Spitfire as exaggerated. As you know, Spitfires saw a lot of service in extreme conditions. I think there's authentic space for everything from a brand new shiny example to one that has seen many sorties. In the end it's a matter of personal taste or historical accuracy if that's what is aimed for. My own preference is to try and model a specific example at a specific moment, or as close as I can. That way the weathering is as close to authentic as my references and skills allow.

Bye for now and enjoy the build.

Hi, Steve!

I'm thinking you may have misconstrued my meaning as regards to weathering- Which is perfectly OK with me, ESPECIALLY when I've said a few things with my tongue firmly planted in one of my cheeks!

If I may clarify- I have to say that my weathering techniques tend to be a little bit more "restrained" than what I've been seeing of late from a lot of other modelers. It seems there are so many people out there who are trying to "out-do" each other in how many levels of mud, crud, corruption, and wear & tear they put their models through. I happen to be a firm believer in the old adage,

"Less Is More..."

The Late, Great Shep Paine used to say,

"Armor gets filthy; airplanes merely get dirty..."

I agree...

Rest assured Steve, my "Battle of Britain" Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants DO get their share of weathering, all in accordance with what my eyes perceive in my multitudinous references...

As to the paints- Yes, I do believe AK makes an RAF WWII Paint set which includes "Battle of Britain" colors, Dark Green, Dark Earth and Sky Type S. I've used some of their "washes", and I've been quite satisfied with the results. Maybe it's time for me to try their paints, although THAT will be via the "trial & error" method! Hurrah for old models to practice and experiment upon!

EDUARD seems to like GUNZE, so I may give them a try, as well...

Stay Safe & Healthy, All!

VR, Dennis

Good morning Russ,

Well when you put it that way it seems like there is more that we agree on than we disagree on. I guess my main point was to say that we shouldn't be too hard on modelling styles we don't like. That ends up chasing people out of the hobby which is not want any of us want (I think).

Anyhow, I suspect this new Spit' kit is going to be built and blogged a lot once it's released and it should be fun seeing them all come together, especially Rowan's adventure right here.

Happy modelling everyone.

Good Morning, Steve!

Ummm, it's "Dennis"... I don't believe Russ entered our little "Off-Topic side-discussion" at all, unless you were discussing the same subject with Russ in another thread...

Aside of that, I quite agree with what you've said in your previous post...

As a personal preference, I DO NOT ascribe to building any of my models in order to look like a shiny new toy, unless the subject is to be a scale automobile representing a pristine showroom or museum-like condition.

I do "weather" my scale aircraft, the execution of which tends to be just a bit "light-handed"...

VR, Dennis

Hi again

I really tempted Fate there, didn't I! I should know better by now.

As it turned out, a colleague at work was unwell and I had to go in to cover. So, I couldn't make any of the progress I'd planned to show. I'll do a bit of work on the kit this evening instead of writing another review and try not to get too far off schedule.

All the best

Rowan

Good morning gents,

This is just a quick hello to say sorry to Dennis. I was surfing too many blogs at once and get mixed up.

And, Rowan I think it was John Lennon who said something like 'life is what happens while we are making plans'. I hope today you get some good bench time. There's a growing number of rave in-box reviews of this kit popping up, so it was a great choice.

Bye for now and happy modelling.