Kotare Spitfire Mk.Ia (1/32)

[adt70hk]

Outstanding work Steve. Very well done so far.

ATB.

Andrew

[stona]

A great pity much of this excellent work won't be seen :anguished:
Steve

It's weird isn't it? Much of most aircrafts' cockpits will be barely visible once the model is completed and yet it's an area that we love to produce in great detail, the more the better. The best manufacturers produce very detailed cockpits and if that's not enough, there are aftermarket 'improvements' available too.

I do like a nice cockpit and I suppose I can console myself knowing that it's in there even if it is hidden away.

This Kotare kit even suggests rigging the various controls, something that I have not done precisely because the 'wires' would be barely visible, even if someone takes a torch and shines it into the cockpit. I suppose if you like to enter competitions such a detail might impress the judges. This model will eventually sit on a shelf somewhere in my house with no one to judge it...if I can find some space!

[Ian M]

It's weird isn't it? Much of most aircrafts' cockpits will be barely visible once the model is completed and yet it's an area that we love to produce in great detail, the more the better. The best manufacturers produce very detailed cockpits and if that's not enough, there are aftermarket 'improvements' available too.

Ain't that the truth. A guilty pleasure I too indulge in. Not every time but once in a while I go all in and add all the detail that can be found. I think its the challenge of actually doing it more than looking at it after.

[Guest]

Much of most aircrafts' cockpits will be barely visible once the model is completed

The Spitfire at least has the advantage that you can leave the door open. OTOH, it has the disadvantage that the canopy is relatively small compared to many of its contemporaries … But it’s been my experience with models of tanks that you can see a lot more of the interior than you would think through those tiny hatches, so I suppose it’s not that different with aircraft.

[stona]

I know I'll have no time over the next few days, so I've made just enough time to get the cockpit in and the fuselage halves joined.

It's just dry fitted here because I want to make sure the next stage, engine covers etc., fit before I glue it. The fit looks good, tight but good so hopefully there will be no issues. It's always worth checking!



As you can see, there is no engine. That's fine with me as I rarely display them anyway, just building enough to hang a propeller on. It's a choice I suppose, by Kotare, to make the outside dimensions accurate and not supply an inevitably under scale Merlin.

[stona]

This will be it until after the week-end. I've managed to squeeze in a little time.

The fuselage is essentially finished. It's an excellent fit and the way it is engineered, so that details like the rivets on the spine are preserved is very clever.



You can see I've primed and sprayed an area around the lens of the upwards facing identification lamp. This is because the clear part is fitted from the inside and I didn't fancy trying to mask just the lens. By doing this I can mask a slightly larger area and not worry about mucking up what is a lovely clear part.

You can see a sort of slot at the rear of the fuselage into which the tail plane will fit. It simply pushes in. Here it is, not glued, just pushed into place.



The whole model has fitted like this...so far.

You can also see the raised rivet detail in this image. Very nice.

[papa 695]

Coming along very nicely Steve.

[Ian M]

Nice.
I like the way that they are following the panel lines for the top of the fuselage, there are a few companies that could learn a thing or two there!

[Waspie]

Question if I may for the general Wingy thing experts.
Harness’s! WW2 aircraft in general.
Were the harness a four piece or five!! The fifth being an anti-submarining fit to stop the pilot sliding under the lap straps. 5th fits between the pilots legs, the other harnesses generally fit into the fifth!!

[stona]

Generally four piece.

The Sutton, as in this and most British aircraft had an extra part that passed over the pilot's shoulders and through a slot in the head armour to an attachment in the rear fuselage (2 in the image below) The other part of the shoulder restraint (1 in the image below) passed behind the seat, or, later, behind the pilot and through a slot in the seat, to an attachment lower than his posterior.

The shoulder straps combined with the two lap belts still meant that there were just four belts pinned together with a quick release pin, at the waist.

This is the best drawing I have of a Sutton harness.



Here's an explanation from the late Edgar Brooks:

The standard fit was for two straps, joined into a "Y" shape, to come over the backrest. These were joined by another pair, coming through a slot in the fixed armour/headrest. Two friction adjusters, shaped like a "0," held the two sets together, roughly on the pilot's shoulders. The ends of the "Y" straps had the (5) holes for the retaining pin, while the two, which came through the bulkhead, each ended in small brass crosspiece, so the pilot could grasp them, and pull the whole lot tight. Two lapstraps, with only two holes, were fixed underneath the seat, so that they came up about halfway along the pilot's thighs. The righthand strap fed through the slot in the side of the seat bucket (presumably to ensure that it didn't foul the seat raising/lowering mechanism, while the lefthand strap tended to disappear, and had to be "fished" for (at least it could be seen through the open door.) Initially, the "Y" strap bolted straight onto a crossbar at the bottom of the seat's bulkhead, but, in April, 1941, the bottom few inches were replaced by a short length of cable, to give more freedom of movement.
The straps were numbered; no.1 was the left shoulder strap, and there was a narrow strip of webbing, running underneath the holes, along which a "T"-shaped pin slid, so the the stalk of the T popped through (any) one of the holes. The pin was tapered, rather like a drawing pin (thumb-tack, in some quarters, I believe,) and had a hole drilled through it. No.2 was the right thighstrap, 3 the left thighstrap, and 4 was the right shoulderstrap. To no. 4, a triangular pin was attached by a short length of cord. The two ends of the triangle were splayed out, after they touched, and a third length of rod was fitted between them, attached to a crossbar just inside the triangle. Each successive strap was laid over the tapered pin, and the central rod, of the triangle was pushed through the hole, to hold the whole lot together; the sides of the triangle acted as a spring to stop the rod from sliding out. All the pilot had to do, in an emergency, was pull the triangle out, the straps fell away, and out he went.

