Spitfire Mk 21 kitbash

[Planebuilder62]

Hi there

 

Is it a simple job to make a 1/72 Spitfire Mk21 from an Airfix Mk XIX for the fuselage and a Mk22 for the wings?

 

Regards

Toby

[Nigel Bunker]

Yes, but you'll need a fighter canopy rather than the PR canopy in the XIX kit, and I am sure there will be a few other minor details that others here will point out. And with a little work modifying the tail & tailplanes and changing the wings toarmed versions, the leftovers could build you a low back Griffon Spitfire XIV or XVIII.

[Jazzie]

I have done this but not in a just fit the wings kinda way.

 

There is mention of it in this thread....

But that thread gives you an idea on 21s and other ways to get add 2 together to make 21.

Arabest,

Geoff. 

[Greenshirt]

Throw in the Airfix IX into the mix and you could end up with a PR IX/X/XI using the XIX wings; the IX wings then being available with the 22 fuselage to make the aforementioned XIV or XVIII with less wing modifications. 3 kits and 3 subjects....

[Jazzie]

Take care though as you step into the Spitfire kitbash minefield. The 18 needs a different tail assembly and if accuracy is important, there is a wee bit of difference between the C and E wings. 

 

I have a memory that someone did an Airfix 19/22 to 21 kitbash on here, so it may be worth a search.

Arabest,

Geoff.

[Troy Smith]

the 18 has a few more details, as it was meant to be  the definitive two stage Griffon Spitfire,  (much in the way the mk.VIII was supposed to be the definitive Merlin 60 Spit), with a new wing,  with a solid spar, and elimination of the outer wing gun  bays, with new panels for desert survival equipment, see Edgars's post from the thread linked below.

 

Quote

Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) · Report post

It had only the "E" configuration, but had an extra "compartment" outboard, designed for survival equipment like water, etc.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Edgar

 

I just been asking Peter Arnold about  this, he said the surviving Mk.18's still have their original wing.

A search for 18 restorations turns up this

the desert survival panels are just visible between cannon shell panel and partly in the wing roundel

from http://neilhallphotos.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/reach-for-skies.html

 

 

the tail is the same as the XIV, but the rudder is different, broader in chord, and deeper in horn

here's John Adams on this matter

Quote

 On 01/07/2007 at 23:22, John Aero said:

There is some confusion with the rudders fitted to the Mk.14 and 18 Spitfires. I find that the Morgan/Shacklady "bible" is often less than helpful and sometimes irritating. As Edgar mentioned in a previous post (on contra props) the 14/18 fin/rudders areas are given as the same. This is not so and this "red herring"is the cause of some confusion. The 14 fin went through a considerable change in area and the only real reference given in the"bible" is a sketch showing an interim straight leading edge modification and it omits to mention that the height at the rudder post was increased by almost 3". The standard rudder post height of all the earlier Spits was 58".

The extra 2.75" fin height increase was achieved by fitting a "block false tip". The Mk.18 had a broader chord rudder and a deeper horn balance. This rudder was also fitted to other Mk.14 based airframes,( by the simple expedient of "removing the block") such as FR14e, 19, and the Mk.21 when fitted with a contra prop.

This illustration I have cobbled up might help. It is the tail of an FR.14e and I have superimposed the outlines of the Mk.14 and Mk.18 rudders on to it, the white area is the "block" . The blue outline is the 14 and the red 18.

The join line (lower edge of the block) seldom shows up on photos and is often shown as a panel line in drawings but too low down, a mistake repeated on my own Mk.21 conversion as this was made originally to the Cook drawings.

John

 

This information is not in any of "the books" AFAIK,  hence reposting it here again.

 

HTH

T

Edited December 31, 2016 by Troy Smith
correction

[gingerbob]

58 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

the 18 has a few more details, as it was meant to be  the definitive two stage Griffon Spitfire,  (much in the way the mk.VIII was supposed to be the definitive Merlin 60 Spit)...

 

Sorry, Troy, but I've got to correct you there- the "21" [as evolved] was supposed to be the definitive two-stage Griffon Spit, while the 18 was simply a strengthened XIV, to carry additional camera equipment and/or fuel.  It was the end of one branch, but not the direction the Spitfire was by then intended to be growing.

[Jazzie]

Troy,

Im not sure if your trying to put me back in my place or not with that post! Why you started writing and quoting about 14/18s, when Greenshirts very good suggestion, talked about starting from a 22, i dont know? 

 

All im trying to do is help a fellow modeller get to where i have in making a Spitfire 21 by passing on information i have gleaned from here during my own Spitfire project. Im probably wrong, but you seem not to have read the whole thread and jumped on my post which was intended as a friendly warning that you cant get, in an "out of 3 boxes" Kitbash as it were, an 18 with its ultimate Spit tail, from the 22 which i think has a Spiteful tail, or by using the wing that comes in the IXc kit.

