Giorgio N Posted July 7, 2016 Author Share Posted July 7, 2016 Thanks for the tips Wooskta ! I've started the kit and posted a new thread in the WIP section: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235005276-eduard-new-172-spitfire-ixc/ Let's see if the kit builds well now, if it does then there will be no room for any other brand Spit IX in my stash... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Russell Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Video review here http://www.eduard.com/news/eduard-spitfire-mk-ix-172-first-review/ particularly relevant to those worried about dimensions. (:>) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share Posted July 8, 2016 I find this "Czech modelling civil war" quite puzzling really, I know little of the modelling scene of that country (apart from being one of the true modeller's Paradises together with Japan) and I can't understand all this heated rivarly between manufacturers. In any case when it comes to accuracy of Spitfires, the matter is simple to me: the Eduard kit closely matches a number of measurements of real airframes, the AZ kit doesn't. No amount of slander on internet based forums is going to change this fact. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Ok, I gave in and got one on order from ebay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 the matter is simple to me: the Eduard kit closely matches a number of measurements of real airframes, the AZ kit doesn't. No amount of slander on internet based forums is going to change this fact. The AZ Spitfire Mk.IX fuselage is 1mm short. The Eduard is 1/2mm short. I don't believe this half a mm justifies your statement, bearing in mind that we are still waiting comment on the wing dimensions. So far I have neither kit. If this level of deliberate misinformation continues than I don't think that I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share Posted July 8, 2016 The AZ Spitfire Mk.IX fuselage is 1mm short. The Eduard is 1/2mm short. I don't believe this half a mm justifies your statement, bearing in mind that we are still waiting comment on the wing dimensions. So far I have neither kit. If this level of deliberate misinformation continues than I don't think that I will. Graham, my measurements show more than 1/2 mm difference between the two fuselages, more like 2.5... is this a big or small difference ? Guess depends on each modeller's perspective. I will post pictures of the two fuselages compared to show the difference (that seems to be mostly in the rear fuselage) Regarding disinformation, I'm comparing the Eduard kit to measurements, I'll also compare the AZ one in more detail than I've done til now (unfortunately the fuselage is glued together, this will make things more difficult but I'll see what I can do). Personally I have no interest in the Czech companies war and I don't get money from either company,I just want a good Spitfire kit. What I post here are my own findings based on having both kits (and the Hasegawa, Ventura, Italeri..). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 I generally refer to Greenshirt's excellent post, wherein he used the Monforton book, his calipers, some kits, and his mighty brain to draw conclusions: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234999255-airfix-spit-vc-and-hurricane-mk-1-in-172-in-the-near-future/?p=2301753 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share Posted July 8, 2016 Checked the wing too. For this I used 4 values coming from the Monforton book, in particular: A) Chord of the wing at the wingtip joint Chord at the aileron root C) Chord at the dihedral break point D) Span from central line of airframe to wingtip joint line Scaled in 1/72 and converted to metric system (sorry chaps, continental Europe engineer here...) the values are: A: Monforton 17.09mm; Eduard 17.05mm B: Monforton 30.57mm; Eduard 30.51mm C: Monforton 34.94mm; Eduard 35.09mm D: Monforton 68.37mm; Eduard 68.26mm All values are pretty close in my book, more so as the measurement with a caliper suffer from some inaccuracy anyway (although this caliper is very good) For comparison, the AZ kit shows these values: A: 16.61mm; B: 30.45mm; C:34.93mm; D: 66.0mm. Chord is pretty close too but span is short by 2mm and the wingtips don't look longer than the Eduard ones. As usual, the importance of such a difference depends on each modeller's priorities... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveCromie Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Genuine question here: Given the size of discrepancies being discussed here (+/- 2mm or so in 1/72) how big were the discrepancies between airframes in real life? Given the complex nature of the Spitfire's construction, the use of sub-contractors based away from main construction sites, the use of non specialised labour and the level of tolerances achievable with contemporary tools I would imagine that there would be fairly significant discrepancies over the whole length and/or wingspan of a completed airframe. DC PS I'm not trying to compare 1/72 scale discrepancies to real life discrepancies, I'm just curious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) I think you underestimate the level of precision engineering involved, the accuracy of measurement capable with old fashioned mechanical tools and the skill of those involved. They used tolerances of thousands of an inch. Parts were interchangeable. 2mm in 1/72 equates to just under 6 inches in real life. Edited July 8, 2016 by Dave Fleming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Video review here http://www.eduard.com/news/eduard-spitfire-mk-ix-172-first-review/ particularly relevant to those worried about dimensions. (:>) Is that guy doing some kind of black magic ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Where can one purchase these "overtrees"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 I find this "Czech modelling civil war" quite puzzling really, I know little of the modelling scene of that country (apart from being one of the true modeller's Paradises together with Japan) and I can't understand all this heated rivarly between manufacturers. In any case when it comes to accuracy of Spitfires, the matter is simple to me: the Eduard kit closely matches a number of measurements of real airframes, the AZ kit doesn't. No amount of slander on internet based forums is going to change this fact. Just curious - did your kit have a box that was too small for some of the sprues? That seemed to be the gist of the review on modelarovo.cz - some of the sprues were slightly too big for the box, and were therefore deformed during packaging. The reviewer did state that he had a "pre-release" copy of the kit, so perhaps the box has been enlarged. Edit - just recalled that you had the overtrees - different box entirely. I think the reviewer had a Profipak. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share Posted July 8, 2016 DC, as Dave said even in those days (and earlier) it was possible to build parts with much better tolerances. A difference of 6 inches in an aircraft changes quite a bit the flying properties, no Spit is going to differ from another by that much. Bill, the overtrees come in a box with the same size of the profipack, I agree that the sprue with wing and fuselage parts is very tight inside, I wouldn't be surprised by bent sprues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Just curious - did your kit have a box that was too small for some of the sprues? That seemed to be the gist of the review on modelarovo.cz - some of the sprues were slightly too big for the box, and were therefore deformed during packaging. The reviewer did state that he had a "pre-release" copy of the kit, so perhaps the box has been enlarged. Edit - just recalled that you had the overtrees - different box entirely. I think the reviewer had a Profipak. Cheers, Bill I have a profipack in my very hand, and the main sprue is slightly longer than the box's internal dimensions, so is slightly angled in the box to fit. It is hard to type one-handed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Is that guy doing some kind of black magic ? No, but Eduard like to take a dig at the red line artists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I have a profipack in my very hand, and the main sprue is slightly longer than the box's internal dimensions, so is slightly angled in the box to fit. It is hard to type one-handed. Was the sprue warped in any way due to the packaging? The pix in the Czech review looked nasty, but I suspect that is not typical. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Was the sprue warped in any way due to the packaging? The pix in the Czech review looked nasty, but I suspect that is not typical. Cheers, Bill Pour vous, mon cher Bill? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I have a profipack in my very hand, and the main sprue is slightly longer than the box's internal dimensions, so is slightly angled in the box to fit. It is hard to type one-handed. This was true for the Fw 190s too, both Profipack and Overtrees. PITA to fit sprues back in the boxes but ... no harm, no foul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Pour vous, mon cher Bill? Looks good to me - not at all like it looks in this "review." I wonder if they put it in the oven before they opened the box? Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beard Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Looks good to me - not at all like it looks in this "review." I wonder if they put it in the oven before they opened the box? Cheers, Bill The box doesn't look like it has been assembled properly, the bit that folds inside hasn't been pushed fully back. (If you can understand what I've written, you're a better person than me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveCromie Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 I think you underestimate the level of precision engineering involved, the accuracy of measurement capable with old fashioned mechanical tools and the skill of those involved. They used tolerances of thousands of an inch. Parts were interchangeable. 2mm in 1/72 equates to just under 6 inches in real life. DC, as Dave said even in those days (and earlier) it was possible to build parts with much better tolerances. A difference of 6 inches in an aircraft changes quite a bit the flying properties, no Spit is going to differ from another by that much. Bill, the overtrees come in a box with the same size of the profipack, I agree that the sprue with wing and fuselage parts is very tight inside, I wouldn't be surprised by bent sprues. Gents thanks for clearing that up. As I said, I wasn't trying to link 1/72 discrepancies to 1/1 discrepancies. As you both say, a 6" difference would be huge and would probably make an aircraft unflyable! I have dim memories regarding being told of RAF Nimrods being re-winged/sparred and during the work they noted that wings designed to fit one airframe wouldn't fit on another due to the original method of construction.....but it is very possible that my brain is faulty due to an excess of fun in my late teens/early twenties! Cheers all DC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 11, 2016 Author Share Posted July 11, 2016 Gents thanks for clearing that up. As I said, I wasn't trying to link 1/72 discrepancies to 1/1 discrepancies. As you both say, a 6" difference would be huge and would probably make an aircraft unflyable! I have dim memories regarding being told of RAF Nimrods being re-winged/sparred and during the work they noted that wings designed to fit one airframe wouldn't fit on another due to the original method of construction.....but it is very possible that my brain is faulty due to an excess of fun in my late teens/early twenties! Cheers all DC The Nimrod problem did occurr and has been discussed here before. Interchangeability of parts on aircrafts (or any other man-made object) depends on a number of factors and among them are the original manufacturing technique and the tolerances allowed. Prototypes or even aircrafts built in small numbers are built one-by-one and are more likely to have problems with parts interchangeability. Aicrafts built in large numbers using standard tooling designed for large production lines are much more likely to have no problem. The Spitfire was one such aircraft and while some parts may have still needed some "persuasion" to fit another aircraft, it was possible to swap parts relatively easily. The same is true of many other aircrafts of the day and there is plenty of evidence of aircrafts with panels or even larger parts coming from other aircrafts. One good example is a well known Macchi Mc.202 that served for a while with one wing from another aircraft in a totally different camouflage scheme. If a wing could be replaced on a Macchi, that was built using less than state of the art techniques, then almost any other aircraft could have a wing replaced. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 One of the RAF's captured JU88s was found to fly a 'bit funny'. On investigation, it was found they had rebuilt it with wings from two different marks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Schilhart Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 .....but it is very possible that my brain is faulty due to an excess of fun in my late teens/early twenties!Cheers all DC Ah, another survivor of the Rave/Warehouse scene--? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now