[Waspie]

Generally four piece.

The Sutton, as in this and most British aircraft had an extra part that passed over the pilot's shoulders and through a slot in the head armour to an attachment in the rear fuselage (2 in the image below) The other part of the shoulder restraint (1 in the image below) passed behind the seat, or, later, behind the pilot and through a slot in the seat, to an attachment lower than his posterior.

The shoulder straps combined with the two lap belts still meant that there were just four belts pinned together with a quick release pin, at the waist.

This is the best drawing I have of a Sutton harness.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1203893[/ATTACH]

Here's an explanation from the late Edgar Brooks:

The standard fit was for two straps, joined into a "Y" shape, to come over the backrest. These were joined by another pair, coming through a slot in the fixed armour/headrest. Two friction adjusters, shaped like a "0," held the two sets together, roughly on the pilot's shoulders. The ends of the "Y" straps had the (5) holes for the retaining pin, while the two, which came through the bulkhead, each ended in small brass crosspiece, so the pilot could grasp them, and pull the whole lot tight. Two lapstraps, with only two holes, were fixed underneath the seat, so that they came up about halfway along the pilot's thighs. The righthand strap fed through the slot in the side of the seat bucket (presumably to ensure that it didn't foul the seat raising/lowering mechanism, while the lefthand strap tended to disappear, and had to be "fished" for (at least it could be seen through the open door.) Initially, the "Y" strap bolted straight onto a crossbar at the bottom of the seat's bulkhead, but, in April, 1941, the bottom few inches were replaced by a short length of cable, to give more freedom of movement.
The straps were numbered; no.1 was the left shoulder strap, and there was a narrow strip of webbing, running underneath the holes, along which a "T"-shaped pin slid, so the the stalk of the T popped through (any) one of the holes. The pin was tapered, rather like a drawing pin (thumb-tack, in some quarters, I believe,) and had a hole drilled through it. No.2 was the right thighstrap, 3 the left thighstrap, and 4 was the right shoulderstrap. To no. 4, a triangular pin was attached by a short length of cord. The two ends of the triangle were splayed out, after they touched, and a third length of rod was fitted between them, attached to a crossbar just inside the triangle. Each successive strap was laid over the tapered pin, and the central rod, of the triangle was pushed through the hole, to hold the whole lot together; the sides of the triangle acted as a spring to stop the rod from sliding out. All the pilot had to do, in an emergency, was pull the triangle out, the straps fell away, and out he went.

Thanks for that Steve. They were very rudimentary but look effective.

[Andy T]

Thanks for that Steve. They were very rudimentary but look effective.

I'd imagine seat shape provided a degree of anti submarining protection, as it does in many modern motor vehicles where multi point belts are undesirable.

[Waspie]

I'd imagine seat shape provided a degree of anti submarining protection, as it does in many modern motor vehicles where multi point belts are undesirable.

I have visions of aircraft doing belly landing and the poor pilot sliding under his lap straps!!! Don't know if anti submarining was a known problem back then. Or just used the KISS principle when mass producing warbirds!

[stona]

I have visions of aircraft doing belly landing and the poor pilot sliding under his lap straps!!! Don't know if anti submarining was a known problem back then. Or just used the KISS principle when mass producing warbirds!

I've never read of a pilot doing that.

The thing that many of them did in a crash landing was strike the gunsight with their head/face, even given their restraints. Some were killed this way. Unfortunately a gunsight must be positioned in a pilot's line of vision, that is in front of his face, to serve its purpose.

If you remember Rhodesia's UDR you will remember the country's then leader, Ian Smith.



The asymmetry in his face, and scarring that the photographer has largely hidden, was caused when he crashed his Hurricane on take off in Egypt in 1943. He suffered severe injuries, not just those to his face caused by the gunsight.

[Waspie]

I must admit Steve neither have I. That said, something must have changed to move across to a five point harness. All my years in aviation, all crew stations were 5P.

On the Sea Fury, the worry wasn’t the gun sight but the propellor. If doing a wheels up landing the prop had a habit of bending and due to the position of the cockpit smashing the cockpit and driver!!!
A chap I know, elected to ditch a Sea Fury off Ayrshire in the 80’s when one of his U/C failed. Up to 5000 feet, pointed it in a safe direction and jumped!! (Same chap was also responsible for ditching the last, at the time, flying Sea Fury).