HELP!

[Grafikco]

Hi Guys in the middle of a profile and finding the resources to finish diminishing, particularly when I try and find under wing detail and rivet layout for a Spitfire MkIV/MkV. This drawing is from scratch. After looking at many general arrangement/plans for this type I have found a catalogue of errors that seem to change from plan to plan and these are published! However one thing I have NOT found is the rivet layout and the under wing detail. If anyone has these at hi res I would really, really appreciate it. Posted WIP without markings. Ignore the wing shape this is currently under review.

[GiantFlyingRobots]

I've got some nice Mk 1, Vb, IX and XVIe's if they're of any use, I'll post 'em up later, that is if the human reference library doesn't beat me to it.

[Grafikco]

Your a star GFR, much appreciated and without blowing smoke up it... I'm a big admirer of you work.

[GiantFlyingRobots]

If you put it like that, how can I refuse.

[Grafikco]

Hi GFR thanks for the post (great) if it is not to much trouble could please post the side profiles to complete the set. Thank you.

[Otterkins2]

Grafikco, I have learned through painful experience not to trust ANY drawings done by someone else. They are guides, not gospel truth. I've seen plan views of aircraft in my own area of interest that are so bad I would have hid my face in public if I had done them. Because someone gets published it doesn't make them an authority on the subject. The ONLY way to be sure that what you are doing is correct is to work from a LOT of photos of the actual aircraft in service. Especially do not trust museum restorations! These are reassembled from parts that may not even belong to the original aircraft because it was all the museum had to make the aircraft display worthy.

Even following my own rules I still make plenty of mistakes, but at least they're my own and not someone else's. That's why I post here. Sooner or later some eagle-eyed sharpshooter nails me on a mistake, and I'll gladly acknowledge it if they can demonstrate where I went wrong. Hell, I'll even thank them! It's one of the reasons why this community is so important....and invaluable!

[Grafikco]

Hi Otters as always a big thanks for the advice. Looked up and downloaded probably all there is, bought plans from Japan and these were no good, also but some reference books etc (Kagero). Overlaid so many drawings of peoples renditions of this war bird that I'm baffled. Anyway I hope GFR posts the side GA’s so I can get a the rivet layout to compare. Did buy the whole series of Janes Aircraft Spectaculars it has taken me a while to find them all. (Couldn't wait to tell someone) Just got the P38 lighting from America to complete the set, just love the old airbrush style of Rikyu Watanabe. Anyway going to persevere and finish this correctly... nut, bolt and rivet. PS. love the FW190's.

[Otterkins2]

Eeeeek! Rikyu Watanabe? His drawings look very convincing and pretty on the surface but they're horribly wrong once you start digging.....at least insofar as his German stuff is concerned. I have his "Great Big Book of WW2 Airplanes", an oversize tome with a million pages that weighs a ton, but I don't use it for reference anymore because it's just...well...WRONG!

[Grafikco]

Otterkins I'm laughing my head off at the mo. I know Rikyu drawings are technically useless but I do like the old look and feel of them. Don't ask me what its is, I don't know, its just some crazy old crap I like. I would never use these either. Photos and cross referencing is the only way, however shadow areas do get troublesome when your counting the rivets, also have a Lancaster BIII on the go at the minute, hysterical or what, have you ever seen a Lanc with anything correct? Particularly the turret details.

[GiantFlyingRobots]

Here you go Grafiko, I would have posted them with the others, bit It was very late and I really needed to get to bed. I hope you understand.

I make no comment as too the accuracy of these drawing, other than to say that I have(and usually do) work with much worse, and my work seems to be turning out marginally above par, which is as always good enough for me.