LZ82 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) http://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/modules.php?...le&sid=8634 http://www.hobbyeasy.com/en/data/t3feaohy0ttoqdu7bbmq.html Edited March 15, 2011 by LZ82 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edmon Dantes Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Looks too fat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Looks too fat. and in what way? gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Looks too fat. In some photographs, so does Angelina Jolie, but I'd wait until I could get "hands-on" before making such a sweeping statement about her. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Anders_Isaksson Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 and in what way? gary Just a hunch but the center section of the windscreen looks too wide in that photo, indicating a too wide fuselage. IIRC the Trumpeter 1/24th scale Spitfire shares this problem. Would really like to be wrong here, though, as I had high hopes for a good 32nd scale Mk Vb. Tamiya... please? Cheers, Anders Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Now that's funny!! Cheers Brad In some photographs, so does Angelina Jolie, but I'd wait until I could get "hands-on" before making such a sweeping statement about her.Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattC Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Something looks a little "off" I agree, but I don't know what it is, or if its just the photo. Not sure if you've all seen this, but fwiw; Edited March 14, 2011 by MattC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Something looks a little "off" I agree, but I don't know what it is, or if its just the photo. Not sure if you've all seen this, but fwiw; looks like a Spitfire to me! A nice one at that! gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Anders_Isaksson Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Something looks a little "off" I agree, but I don't know what it is, or if its just the photo. Not sure if you've all seen this, but fwiw;... Hmm, to my untrained eyes I think the windscreen (and the width of the forward fuselage just in front of the windscreen) look pretty OK in that pic. Here's hoping... Cheers, Anders Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gordon Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Something looks a little "off" I agree, but I don't know what it is, or if its just the photo. Not sure if you've all seen this, but fwiw; I think it's the angle of the windscreen side panel that's throwing things 'off'. That panel is curved-optically incorrect- and should be flat. That would throw the eye off quite badly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gordon Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Oh, and another thing, it's got those stupid wing bulges over the wheel bays! When are people going to realise that they are a modern 'invention' and were not on wartime spits Obviously, the Spit. they measured, (if they did actually measure one), was a modern refit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Those (kidney-shaped) stupid wing bulges, over the wheel wells (not bays, they were for guns,) made their appearance on the MK.I, and carried over onto some later Marks (incidentally Hasegawa show them, albeit not so pronounced.) The larger, teardrop-shaped, bulges were the late/end of war innovations, caused by a tracking change. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattC Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I can't see anything that I can put my finger on, the photo looks weird thats all, the nearest I can get is to say it doesn't "feel" right, but that could be the photo. Oh, for those who are interested; Concise guide to Spitfire Wing Types When are people going to realise that they are a modern 'invention' and were not on wartime spits As I understand it, the bulges were introduced due to a decrease in toe in adopted for aircraft operating from concrete runways later in the war when the threat of invasion was less and more investment made into permanent runways, as the angle of toe in on the original (intended for grass fields) caused the port wheel to scrub, but with the reduced toe in, the wheels would not retract into the original wells. So, it seems that some wartime spits at least did have them, at least the teardrop shaped ones, rather than the more angular versions. As with everything, a model can only be as accurate as references of that exact aircraft at one particular moment in time will allow. Edited March 15, 2011 by MattC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) For one thing, it has the same error as the 1/32 Hasegawa Mk.V - the upper edge of the firewall should be an almost perfect "U" shape (inverted of course). Hasegawa, and now Trumpeter have a flattened top. That makes the proportions and shapes everywhere in that area wrong. Not a big surprise given the source. When you do what Tamiya does (send a team out to put hands on numerous different real Spitfires scattered around the world), you get things right. When you rely on published sources (often wrong) or you simply cop... er... "take inspiration" from the work of others, you end up with Trumpeter kits. J Edited March 16, 2011 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Julien (UK) Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) For one thing, it has the same error as the 1/32 Hasegawa Mk.V - the upper edge of the firewall should be an almost perfect "U" shape (inverted of course). Hasegawa, and now Trumpeter have a flattened top. That makes the proportions J I think U might be right; Julien Edited March 16, 2011 by Julien (UK) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Frame 5 is actually a slightly-flattened "U," so it looks as though the "corners" are too sharp, and need rounding off; looking at the kit (yes, I do have one, at last) it's possible that there's enough "meat" to allow some sanding away to be done. I hope that we can scotch these "copying" remarks, as well, please; if it was a copy, the "wrong" shape to the tailplane surfaces would not be in evidence, since I've never seen them on any kit other than the Trumpeter 1/24 offering. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Those (kidney-shaped) stupid wing bulges, over the wheel wells (not bays, they were for guns,) made their appearance on the MK.I, and carried over onto some later Marks (incidentally Hasegawa show them, albeit not so pronounced.) The larger, teardrop-shaped, bulges were the late/end of war innovations, caused by a tracking change.Edgar I'm looking at a photo of a MK Vb. wing, and the wing bulges are very similar to the kit wings. But I've also got a photo of another MK.IX that has completely different wing bulges on it. Then I have a Seafire photo that has two wing bulges on each side. From the photo of the MK.Vb I see little if anything wrong with the H.B. wings other than Tamiya didn't market them. By the way the narrow bulges are very pronounced in the photos! I do think they got the sides of the wind screens wrong as someone else has said. They are flat with a small metal plate under them. BUT! I also have two photos of Spits with the same section curved like H.B. did! One is a MK. IX and the other is not designated (frame # PM631). Plus photos of a several MK.I's that appears to have curved screens. Could it have been that the canopys were made by more than one supplier? gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 No, the kit shows an early (Mk.I style) windscreen, with external armour, and, as you can see, the side panels were curved. When the armoured glass was fitted inside the front screen, it had to be extended forward, to ensure that the glass cleared the gunsight; this had the bonus effect of straightening the side panels, making them flatter. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Right, I now have the kit, and have been checking it against the Cox drawings of the Mk.I (same basic dimensions and shape.) The fuselage, in length, width, and height, matches exactly, the wingspan scales out to 36'10" to within a hair, and the wings are 1-2mm oversized in chord. The tailplanes are 1-2mm undersized, while the elevators and rudder match exactly. I've used the Cox drawings because they're the only ones that I know we can trust, since they were done "way back when" before all of these modern aids like CAD, etc., and are from direct measurements of real airframes. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Right, I now have the kit, and have been checking it against the Cox drawings of the Mk.I (same basic dimensions and shape.) The fuselage, in length, width, and height, matches exactly, the wingspan scales out to 36'10" to within a hair, and the wings are 1-2mm oversized in chord. The tailplanes are 1-2mm undersized, while the elevators and rudder match exactly. I've used the Cox drawings because they're the only ones that I know we can trust, since they were done "way back when" before all of these modern aids like CAD, etc., and are from direct measurements of real airframes.Edgar I would not trust them! CAD drawings are accurate to within .0001" if the data input is correct. One thing you always see on a blue print is the notation "do not scale off drawing." There's a reason why. gary P.S. looking thru photos again I see three different windscreens. Two with the curved glass and one without it. Also your drawing is not like anything in the photos I see, as it lacks the top brace. Edited March 17, 2011 by ChesshireCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattC Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 if the data input is correct thats the issue though, if the data isn't correct, or is guessed at, bodged, assumed or misread, those errors are carried over, CAD is only as good as the data put into it. Until someone makes a kit based on Supermarine's actual construction drawings, anything else is subject to at least some error here and there, what counts is the margin, and how obvious that error is. I'd rather have a general shape that looks right but is a couple of mm off on span or length, rather than an accurate span and length and a slight mis-shape which throws the whole look off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I would not trust them! CAD drawings are accurate to within .0001" if the data input is correct. One thing you always see on a blue print is the notation "do not scale off drawing." There's a reason why.P.S. looking thru photos again I see three different windscreens. Two with the curved glass and one without it. Also your drawing is not like anything in the photos I see, as it lacks the top brace. I didn't mention blueprints; I said that he went to the real thing, and measured that. If you can't accept that sort of data, there's little point in going any further. The kit has one windshield, plus one add-on external armoured glass (as did the real thing) nothing more (except for two different r/v mirrors,) so I fail to understand where you see 3 windscreens. The "top brace," of which you speak, is a total mystery to me, as well, and the drawing is Supermarine's so, I would venture to suggest, fairly representative. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Anders_Isaksson Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ...The fuselage, in length, width, and height, matches exactly, ... Edgar, other discussions aside and just so I understand your observation correctly; do you find the HB fuselage cross-section to be correct, according to the drawings that you mentioned comparing the kit to? If so, I consider this great news. But then we have those 'bonus' fabric surfaces for starters... ...not impossible to fix, though. Cheers, Anders Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Edgar, other discussions aside and just so I understand your observation correctly; do you find the HB fuselage cross-section to be correct, according to the drawings that you mentioned comparing the kit to?If so, I consider this great news. As I said, before, the shape, at the firewall, is a little too angular, and could use some rounding-off at the "shoulders." The oval shape of the back end looks good, and, contrary to "informed" opinion, elsewhere, the outside walls of the cockpit are not slab-sided (as in the Hasegawa and PCM kits,) but subtly curved (maybe not as much as the real thing, but at least the effort's been made, and rounding off at the firewall will enhance the impression.) Edgar Edited March 17, 2011 by Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Anders_Isaksson Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Thanks Edgar for the clarification and added info, very much appreciated. Cheers, Anders Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.