Tamiya 1:72 Spitfire Mk1 + Details

[dr_gn]

72twink said:

I was just about to give you a 5 shilling fine ...... then remembered the open gun bays

And engine...

[HereBeMonsters]

Having had a closer look, the gap may be a little too big for filler



I'm going to have a go at cutting out a section of the part I've already cut, and glueing that into place. Will probably need some filler from there, but this isn't going to be perfect - just a way for me to re-learn all the stuff I forgot since I was 10!

[dr_gn]

HereBeMonsters said:

Having had a closer look, the gap may be a little too big for filler



I'm going to have a go at cutting out a section of the part I've already cut, and glueing that into place. Will probably need some filler from there, but this isn't going to be perfect - just a way for me to re-learn all the stuff I forgot since I was 10!

The nose looks like a square face with a lop-sided mouth to me.

[dr_gn]

So after a nice holiday at the weekend, I continued with the resin engine covers and p/e gun bay covers by painting interior green followed by a dark wash and matt varnish.

I also cut the original protruding plastic gun barrels off the wing and made some new ones out of brass tube (painted black and with some gunmetal powder applied:

[Red Firecracker]

Nice finish, very subtle.

[dr_gn]

Red Firecracker said:

Nice finish, very subtle.

That's me

[dr_gn]

Finished the wheels, exhausts. gun bays, propeller/spinner and seat.

The gun bays fit within the thinned sections of wing, and only the rectangular gun troughs are visible when assembled, so excuse the unpainted ammo chutes and poor finish on the flat bits - they won't be seen.

The seat looks a bit Carlos Fandango in red, but it represents the controversial Aeroplastics seat used in many Spitfires during the war (and it adds a bit of colour to the cockpit).

[MonkeySpanker]

dr_gn said:

Finished the wheels, exhausts. gun bays, propeller/spinner and seat.

The gun bays fit within the thinned sections of wing, and only the rectangular gun troughs are visible when assembled, so excuse the unpainted ammo chutes and poor finish on the flat bits - they won't be seen.

The seat looks a bit Carlos Fandango in red, but it represents the controversial Aeroplastics seat used in many Spitfires during the war (and it adds a bit of colour to the cockpit).

looking very good.
I noticed the 'lots of scraping' to get the resin parts to fit, is this usual?

[dr_gn]

MonkeySpanker said:

dr_gn said:

Finished the wheels, exhausts. gun bays, propeller/spinner and seat.

The gun bays fit within the thinned sections of wing, and only the rectangular gun troughs are visible when assembled, so excuse the unpainted ammo chutes and poor finish on the flat bits - they won't be seen.

The seat looks a bit Carlos Fandango in red, but it represents the controversial Aeroplastics seat used in many Spitfires during the war (and it adds a bit of colour to the cockpit).

looking very good.
I noticed the 'lots of scraping' to get the resin parts to fit, is this usual?

Yes, if you're fitting replacement cockpit sides, obviously they have a thickness, so you have to compensate for this by removing some material from the existing parts. If the resin cockpit also has a floor (like this one) then the dimensions of the resin assembly (sides + floor) define how much extra material might need to be removed.

Some resin items are a one-for-one replacement like guns or control surfaces or whatever. The resin casting process allows much finer detail than injection moulding, so it is worthwhile on visible areas.

[dr_gn]

Cockpit is pretty much complete now in terms of painting:



The reflector sight glass needs fitting, but I'll leave that until the fuselage sides are closed.

[dr_gn]

Engine firewall complete now - it's tiny, but incredibly well detailled:



I also got the Xtradecal set for the MkI, II & Prototype Spitfire. I chose QJ-P from No.92 Squadron ("B" pattern camouflage), for no other reason than I like the smaller fuselage roundels combined with the underside roundels, neither of which are included in the original kit as an option.



I'l planning on getting another Tamiya Spitfire (it really is a superb little kit for the money) and building it 'clean' ie with flaps retracted and no engine detail. I'll use one of the other decal options for that one.

[SlipStream77]

Amazing detail levels and finish Doc!

I get eyestrain painting the tyres on 1/48 models, that firewall would have been hard work!

[perdu]

That is incredibly fine work.

I see why you like the extra detailing, you work it so well.

I doubt if I could do it justice, myself.


wow!

[dr_gn]

Ta! So far so good.

It's just a question of picking out colour on the resin - in this case all the detail is cast into the parts, I'm not adding much at all (maybe brake lines).

Finished the tailwheel and engine frames just now:





Thought I'd leave the frames on the header block until they were finished; they are incredibly fragile.

[Red Firecracker]

dr_gn said:

Thought I'd leave the frames on the header block until they were finished; they are incredibly fragile.

That's going to be, err, interesting!

