[skidmarksdiecast]

The pilot has a plastic shim on his "bottom" to elevate his seated position.

[DADoser]

I was in Skidmarks today - and saw this exact bird in person. I'll be honest - in person it looks better than these posted pics. I don't own any Carousel birds (I don't really do anything bigger or smaller than 1:72) - but comparing this HM to the Carousel birds in stock - I don't think Carousel has much on this HM release. I couldn't see ANYTHING that would justify the higher price on the Carousel birds. Again, this is just my opinion based on a fewmodels of the Carousel planes.....but......THIS HM Spit looks fantastic - especially for the price.

[Epapazian]

I've got a question. On this Spit as on some Mark Vs made by other manufacturers, the propeller blades don't fit flush with the spinner. I've wondered about this. Wouldn't the prop blades tear off in flight if mounted in this manner? Is this a diecast assembly error or does it reflect the way these planes actually looked? So far, my research suggests that flush mounting is correct---or more correct---but I'm not satisfied with the meager info I have uncovered to date. And Spitfire blade experts out there?

[skidmarksdiecast]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

I've got a question. On this Spit as on some Mark Vs made by other manufacturers, the propeller blades don't fit flush with the spinner. I've wondered about this. Wouldn't the prop blades tear off in flight if mounted in this manner? Is this a diecast assembly error or does it reflect the way these planes actually looked? So far, my research suggests that flush mounting is correct---or more correct---but I'm not satisfied with the meager info I have uncovered to date. And Spitfire blade experts out there?

Except on fixed-pitch props, propeller blades are mounted, to the propeller hub, via shafts that rotate to change the blade's angle of incidence with respect to its plane of rotation. This is one of the ways propeller thrust/airspeed is controlled. The fairing/spinner cap, on some planes, may create the appearance that the blades are flush mounted to the hub
but they're not.

IIRC, only the early, two-blade prop Spitfires had fixed-pitch props. The others had variable-pitch props.

[ZS-VAN]

Originally Posted by skidmarksdiecast

Except on fixed-pitch props, propeller blades are mounted, to the propeller hub, via shafts that rotate to change the blade's angle of incidence with respect to its plane of rotation. This is one of the ways propeller thrust/airspeed is controlled. The fairing/spinner cap, on some planes, may create the appearance that the blades are flush mounted to the hub
but they're not.

IIRC, only the early, two-blade prop Spitfires had fixed-pitch props. The others had variable-pitch props.

Great insights! Lovely release too.

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by skidmarksdiecast

Except on fixed-pitch props, propeller blades are mounted, to the propeller hub, via shafts that rotate to change the blade's angle of incidence with respect to its plane of rotation. This is one of the ways propeller thrust/airspeed is controlled. The fairing/spinner cap, on some planes, may create the appearance that the blades are flush mounted to the hub
but they're not.

IIRC, only the early, two-blade prop Spitfires had fixed-pitch props. The others had variable-pitch props.

Thanks for the information.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by DADoser

I don't own any Carousel birds (I don't really do anything bigger or smaller than 1:72) - but comparing this HM to the Carousel birds in stock - I don't think Carousel has much on this HM release. I couldn't see ANYTHING that would justify the higher price on the Carousel birds. Again, this is just my opinion based on a fewmodels of the Carousel planes.....

With all due respect, DADoser, I think it is a bit more complicated that that.

A few years ago, Eagles International released its P-51B/C with a company slogan "See the difference." You can probably still read Eagle's philosophy statement on its web-site. What "see the difference" meant was simply... detail: mold detail, part detail, accuracy detail, etc. For those who would look and compare between the only 1:48 alternative at the time, Franklin Mint, the "difference" was obvious. Then, C1 came out with a similar philosophy, with statements published on its web-site, such as:

• Model weighs more than 1 lb/.46kg
• Full cockpit detail
• Glazed instruments
• Removable Pilot Figure
• NO Exposed screws

and... Carousel 1® proudly introduces our newest line of high-quality, historically accurate, die-cast models. These detailed 1:48 scale models pay tribute to aviation's colorful history and the pilots who helped shape today's world. As with all Carousel 1® products no detail has been overlooked... (see: http://www.carousel1.com/aircraft.php).

