Tamiya 1/48 Spit vs Airfix 1/48 Spit...what's best?

[SeaVenom]

I've read a few reviews and from what I can make out they have the usual pros and cons but what's the opinion on here?   I've read one problem is the Airfix kit has a weak undercarriage?

[gingerbob]

I presume that you mean Mk.I and/or Vb?  Airfix's newest Spits are better renditions than Tamiya's, but Tamiya's is a typical kit from them- simple and easy.  I've just been wrestling with Airfix's landing gear, and am certainly not a fan, but it can be dealt with.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've found a way to put the whole thing in after assembly.  There is also the SAC metal replacement, which I'd love to check out, though I'm not generally a fan of their stuff.

 

bob

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, SeaVenom said:

I've read a few reviews and from what I can make out they have the usual pros and cons but what's the opinion on here?   I've read one problem is the Airfix kit has a weak undercarriage?

the new tool Airfix Mk.I and Vb are essentially accurate shape wise,  the UC connection is fixable, but annoying.   If done before assembly  it's a lot easier, basically adding attachment pins.

The other issue is VERY fine tolerances,  which especially in the cockpit can the throw off fitting the fuel tank cover,  I've seen a few builds where the builder did not realise this and then cursed later.

 

The Tamiya is short, fat,slab sided and the wing shape is too broad at centre chord.    On it'sown it's not too  bad,  next to a  correctly shaped kit it looks like  it'sover  done it over  Christmas

 

However the surface detail is more refined, and is mostly in the right place....

A while back @PlaStix did a dual build,  and I pitched in with some kit butchery

see

but the  whole thread is worth a read, as it also deals with the fuel tank fit and UC attachment,  plus some very  neat brush paiting too boot.

My pics are on PB, but are showing up for me with an embed fix in Firefox.

 

As you  can  see  it's possible to fix up  the Tamiya 'with some  modelling skill'  

I've not got as far as finding out how the mods affect the canopy fit.

 

The Airfix has the correct cockpit sidewalls,  but the only kits that have these inn 1/48th are the new tool Airfix I/V,the Eduard VIII/IX/XVI family and the Special Hobby family.

 

I was surprised to note the Hasegawa Vb  makes a stab at them.   

The Hase Vb is on initial inspection pretty good,  a little short in the fuselage but the rest  looks OK.   I mention this as some internet sources will tell you it's 1/50th.  It's not.   I was put  off by and eventually got one cheap out of curiosity.

 

Like @gingerbob  I have a box of 1/48th Spitfires and Seafires that are taped together,  measured, compared, mulled over,  and tweaked.... but not actually finished...  

What I can tell you is there is some right cobblers about on the net regarding what's what with 1/48th Spit kits....

 

feel free to  ask for clarifications if you wish.

 

HTH

T

 

[Starfighter]

Well if the Airfix spitfire is anything like their 1/48 Hurricane you can keep it ! It might be accurate, but I found the Hurricane over complicated and  not easy to get everything lined up . . . i ended up chucking it in the bin and built the Trumpeter 1/24 Hurricane Mk. i . . . A much more enjoyable build . . .Rant over,  I'll get me coat !

Edited January 28, 2018 by Starfighter

[Bruce Archer]

Hi All!

   In reading the responses it proves everyone has an opinion, as do I.

   What do you want, easy build or accuracy? If you want an easy build get the Tamiya kit. It is well thought out, and goes together in the typical Tamiya way. But the shapes are off and it looks fat ( like me)If you want accuracy then you do need to build the Airfix kit. It is actually better detailed, and the though the landing gear is a bit over engineered, follow the instructions, make sure the parts are trimmed correctly and there is no problem. I have 5 Mk.Is ( done as an early, mid and late Mk.I,  the fourth as a Mk.II and the fifth as a Va) and 4 Mk.Vbs (as a Vb, Vb Trop, LF.Vb, and a IIb) and have enjoyed each and every one. I did keep one built Tamiya Vb Trop to remind me how bad I think it is.

     I will need another bunch of Mk.Is and Vbs as I have a bunch more Spitfires to do, esp all of the PR variants.

    I chose to go with accuracy, but the choice is yours, and yours alone....