[dr_gn]

Red Firecracker said:

dr_gn said:

Thought I'd leave the frames on the header block until they were finished; they are incredibly fragile.

That's going to be, err, interesting!

Yeah, it is.

I've seen a couple of nightmare examples of this conversion, where the model is beautifully finished, but where the engine has ended up pointing upwards by a few degrees:



Couldn't live with that...

[srob]

dr_gn said:

Do you ever scan real aircraft and use the cloud data as a basis for your CAD models? We laser scanned a Jetstream fuselage a couple of years ago with good results.

I am a design engineer myself, and have done some basic aircraft CAD models in the past - it is incredibly easy to get details wrong when transferring dimensions and profiles from paper drawings.

What did you use to scan a whole fuselage?

I use a Faro scanner sometimes at work, but I assume you have something rather larger?!

[dr_gn]

srob said:

dr_gn said:

Do you ever scan real aircraft and use the cloud data as a basis for your CAD models? We laser scanned a Jetstream fuselage a couple of years ago with good results.

I am a design engineer myself, and have done some basic aircraft CAD models in the past - it is incredibly easy to get details wrong when transferring dimensions and profiles from paper drawings.

What did you use to scan a whole fuselage?

I use a Faro scanner sometimes at work, but I assume you have something rather larger?!

It was a Metris laser radar:

http://www.metris3d.hu/laserradar_eng_1107.pdf

I think Metris is Nikon now (I've moved departments since we scanned it).

[lufbramatt]

dr_gn said:

lufbramatt said:

yes- these kits still make lovely looking models and very few people will ever know the difference! I only noticed after spending a fair amount of time looking at how the structure works from an engineering point of view.

The onle kit that's so bad I'd almost say trading standards should get involved is the new cyberhobby 1/72 sea vixen. That thing's nowhere near right!

Do you ever scan real aircraft and use the cloud data as a basis for your CAD models? We laser scanned a Jetstream fuselage a couple of years ago with good results.

I am a design engineer myself, and have done some basic aircraft CAD models in the past - it is incredibly easy to get details wrong when transferring dimensions and profiles from paper drawings.

We haven't yet, although we have looked into it. For our use it's over the top though, the equipment and process would add a big chunk to our research costs (which are currently minimal, a few free kits here and there usually gets us by ;-) ) for minimal gain. We can do a pretty good job using drawings, a tape measure and good photographs so it would be very hard to justify using a big chunk of the profits on laser scanning. We have done a few kits (like the Merlin helicopter) directly using manufacturers 3d CAD data, which is a big help but doesn't really cut down the design time that much as most of the work is converting the shapes into mouldable parts and adding the detail.

It would also be difficult to arrange in terms of getting the reference airframe into a suitable environment for a decent amount of time. Museums are crammed full of other exhibtis which can't be moved, and working aircraft tend to be in use a lot of the time earning their keep, or being maintained. If we wanted to spend a length of time setting up a scanning session we would have to pay for it.

[dr_gn]

lufbramatt said:

dr_gn said:

lufbramatt said:

yes- these kits still make lovely looking models and very few people will ever know the difference! I only noticed after spending a fair amount of time looking at how the structure works from an engineering point of view.

The onle kit that's so bad I'd almost say trading standards should get involved is the new cyberhobby 1/72 sea vixen. That thing's nowhere near right!

Do you ever scan real aircraft and use the cloud data as a basis for your CAD models? We laser scanned a Jetstream fuselage a couple of years ago with good results.

I am a design engineer myself, and have done some basic aircraft CAD models in the past - it is incredibly easy to get details wrong when transferring dimensions and profiles from paper drawings.

We haven't yet, although we have looked into it. For our use it's over the top though, the equipment and process would add a big chunk to our research costs (which are currently minimal, a few free kits here and there usually gets us by ;-) ) for minimal gain. We can do a pretty good job using drawings, a tape measure and good photographs so it would be very hard to justify using a big chunk of the profits on laser scanning. We have done a few kits (like the Merlin helicopter) directly using manufacturers 3d CAD data, which is a big help but doesn't really cut down the design time that much as most of the work is converting the shapes into mouldable parts and adding the detail.

It would also be difficult to arrange in terms of getting the reference airframe into a suitable environment for a decent amount of time. Museums are crammed full of other exhibtis which can't be moved, and working aircraft tend to be in use a lot of the time earning their keep, or being maintained. If we wanted to spend a length of time setting up a scanning session we would have to pay for it.

I know with the laser radar it gave us a point cloud, which then needed a lot of post-processing to get CAD surfaces. I guess things have moved on a bit in the past 4 years or so - I'm not really into that side of things now.

I think I saw in Hornby magazine a while ago that some model locomotives (diesels) have been moulded from scan data. Not sure if Hornby themselves do it though.