Airfix 1:48 Spitfires I and V undercarriage

[Phil32]

Evening fellow modelers!

 

I'm escaping the UK heatwave with a foray into my first example of these kits and I have to ask - why do manufacturers insist on some kits being cast to be so fiddly??

 

My incredulousness stems from parts C17, C30, and C31. C17, the undercarriage bay forward wall, on install is a rather vague sit - it seems you can 'correctly' fix it in any of many degrees of play. C30 and 31, the gear leg tops, are fiddly as you like and look like they need to land utterly perfect in order to later obtain the correct angle and rake of the gear.

 

Now, so far as I can tell i've got them lined up nicely. But I wont be able to truely tell until gear time later in the build. To those who have completed one of these kits - if I have messed up at this point, how difficult or easy is it to correct later when the gear legs go in?

 

And why, for the sake of a tiny asthetic on a nary looked at area, have Airfix moved to this fiddle over a good old fashioned molded hole to wang the gear leg into and ensure correct angle / rake?

 

This isnt meant to be a rant as these are very clearly nice, accurate kits. I just sometimes on these newer CAD masterpieces question the annoying fiddle vs build enjoyment ratio.

 

I *think* as my q is on these particular kits this is just about on topic enough to sit in the WW2 forum, but please move me if i'm wrong!

 

Cheers

[Starfighter]

The term " Over engineered " comes to mind. I started the new Airfix 1/48 Hurricane, but gave up after a while and bought a Hasegawa one, which was a much easier kit to build.( And the surface detail was much nicer )

Whoever designed the system of fitting the landing gear to the Hurricane and Spitfire  needs to be taken to one side for a quiet word ! It seems to me  that Airfix have got carried away with the CAD system of kit design, with no room for any slight assembling errors.

I'm steering clear of Airfix from now on. Rant over, I'll get me coat !

[Grey Beema]

I thought both the Hurricane and Spitfire were rather good kits.  I didn't have any fit issues, I know some have but mine were ok.  Both kits reward patient build with loads of dry fitting to get the placement worked out.  You are right about the undercart though.  I drilled and pinned mine which seems to have worked fine, I know other used the same technique.  I'm looking forwards to building another as a Sea Hurricane.  Also looking forward to the Walrus and Sea Fury release later this year..

 

[Phil32]

I agree that they are very nice kits, but as you both have nodded to, the gear setup is a bit of a mare. It seems to me that such a setup could be quite a put-off to new or more casual modelors - which seems counter productive as their money makes up the bulk of the market and means nice kits come into existence in the first place.

 

'Wow CAD' seems to have far more consideration sometimes than the practical dexterity of us meatbags. That said, I know that several of Airfix's upcoming offerings will still be purchased!

[yarvelling]

The new Spitfire gear is a bit 'fragile' and fiddly to assemble...and really should be redesigned, but I had no problems with the Hurricane....  Both are good looking kits when finished - excellent shape and 'stance', but yeah... the legs on the Spitfire could be remade to be more robust, even if it sacrifices a little of the scarcely seen detailing that Airfix have incorporated into the design.....  The Hurricane seemed positively easy in comparison, and more inline with the smaller 72 scale version, which I also think is nice to put together, and looks excellent when done!