 

If like me, anyone does try to take the Airfix IXc, XIX and 22 to make a PR.XI, 14/21 and a XVIII, you will need to deepen the cowl chin on the PR.XI or use the resin engine cowl/prop from Freightdog. I think they also do a XVIII tail which i think is for another kit, but should be adaptable to the Airfix Spits.

 

As an aside, my 21 and XVIII came from an AZ 14e kit and a Xtrakit 21 with an added spares box raid.

Arabest,

Geoff.

[Greenshirt]

To be fair, my post assumes an average modeler can easily change a "c" wing to the "e" wing. It's not difficult, IMO, but I have a spares box full of narrow cannon bulges that were excess to other kits and different spare cannons (rod will do a start) plus some references with enough detail to effect the modification with little effort. 3D-Kits made a conversion for the Airfix IX that makes it even easier. 

 

The difference in the rudder (XIVe vs XVIII) is hard for many to discern, albeit noticeable to me. Again, some average modeling skills with some sheet styrene should fix it, if one wants to. Most XVIII kits seem to get this wrong, or just not quite right. 

 

I read Troy's remarks as more aimed at myself, and I didn't take them wrong, just reminding readers that I rather oversimplified. 

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Jazzie said:

Troy,

Im not sure if your trying to put me back in my place or not with that post! Why you started writing and quoting about 14/18s, when Greenshirts very good suggestion, talked about starting from a 22, i dont know? 

 

All im trying to do is help a fellow modeller get to where i have in making a Spitfire 21 by passing on information i have gleaned from here during my own Spitfire project. Im probably wrong, but you seem not to have read the whole thread and jumped on my post which was intended as a friendly warning that you cant get, in an "out of 3 boxes" Kitbash as it were, an 18 with its ultimate Spit tail, from the 22 which i think has a Spiteful tail, or by using the wing that comes in the IXc kit.

 

If like me, anyone does try to take the Airfix IXc, XIX and 22 to make a PR.XI, 14/21 and a XVIII, you will need to deepen the cowl chin on the PR.XI or use the resin engine cowl/prop from Freightdog. I think they also do a XVIII tail which i think is for another kit, but should be adaptable to the Airfix Spits.

 

As an aside, my 21 and XVIII came from an AZ 14e kit and a Xtrakit 21 with an added spares box raid.

Arabest,

Geoff.

 

Hi Geoff

 

My post was not meant as a slight in anyway to you, I skimmed the thread,   but you  mentioned the Spitfire 18, and as I happened to have been asking about the Spitfire 18 to a chap who has owned several real Spitfires/Seafires, and in that  process had just found that the drawing Edgar had posted a was still on the site (I thought it had gone) , and that I had found a restoration confirming the desert survival equipment panel with a photo, which I'd not seen before, or seen posted up here, I was rather pleased and wished to share this, it also shows that  in the case of the Spit  18, the wing has more differences between the C and E  wing. 

Given this, and the variation in fin height and rudders is not widely known,  as John Adams mentioned, two of the very respected Spitfire sources do not have these details,  I thought it would be of use to the general readership, as these details frequently get 'lost' to old threads.   

 

I was posting in a domestic noise blur,  and really was not concerned with anything else apart from getting the information correct and coherent, and re-reading it I can't see anything other than that, it adds clarification and correct details,  apart from bob''s correction about the series 20 Spitfire being the definitive Griffon Spitfire. 

 

One detail that I came to mind later is the survival hatches in the upper wing look to be the same  size  and  place of of the underwing panel for the 0.303 ammunition boxes hatch.  Further research required

 

I now need to superivise and advise on the important job of painting a cardboard space rocket with the daughter...

 

cheers

T

 

 

[Jazzie]

Cheers for that Troy,

Maybe there should be an Edgar centre on here where all his nuggets of info can be held in one pinned thread, unless ive missed it!

Arabest,

Geoff.

[Beard]

7 minutes ago, Jazzie said:

 

Maybe there should be an Edgar centre on here where all his nuggets of info can be held in one pinned thread, unless ive missed it!

Arabest,

Geoff.

 

Funny you should mention that (although it's not on here): http://www.jonbius.com/edgar-brooks-spitfire-notes/

[Killingholme]

On ‎22‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 6:24 AM, Sofusthecat said:

Hi there

 

Is it a simple job to make a 1/72 Spitfire Mk21 from an Airfix Mk XIX for the fuselage and a Mk22 for the wings?

