Eduard 1/48 Spitfire IXc redeux

          Eduard’s new Spitfire IX has been hailed as the best, most accurate kit of this iconic fighter yet released in 1/48 scale, and that is the truth.  Now that it’s possible to do a Spitfire model that’s right, it’s time to consider doing a Spitfire model that is Correct.

           Recently-received information about the Spitfire IX reveals the fact that, as with all things Spitfire, there is no hard and fast rule about most of the “rules,” and that most of the experts don’t know as much as they claim.

          I managed to find out most of this the hard way, since I built one of the first kits to be put on the Internet.  Within a day of so doing, I started discovering how “wrong” my model was.  At that point, a modeler has three options: a.) throw it out as a terrible project; b.)“grin and bear it,” and let the model sit at the rear of the model shelves in hopes it won’t be noticed and will be soon forgotten; c.) fix it.  With a $50 kit, Option A is not an option.  I personally dislike Option B because I will always have my eyes drawn to the mistake in the back corner.  That leaves Option C, which is the one I chose

           The first thing to do was open my last bottle of Strip-A-Kit and remove all markings and paint.  I was aided in that decision by the news from FunDekals that all of the “facts” we have known about John Plagis’ Spitfire IX ML214 are wrong as regards the size of D-Day stripes used (it had the 10 Group 9-inch stripes), and the fact that none of the “Arab” Spitfires were issued to the squadron until November 1944, at which point Plagis was using a completely different Spitfire.

           Here are some things you should know about the Spitfire IX before you start working on your kit (thanks to Edgar Brooks for much of this):

          Eduard’s instructions are wrong as relates to what particular detail parts should be used.  Specifically, the kit instructions say to use the “bulged” top cowling piece for all these “late version” Spitfire IX options that have been included.  Wrong! The bulged cowling was introduced onto the production lines in August 1944, for the specific purpose of covering the Packard-Merlin engine used for what became the Spitfire XVI.  In the interest of reducing production costs, the new cowling became standard on all Spitfire IX and XVI aircraft produced after that date.  All Spitfire IX’s produced before that date had the “flat” cowling.  The new production Spitfires didn’t start showing up in operational units before early October.  All the Spitfires offered as options in the Eduard kit are airplanes used during the invasion of Europe in the summer of 1944, and one MTO airplane that was obviously an early aircraft.  Thus, they should all use the “flat” cowling.  In my case, the part was easy to pop off the model since Tenax doesn’t make a real thorough join if you use it lightly.  I still had the other cowling parts, so the model was soon properly configured.

           The Aero-Vee filter was not used on the first 500 or so Spitfire IXs converted from Mk. V airframes by Supermarine.  I appears to have been adopted by the fall of 1943, using the filter from the Spitfire VIII that was then in production at Supermarine.  This changeover appears to have happened between the MA and MH serial number production series, with MA serial Spitfire IXs having the early small intake and the MH going with the Aero-Vee.  However, there are “early” Spitfires that had the later filter retrofitted, so there is no hard-and-fast rule here, outside of a photograph of the specific airplane you are building a model of.  To make things more difficult, Castle-Bromwich was primarily involved in keeping production up of the Spitfire V, and so they only produced some 150 “conversion” Spitfire IX’s, in the BS and EN serial ranges, and some toward the end of that process were already receiving the larger filter intake.

           The early large cannon fairing was replaced rapidly starting in early 1943 because the early fairing was not as streamlined and could actually cut down a bit on speed overall, additionally it had been decided that a 4-cannon armament was too heavy for the Spitfire; earlier airplanes received the new cover when put through Maintenance Units, and sometimes these were replaced at the squadron level.  Thus, it is entirely possible to see an “early” Spitfire with the small intake and the new cannon fairing on the wing.  Additionally, the earlier Spitfire V horizontal stabilizer and elevator, which was fitted to those first 500-odd Spitfire Ixs and perhaps to some others depending on availability, was often replaced at repair depots when an airplane came through with some sort of damage to one stabilizer or the other; both would be replaced with the later stabilizer and elevator with the extended horn. 