Statements such as "high quality," "historically accurate," and "no detail overlooked" resonated with collectors who really could "see the difference" between these models and Franklin Mint. Then Hobby Master came out with its slogan: "Making your diecast dreams come true." I am not sure what this means, but it seems to resonate with a market that craves massed produced pieces at a low cost. It also resonated with collectors that wanted subject variety with representatives that would listen and respond. All good strategies. But I don't think Hobby Master's forte' is in the details. For those who will "see the difference," one can truly see why the C1 models and the EI models cost more money: its the detail differences in the cockpits, in the gear wells, beneath the cowlings, in recessed panel fasteners. I have collected twelve C1 models and five HM counterparts at 1:48. I "see the difference." While I appreciate Hobby Master's Buffalos and Spitfires (I own several each), they are not as detailed, generally, as C1's products. It is well documented on this site and on the DAF that Hobby Master uses cost cutting measures to keep the costs of the model down. This is appreciated by many collectors. But this partly explains why there is a cost difference. Two examples: 1) when it was pointed out that HM's F2A did not have a metal prop, and all of C1's do, the response was "costs more money." 2) When the first Spitfire prepro pictures were released, I raised the issue that the model needed engine access panel fasteners. The response: it couldn't be done at the desired cost. So, someone suggested it pad print the panel fasteners and the rest is history. A cheaper alternative. And I mean cheaper... in terms of a model that costs less. I know most appreciate and value this. But, it helps explain why the C1 model costs more: it molds recessed panel fasteners, and HM pad prints them. C1 pours intricate detail into instrument panels and cockpits, HM makes them relatively sparse.

I am not trying to criticize Hobby Master. I am simply trying to point out one reason why its models cost less than a C1. For some, we still see the difference, and the HM model does "look" more cheap in comparison. OK... my long philosophical meanderings are over. But next time you think HM has C1 beat in the price game, take a look at the retail price of its Panther. Not far from C1's price point. And, as it puts the detail back into its newer releases, the price comes up: hence, the Spitfire costing more than the F2A, the F3F costing more than the Spitfire, and the Panther at the price point of a C1. In fact, C1 has never had a price increase since it released its first models. Hobby Master's initial prices were probably artificially low... this may explain why the newer F2As cost more money than the first releases, and why the prices keep climbing.

[Epapazian]

I must confess, I was surprised by HM's low prices for 1:48th scale aircraft models and can see Elmer's point about comparative quality, relative to cost. I suppose that it is inevitable that HM's prices will rise on such products, especially if it keeps tackling tougher, but so far, undone subjects.

[DADoser]

Elmer -
My reply was not a definitive statement - and I thought I implied I was not an expert or collector of Carousel or any 1:48 models. It was just an opinion based on this particular Spitfire and the Carousel in the store.

Money's tight and times are hard - my comment was more about value and comparison. and the fact that I (for the most part) will not spend over $50 for ANY model. I'm just a "bargain collector" on an educator's salary.

Sincerely - thanks for the detailed reply - it will put things into better perspective from someone who has more experience with Carousel and HM 1:48 models.

I still stand by my original reply of this particular Spitfire being an EXCELLENT model/value.

Take care -

[Saeta]

I acknowledge that EI ( I own two P-51Bs ) is tops, but I am not so sure about C1 being better than HM
Certainly they are very good. I only own a Fw-190D from them and I love it, but I would not say it is any bettter than any of my two HM Spitfires ( Johnson's and Lacey's ) or my HM Buffalo. They all are quite good.

But I would still rank HM above C1 fore the simple issue that they give me ( us ) several exciting liveries that really catch my imagination and make me want to buy them, and all this while keeping the quality very good ( I would not bother to buy from them otherwise ).

And for the record, I have Lacey's Spitfire at home since last Saturday and it is indeed a very fine piece of diecast. In real life it looks better than in any of the pictures I have seen so far and I would quite simply reccomend it to any of you.