Spitfire Heaven – Duxford, 18 May 06.

the mould came from a spitfire in Eindhoven , which was pole mounted originally ;I’m sure someone will know the serial no.

That would be MK959, which is now flying in Texas

[QUOTE=Roobarb]

Well actually. 🙂

Mark

OK Mk12 fair cop. Maybe I should have said they’re the wrong wheels for a GB Replica MK IX. They’re usually equiped with the discarded Ford Sierra and fibreglass wheeltrim variety 🙂

By the way for you Plastic Spitfire enthusiasts, we’re bemused by which aircraft these were moulded from. The fuselage has “MK805” in the moulding but we’re not convinced it was taken from the real one in Italy as there are several detail differences. GB Replica Spitfires were previously made by TDL Replicas (there was an article in Flypast about them years ago) so if anyone remembers where they took the moulds from…
They’re too good to be from the Feggans-Brown ones (Piece of Cake, and RAF gate guards) and superior to the old Huntingdon Specialised Mouldings ones.
Any Ideas?

I’m not sure if anyone is interested in mere details (as opposed to tearing lumps out of each other) but the mould came from a spitfire in Eindhoven , which was pole mounted originally ;I’m sure someone will know the serial no.

Indeed.

My point is it’s quick an brilliant achievement to manage to make such a basic mistake in this day and age. I mean someone put a lot of effort keeping their eyes closed and avoiding data surrounding them on all sides to come up with that spec. Bit of an error to do it on such a popular aircraft type…

JDK – it’s not far removed being 1/1 scale and consisting of grp instead of plastic.
A little bit harder to hang from a bedroom ceiling on a piece of cotton though!

Hindsight; a wonderful thing.

Whoever specified the paint scheme did quite a job doing so for a site, probably the only one in the world, where you would find it hard not to hit a Spitfire were you to chuck a brick.

If that were not enough, perhaps the vast investment in an Airfix kit with six slightly off but more appropriate paint samples included, might have been a thought?

Another Dodgy Scheme

No comment …..

Just to remind you the colours were chosen by IWM not the people who painted it……………..

I’m not sure you understand where I’m coming from here. I’m agreeing here with criticism of the chosen scheme by posters like Marks 12 and V, regardless of who is to “blame”. And if you look at my earlier posts in this thread, it should be clear that I’m not pinning blame on those that physically painted it, nor suggesting that they should have used their own initiative to make it correct.

As for you, Hi-Octain, I really don’t understand your problem. I said “the colours chosen”, no blame apportioned, none intended to be, no attack made. By implication it was a criticism of IWM any way you cut it, and one I would not have made whilst I was employed by them. I am most certainly *not* about to join the bandwagon of slagging off IWM or any other museum for sport; I will call things as I see them where I feel there is a point to such comment. You may not feel there has been one here, but I disagree.

Regardless, I would appreciate an apology for your unwarranted and frankly bizarre rant; you were good enough to provide one last time you misinterpreted the situation, I will give you that.

I recall (raised?) lines being on there for the disruptive camo, but not for the roundels. Even if there were, it doesn’t affect the colours chosen.

I do not believe that this attack has been allowled to continue .
It would seem that I.W.M. STAFF ARE NOT SUBJECT TO MODERATION or the Webmasters Wrath.
Mere better informed Forum Members Have been banned. And threads closed for less .

The roundel comment was for Mark 12 Not u

If any other comment fits wear it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I recall (raised?) lines being on there for the disruptive camo, but not for the roundels. Even if there were, it doesn’t affect the colours chosen.

Just to remind you the colours were chosen by IWM not the people who painted it……………..

Mk 12 May I defend the Painter chap ” Had to Follow the outline on the GRP “
J F Customer Allways Right
Micky! Handwriting showing so soon!

people who know have spoken! people who Guess Have done so! Now we have those looking for afight!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must be LEGENDS TIME such fun.

doG hates rain organise weather please

I recall (raised?) lines being on there for the disruptive camo, but not for the roundels. Even if there were, it doesn’t affect the colours chosen.

One on Amazon, too. A bit more pricey than Robbo’s, though.

A Mk 24 in a Mk 22 scheme………9:10

Mark 🙂

Daz,

That would have been a good point, apart from the fact that this is a Mk.24 in a BoB scheme and not a Mk.22 :diablo:

Just me being pedantic 😉

I knew that – I was just being provocative! 😉

Plus, it was the closest thing I could find!

Too tempting….!

