ICM Spitfire Mk.IX

[aqua_ta]

Hi guys, here's just a couple of pictures of the ICM Spitfire.
Excuse the poor picture quality but the photo's were taken in the evening so the flash was used, I will try to take some daylight ones later.
The kit itself was very good with only a couple of fit issues that were only minor, the only fly in the ointment was the god awful decals that would fall to pieces in the case of the service stencils (they were not a full set and weren't entirely accurate) and they would not succumb to any microset/sol solution.

 

[Wurger]

There should have been more corrections introduced if you wanted to have a better replic. But looking very very nice. Good job.

 

[Gnomey]

Nicely done!

 

[Crimea_River]

Looks good!

 

[Airframes]

Agree with all.

 

[Wildcat]

Good stuff!

 

[aqua_ta]

Thank you for all your kind words, so here are some better pics.

Hi Wurger, can you please tell me what I needed to correct since I've only seen one picture of JE-J MK392 and that was after D-Day.
P.S there is no maple leaf symbol on this aircraft because according to Johnnie Johnson this particular aircraft didn't have one applied.

 

[Wurger]

All corrections are regarding to the shape of the model but not to the painting. The fuselage is too long about 2mm. Not too much comparing to the Hasegawa/Revell one ( 3mm ). The top of the engine cowling is too flat. The air intake to the carburetor is of a little bit different shape and looks like for Mk.V. The landing gear legs seem to be a little bit too long. Additionally, the hole for the cockpit conopy is of the correct length. But about 1mm too long at the central part.It is a little bit too strange because the rear part of the conopy is of a correct length like the rest of the "glass". More deadly sins I don't remeber.

 

[Wayne Little]

Nice..!

 

[Crimea_River]

All corrections are regarding to the shape of the model but not to the painting. The fuselage is too long about 2mm. Not too much comparing to the Hasegawa/Revell one ( 3mm ). The top of the engine cowling is too flat. The air intake to the carburetor is of a little bit different shape and looks like for Mk.V. The landing gear legs seem to be a little bit too long. Additionally, the hole for the cockpit conopy is of the correct length. But about 1mm too long at the central part.It is a little bit too strange because the rear part of the conopy is of a correct length like the rest of the "glass". More deadly sins I don't remeber.

A fine looking build nonetheless. ICM's IX is still one of the best out there for accuracy of scale as all of the available kits have flaws. One thing to watch on the ICM kit is that the upper wing halves or fuselage fairings need to be trimmed back, otherwise there is too narrow a gap for the fuselge to fit into, resulting in the wing dihedral being too flat.

 

[rochie]

nice job

 

[otftch]

Looks good.
Ed

 

[Wurger]

A fine looking build nonetheless. ICM's IX is still one of the best out there for accuracy of scale as all of the available kits have flaws. One thing to watch on the ICM kit is that the upper wing halves or fuselage fairings need to be trimmed back, otherwise there is too narrow a gap for the fuselge to fit into, resulting in the wing dihedral being too flat.

Yes...you are absolutely right. In addition, to prevent aginst the flat wing dihedral , there should be add a wing stringer of a correct dihedral running across the entire wing. It should be attached to the lower half of the wing

 

[Airframes]

Yep, certainly needs work to get the dihedral right, as Andy and I discovered.
Regarding the cowling, there were two styles (early and late), one of which has a pronounced curve on the upper surface. In the kit I used, issued as a MkVIII but all the same parts, the cowling seems to be correct with the curve/bulge, and to be honest, most other minor faults can't be noticed, with the possible exception of the prop spinner, and the shape of the rear cockpit glazing which, if the canopy is fully open, can't be noticed anyway.

 

[aqua_ta]

Thanks chaps,
I didn't quite realize it was that inaccurate!
regarding the intake I thought it looked like the late Mk.IX version but I'm no expert so I'll bow to your knowledge. With regards to the wing dihedral, I did read that you have to file down the firewall and/or instrument panel as they can be a tad too wide resulting in pushing out the fuselage sides thus giving the dihedral problem.
Nevertheless I enjoyed making it and it sure looks good enough to me, even my good lady said the Spitfire was her favourite..

 

[Crimea_River]

Well, it's not that inaccurate! Read this: Spitfire IX Kits in 1/48 Scale Compared by Bruce Archer

 

[Wurger]

I didn't quite realize it was that inaccurate!..

I agree with the post above. Taking all these incorrections into consideration ...the kit ( model ) is still the best one that has been offered so far. There is more work to do on the model comparing to kits of other manufacturers. But its price abyes that and lets us make a nice replic though.

 

[javlin]

She looks good to Me Cheers