Tamiya's 1/32 SpitfireIX

[Fenlander]

It do look impressive Steve, not sure how much longer I can hold out on getting one of these. Next thing you know, John will pop up and say I can get you one after I come back of Holiday........... temptress that he is (if you see what I mean)......... The Mosquito I have just got has two basic Merlin engines, I may use your pictures to see if they can be detailed up enough to leave the cowlings off. Great work Steve, keep it up mate.

 

[Ian M]

That looks good Steve. Dont you just hate it when you put sumit on the screen X5 life size. Still better now than later.

So you will be playing silly buggers with the wires and cables soon?

Ian M

 

[stona]

Glad you like it chaps. It's a kit that is difficult to mess up as long as you take the normal precautions! The fit is,as everyone else has said,excellent.

So you will be playing silly buggers with the wires and cables soon?Ian M

I don't know yet. I'm working from this photo and intend to put the figure in. Obviously for the album he wanted everything "buttoned up"

However, due to Tamiya's cunning magnetically attached cowling pieces I may leave one off and call it artisitic licence! It looks very busy in there already,the kit parts OOB give a wonderful impression of just how little room there was under those cowlings so we'll see. The whole front end is a push fit onto the fuselage (another brilliant idea) so I've plenty of time to decide. I'll let everything dry,sort out that oil tank, straighten the intercooler oil resevoir (little green one attached to top of firewall,it's drooping a bit),do the odd touch up and then have a good long ponder!

Cheers

Steve

 

[Fenlander]

I have a solution to your dilemma.... Leave off the port cowling, I bet that is what they did when this picture was taken

 

[stona]

Nice one Graham,now we're cooking with gas!

The picture was allegedly taken in July,the trees in the background would certainly support a summer period. It looks dry and the sun is high in the sky.

What do our assorted photo-interpreters think that the aircraft is standing on? My guess is short grass. It certainly doesn't look like concrete.

Cheers

Steve

PS they didn't have to keep the hood closed to keep out dust either!!

 

[Fenlander]

I would agree that it is very, very short grass or earth. Those scuff marks left foreground are too soft to be broken concrete

 

[spanner570]

Det.Insp. Ron here, based on the photographic evidence M' lud, I reckon it's concrete. Take a look at J.J.'s shoes, they are deffo. on, rather than in the ground, no grass up his clobber.

The scuff marks I suggest are oil stains ect.

This is the case for the concrete yer 'onour....

 

[stona]

Mmmmm! now I really don't know. I shall seek info from other pictures of Kenley.

In the mean time may I be excused jury service?

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

Well having looked at a few pictures,Kenley was a pretty typical aerodrome. Concrete aprons infront of hangars, standard looking double revetments (the ones with Two concrete pads,dividing wall,shelter and emergecy exit to the rear). Also concrete taxiways and two concrete runways. Apart from that there was/is a lot of grass!

I think the picture was taken by a photographer with his back to one of the buildings around the perimetre,looking across the airfield. If that's the case then JE*J is standing on concrete.

Truth is I really don't know lol.

That concludes the forensic evidence for concrete,if anyone knows better speak up or this JE*J is going to finish up on concrete too!

Cheers

Steve

 

[spanner570]

Don't you just love this sort of thing?

Steve, try this one...If you look over the nose of J.Js aircraft, there is another one parked up. This suggests to me they're probably side by side on the concrete apron in front of the hanger.

Any thoughts?

Ron

 

[Fenlander]

Ahh, but the one behind is definitely on grass, quite rough grass to. You can see the boundary line just the other side of the main subject. More of the grass can be seen over the top of the fuselage just before the tail

 

[Ian M]

AS you have said Steve the sun is high in the sky. It is casting a very nice shadow of JE*J onto the concrete. I build my case on that the shadows have a nice hard edge which would suggest a smooth surface in this case concrete. If JE*J was indeed parked on the cricket pitch the very fact that the grass is "soft and Fuzzy" would also result in the edge of the shadow being softer and more uneven.