        Finally, from photographic evidence in the Osprey book “126 Wing RCAF” and Chris Shores’ “Second Allied Tactical Air Force,” the supposed “hard and fast” rule that the cannon position was switched out on airplanes with the “c” wing (cannon in inboard position) to the outer position for purposes of turning the airplane into a fighter bomber at the time of the Normandy Invasion is not true.  Both books have a considerable number of photos that are identifiable as being taken as late as early 1945, where the cannons are in the inboard positions, and the bomb racks are in place.  In 126 Wing RCAF, it would appear from the photographic evidence that the “e” wing airplanes (cannon in the outer position) were all new production aircraft delivered to replace losses, with no attempt made to change the cannon positions of the earlier airplanes in a unit.

          Thus, for “early” and “mid” production Spitfires, all the visual clues that supposedly differentiate them are not necessarily so.  Essentially, the only Spitfire IX that would be certain to have a specific configuration would be the Spitfire Ixe and XVIe, which would have the cannon in the outer position and the bulged cowling.  Even this is not necessarily so, since the “e” wing Spitfire IXs began delivery as early as March 1944; while the cannons were in the outer position, and did not have the .50 caliber machine guns in the inboard position due to lack of availability; these early “e” wing aircraft had the .30 caliber weapons in the outer wing.

          Now that you are thoroughly confused, the end result of all this is that one should have a few photographs of the particular airplane being modeled, to discover what the actual physical condition and layout of the airplane was. 

           The current Eduard release of the “late production” Mk. IXc can depict an airplane that existed anywhere from around October 1943 to the end of the war.  The release of the “overtrees” for the “early production” Spitfire IXc with the large cannon fairings is not necessarily accurate for all such airplanes, and the Ixe version which has also been released in “overtrees” is not necessarily the standard layout for any Spitfire with D-Day stripes.

          Speaking of D-Day stripes, there are again no “hard and fast” rules for their application.  The standard instructions for single-engine aircraft were three white and two black alternating stripes, each 18 inches wide.  Many units painted their Spitfires with this marking.  However, many squadrons also narrowed the fuselage stripes to 15 inches, so as not to completely overlap the serial number. Spitfires with the 18 inch stripes on the fuselage appear to have frequently overpainted the serial number as well as all or nearly all of the sky rear fuselage band, depending on how far behind the canopy the stripes began; within a unit, both 18-inch and 15-inch fuselage stripes can be seen in photos, with stripes starting at various positions behind the canopy, and with serials both painted out entirely or partially, or left alone or repainted.  Then there is 10 Group, which used stripes 9 inches wide on both fuselage and wings.  Again, it’s a good idea to look at a photograph.

           The end result with my model was that I painted the 18-inch fuselage stripes before noticing the alternative narrower stripes, but was fortunately able to find a photo of the 302 Squadron CO’s airplane with that marking, for which I happened to have decals from the Hasegawa kit.  Now I know for sure to look at a photo should I do a Spitfire with D-Day stripes again.  Luckily, that photo also shows the serial overpainted, so I left things that way.

           For modelers using other aftermarket decals, you will find the markings profiles may show the particular airplane with one or the other of the two different filter intakes.  If accuracy matters, you should not base your decision on how to do the airplane from that drawing; I have already found one airplane on the Xtradecals Spitfire IX sheet for which the profile would indicate a small intake, but for which a photo shows the Aero-Vee intake. This is not a slam on the decal makers, who often are using second-hand information, which may be the result of a mistake by the original researcher.

          If accuracy matters to you Spit Boffins the way it matters to the 109 Nutz when it comes to these matters, be sure to use photos when choosing the physical layout and the markings of the airplane you are representing.  If you pay attention to all of the above, you won’t be stuck with having to take a Mulligan on your model as I did.  With the many new aftermarket decal offerings that have been released recently or are soon to be released, not to mention the many sheets out there no longer in production, there are many options for your Spitfire kit (so long as you mostly like Ocean Grey/Dark Green/Sea Grey Medium paint schemes).

June 2013

If you would like your product reviewed fairly and fairly quickly, please contact the editor or see other details in the Note to Contributors.

Back to the Main Page

Back to the Review Index Page