(image from www.warbirdphotos.net)

:diablo:

Daz,

That would have been a good point, apart from the fact that this is a Mk.24 in a BoB scheme and not a Mk.22 :diablo:

Just me being pedantic 😉

Not forgetting the almost impossible to find “British Aviation Colours of World War Two,-the official Camouflage Colours and Markings of RAF aircraft, 1939-1945” Arms and Armour press ISBN 0-85368-271-2 published in association with the RAF Museum and with those 32 colour paint chips in the back and edited by John Tanner former Director RAF Museum. Out of print since 1986 and very hard to find on abebooks or amazon. I picked up another third edition at the DX show yesterday from the Aviation Bookshp for just £20. So you see they are out there 🙂

A Mk 22 in BoB scheme……………………1:10

Mark 🙂

Too tempting….!

(image from www.warbirdphotos.net)

:diablo:

doG hates rain organise weather please

Teach dog to hold a brolly.

Mk 12 May I defend the Painter chap ” Had to Follow the outline on the GRP “
J F Customer Allways Right
Micky! Handwriting showing so soon!

people who know have spoken! people who Guess Have done so! Now we have those looking for afight!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must be LEGENDS TIME such fun.

doG hates rain organise weather please

JDK, Mark V…

The BM issue is not really a good comparision at all….
Bear with me.. its a publically funded project which, because of its size, has a very thick set of rules and regulations which govern the procurement of goods and sesrvices.

This is designed to ensure a competitive tender process can be undertaken ensuring best value (or no fleecing) for the works to the public purse.
In this in particular covers the specification of all products to be used, without exception…including ‘Portland Stone’…which is obligatory under rules governing works to Grade 1 listed buildings.

So under the EU rules you cannot specify named products.. and ‘Portland Stone’ is a named product; there are only two quarries in the UK who can legally label their stone ‘Portland Stone’…all other UK limestones are not from the same bed.

Under UK Heritage rules ‘Portland Stone’ had be used.

As EU law is the more onerous (plus they were funding a greater percentage of the works) so they got their way.

The architects were therefore forced to write a specification for oolithic limestone defining certain performance and appearance criteria which effectively limited the limestone to that which is extracted from the ‘Portland’ bed.

However that spec. cannot be so strict as to define a single product…so this meant any stone extracted from the ‘Portland’ bed, on either side of the Channel was able, subject to sampling and benchmarking, to fulfill the spec.

The term ‘or similar’ is used to allow contractors to propose other products that are very close to fulfilling the spec, but may offer financial or availability advantages. They can then be rejected based on their own merits by the design team..for example another UK limestone could have been proposed, but its could have legitimately been rejected as not fulfilling the spec. without the contractor being able to claim the spec was to constraining.

When the stone went to tender the quarries on the UK side were unable to provide the quantum of stone in the right sizes, at the right time for the right price….a common enough issue when dealing with a natural material.

So in order to maintain the programme the ‘Portland’ stone extracted from the other side of the Channel was used.

So whilst the stone is ‘Portland’ stone in that it comes form the limestone bed called the ‘Portland’ bed and it shares all of its geological charactersitics with stone extracted at Portland, it is not ‘Portland stone’; if you see what I mean.

The French stone is not exactly the same in grain and texture as the UK one..its natural material afterall and it does not take carving in the same way.

The issue is that there are two sets of contradictory rules.. one from the EU whose remit is to ensure open and fair competition (not possible with only two suppliers) and the UK heritage rules who remit is to preserve the exact material and nature of UK buildings, built for the most part with UK specific materials…

As there is no mechanism in the procurement process to reconcile this issue, its left to the Clients and their team to sort out this matter each and every time it arises.

So painting a publicity Spitfire FSM with inconsistent roundels to go with the paint scheme is not quite the same issue.

The issue with the Spit is that it would appear that the colour scheme and the roundel were not used together… but are we 100% certain that they were never used together? Ever?

If the answer is yes then it is incorrect…if there is a doubt then one Spit somewhere may have worn that combination….in which case its all pretty moot.

[QUOTE=AFH10]

…what I can’t quite understand is why is this particular replica being singled out when there are others that are carying unauthentic/incorrect schemes. As I’ve always said, it’s up to the owners how they paint them. … For the record I think the silver and red mark 14 looks great even if it’s a mark 21 scheme.

AFH10

For me this is a tolerance issue.

Aside from the fact that the ‘silver and red’ Spitfire XIV is in private ownership, with engine running for the racer was contra-prop, the side profile of a high back Mk XIV and a Spitfire 21 are but identical, only the wing on the 21 having the later series planform.

Personal tolerance rating scale:-

Any Spitfire/Seafire in its original livery…10:10

Low back XIV as XVIII scheme or v/v……9:10

Mk XIV as 41 Squadron racer……………..9:10

A Mk V in a BoB scheme……………………8:10

A PR XI in a Mk IX scheme………………..6:10

A Mk IX in a BoB scheme………………….5:10

Mk XVI lowback as 41 Squadron racer…..5:10

Early camouflage with late roundels……..2:10

A Mk 22 in BoB scheme……………………1:10

Mark 🙂