Further more: If you observe the photo given as evidence, under the very rear of the fusalage, behind the tail wheel there appears to be a puddle of water, possibly resulting in the run off after JE*J had been washed down for the photo. If JE*J was on the lawn, this would of soaked into the ground. Whilst looking at the photo I notice the honorable Mr Johnson will soon be buying a round of drinks in the officers mess, and be thanking himself for being the boss. Was it not punishable to not return the stick to a neutral possition and secure it with a for the purpose precured bit of wood. Flaps up and all controll surfaces plane.

Ian M

 

[spanner570]

Ahh, but the one behind is definitely on grass, quite rough grass to. You can see the boundary line just the other side of the main subject. More of the grass can be seen over the top of the fuselage just before the tail

Well spotted my man, quite right.

So before I have another nose bleed, is it fair to say JJs on concerkreet and 'tother is on the sod?

 

[stona]

Good catch Graham. If you look along the line of the depressed aileron you can see the division between the concrete and grass under the fuselage.

Ian,they were fined for taxying with FLAPS down. They caused the engine to overheat as they disrupted the airflow through the radiator(s) and could also be damaged by foreign objects thrown up by the wheels or propwash. There were a set of control locks which were supposed to be fitted to a parked aircraft,this was to prevent them being moved or slammed about by gusts of wind. They obviously haven't been fitted to JE*J here.

When exiting the aircraft it was usual to push the control column forward,explaining the down position of the elevators but you'd expect the yoke to be neutral i.e. no or minimal deflection of the ailerons. Obviously not here!

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

Here's the control locking system for the Spitfire.

The locking "bar" was stored behind the seat. What a malarkey,no wonder they very often just tied part of the harness around the column. Can't do that with photo-etch!

I know this is my build thread but I've spent a couple of hours fitting rods and very fiddly photo-etch hinges to rudder and elevators so not much to show. Maybe tomorrow.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Centurion3RTR]

You're not telling me they had to have a crook lock on the Spit are you? Sorry Steve lol, but joking aside mate this is a cracking job and a nice tribute Air Vice-Marshal James Edger Johnson. I was going to build "Johnnie" Johnson's Spitfire in 1:72 scale until the accident, so i'm enjoying watching the build up mate.

Have fun, John

 

[Ian M]

Thats a nice little bit of info. Diagrams too! I could imagine it would not be too hard to knock something like that up if the need arises.

Ian M

 

[stona]

All the hinges are in. The photo-etch part rotates around a metal rod fitted inside the control surface.....very nice. Here's the rudder as an illustration.

Also started fitting out the lower wing with wheel wells etc. First time the clamps have been used in anger just to make sure everything is tight and the dihedral is correct and even. There is no problem with the fit.

The Merlin has had the rest of the frames (cowl attachments) fitted and now just needs its exhausts. I have a rather convoluted system for painting exhausts so they may be a while!

Cheers

Steve

 

[spanner570]

Gawd, he's done away with the duvet and put the engine on it's own mattress now!!!!!!!

Steve, great looking build so far and some smashing detail work going into it too, good stuff.

Ron

 

[stona]

Well I want it to be comfy while it waits for a Spitfire!

Exhausts,stage 1. A coat of Humbrol 56. I've used a new tinlet and I'm sure it's more grey and less silver than it used to be.

I have another question for the photo analysts. Look at the edge of the landing gear door visible in front of the tyre. It's in the sun but looks quite bright compared to the medium sea grey underside. There are two possibilities for the colour of the inside of this door (discounting interior green). It could be the undersurface colour(MSG) as per instructions or it could be an aluminium colour. Same applies to the covers over the wheel hubs. I have a friend who is something of an authority on USAAF aircraft and he can't tell the difference between neutral grey and aluminium in B+W photos so this is a bit of a guess I suppose.

What do you reckon?

Cheers

Steve