 

Regards

Toby

 

I think the thread demonstrates that there's more than one way to skin a cat, but if you do go down this route, I have found from test fitting that the parts will go together quite easily- gaps to fill, but nothing fundamentally incompatible with the two kits.

 

I suppose I should note (forgive me if you already know) that the Airfix XIX is short in the nose by about 2mm at the firewall. It is quite noticeable, and if you're cutting the kits up anyway, it might be a good opportunity to add a plug....

 

Will

[Dave Fleming]

1 hour ago, Killingholme said:

 

 

 

I suppose I should note (forgive me if you already know) that the Airfix XIX is short in the nose by about 2mm at the firewall. It is quite noticeable, and if you're cutting the kits up anyway, it might be a good opportunity to add a plug....

 

Will

 

Habe you got referenced dimensions for that? I know it's slightly short, but not by as much as 2mm. 

[Gwart]

I think this is the amount the wing chord is off by in the  + .

 

Edit for a pic from awhile back,it's one of the first routes i tried for a 21

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Gwart

[John Thompson]

14 hours ago, Gwart said:

I think this is the amount the wing chord is off by in the  + .

 

Makes sense - IIRC, it's been noted more than once on this forum that the wing chord of the Airfix Mk XIX is too large by about 1mm.

 

John

[wellsprop]

Did it myself, wasn't particularly hard, can't vouch for the accuracy of my model though. I also had to use a few parts I had lying around (different rudder etc).

 

 

Turned out alright I think...

 

Ben

[Troy Smith]

On 26/12/2016 at 21:39, Killingholme said:

 

I think the thread demonstrates that there's more than one way to skin a cat, but if you do go down this route, I have found from test fitting that the parts will go together quite easily- gaps to fill, but nothing fundamentally incompatible with the two kits.

 

I suppose I should note (forgive me if you already know) that the Airfix XIX is short in the nose by about 2mm at the firewall. It is quite noticeable, and if you're cutting the kits up anyway, it might be a good opportunity to add a plug....

 

Will

 

On 27/12/2016 at 09:45, Gwart said:

I think this is the amount the wing chord is off by in the  + .

 

Edit for a pic from awhile back,it's one of the first routes i tried for a 21

 

 

 

On 28/12/2016 at 00:19, John Thompson said:

 

Makes sense - IIRC, it's been noted more than once on this forum that the wing chord of the Airfix Mk XIX is too large by about 1mm.

 

John

 

Having accqired some 72nd Airfix Spitfire XIX's, and dug out  my Scale Models from, erm, 1978, where Peter Cooke's planes of the XII/XIV/XVIII/XIX were originally published,  the wing chord is too wide, but  the  rear fillet is in the right place, meaning  as Gwart's photo above shows, the nose can look short as the wings are too far forward on the cowling.

 

The rear fuselage maybe a touch  short, it matches the  Cooke planes  which a noted to be slightly short in the rear fuselage.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/19736-question-about-griffon-powered-spitfiresseafires/&do=findComment&comment=218567

Quote

TonyT said:

I am gonna look stupid here, but who is Peter Cooke ? Do you have many drawings Edgar?

Not stupid, just (unfairly) young, I suspect. Back in the 70s, he was IPMS (UK) National Champion, with an Airfix 1/24 Spitfire converted to a XIV; the following year, he won again, with a scratchbuilt 1/24 Tempest; the following year, he should have won again, with a 1/24 Sea Fury, but, after a hurried meeting, the then committee declared that they'd instituted a new rule (that you couldn't be champion more than once,) so they awarded the title to a dreadfully embarrassed Tony Woolett (who hadn't even won his class, coming second to Peter.) Peter then went professional, selling resin Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mosquitoes, Mustangs, and Lancasters, all in 1/24th scale. He has retired, but, if you can find a book entitled "Scratch Built, A Celebration of the Static Scale Airplane Modeller's Craft," it's a co-written effort, together with John Alcorn and George Lee, and it gives a perfect idea of their craft.

I have some of Peter's photos on my computer, not just complete airframes, but parts, too. His drawings were published by Nexus, in Scale Models, consisting of the XII, XIV, and XIX, and should still be available from their successors, whoever they are, now (I can't keep up with it!) My sole remaining copy is decidedly tatty, since I passed my best set on to a manufacturer, who wants to produce a XIV, in 1/24th scale.

Peter admits that he got the fuselages slightly wrong, in side profile, but has supplied me with a corrected drawing of the XIX fuselage. It was Peter, incidentally, who first caused mayhem, in the modelling world, when he spotted the "hump," in the IX cowling.

Edgar

 

as best I can determine, they  are about 2 inches short in the  section before the tail transport joint, in 72nd it's about 0.7mm.

 

HTH

T