 

Bruce Archer

47 1/72nd scale Spitfires Built

49 1/48th scale Spitfires built

Edited January 29, 2018 by Bruce Archer

[Starfighter]

If it's accuracy you are after, how come Airfix completely missed the rather prominent clear vision panel on the left of the Mk. 1  canopy, which is there on the Tamiya kit ? . . . just saying.

[Troy Smith]

53 minutes ago, Starfighter said:

If it's accuracy you are after, how come Airfix completely missed the rather prominent clear vision panel on the left of the Mk. 1  canopy, which is there on the Tamiya kit ? . . . just saying.

 

you mean this

 

Quote

King George VI inspecting early Spitfire MK I. Details of cockpit hatch and de-misting breakout panel on port side of canopy

 

Does every Mk. I  have this panel?   Offhand I don't know,   a quick google shows some do, some don't.

 

The Airfix kit come with several canopies, (and props) and can be built as various stages of the Mk.I, a Mk.I and a Va,    which  the Tamiya can't.

 

I'm saying this as your comments have not really added anything to OP question, do you have either the Tamiya or Airfix Spitfires?

I posted up links to what are AFAIK the most comprehensive answers to the question asked.

 

Did you read the linked thread where they get compared?    The Tamiya while a really well engineered model, but it has some obvious shape problems.    

 

For a while I had been reading about the errors in the Tamiya kit,  so I had a go at working out what was wrong,  and how to fix it.

I posted up the "recipe"  but I've not seen anyone use it.   The time consuming hard bit was assessing the faults, and working out the fixes,  with the 'recipe'  I think one could do the fixes in couple of hours.

The link also has details on what to watch out for in the Airfix kit.

 

On 28/01/2018 at 18:31, Starfighter said:

Well if the Airfix spitfire is anything like their 1/48 Hurricane you can keep it ! It might be accurate, but I found the Hurricane over complicated and  not easy to get everything lined up . . . i ended up chucking it in the bin and built the Trumpeter 1/24 Hurricane Mk. i . . . A much more enjoyable build .

And the OP was asking about Hurricanes?

 

Is this a user induced error?    Or a duff kit ?   Certainly Airfix have had some quality control issues and "friday afternoon"  kit which is meant to fit very precisely is not going to work.

 

Yes,  the kits are done in a way which means that you do need be careful to start with, and know the tolerances are very exacting,  but there have been a good amount of build who have not had problems.  

 

FWIW,  I do think they are over engineered,  and the plastic used does not help.   @ArtickWarspite had a thread where he had right battle with said Hurricane kit,  http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235027581-airfix-148-hurricane/ and had lots of fit problems,   but other members posted who didn't,   or like @Dances With Wolves  had some insights and solutions.

 

 

In the 72nd fabric wing Hurri,  I needed to use the upper wing to align the front spar,  and let it set before doing  the rest.  A PITA sure,  but best wheel well in scale as a result.

 

As for Hurricanes,   well,  when I really anoraked the new Airfix kit I was rather dissapointed,  as they scaled up the glitches in the 72nd fabric wing kit, which  are less obvious in 72nd...  but are in 48th.

 

As 72nd is not of particular interest I  didn't anorak it....which I'm  I'm now kicking myself for as I'd have even gone to Margate personally to get the point across!

 

Why Trumpeter have not scaled down the 1/24th Hurricane (leaving aside those blinkin' recessed rivets) is beyond me, whoever did their research actually got the shapes right, it if they kept the shapes it would be the best in 48th and 72nd...

 

 

 

 

 

[SeaVenom]

On 1/27/2018 at 11:19 PM, gingerbob said:

I presume that you mean Mk.I and/or Vb?  Airfix's newest Spits are better renditions than Tamiya's, but Tamiya's is a typical kit from them- simple and easy.  I've just been wrestling with Airfix's landing gear, and am certainly not a fan, but it can be dealt with.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've found a way to put the whole thing in after assembly.  There is also the SAC metal replacement, which I'd love to check out, though I'm not generally a fan of their stuff.

 

bob

 

 

Yes the Mk1/Vb.  

[SeaVenom]

On 1/28/2018 at 12:32 AM, Troy Smith said:

the new tool Airfix Mk.I and Vb are essentially accurate shape wise,  the UC connection is fixable, but annoying.   If done before assembly  it's a lot easier, basically adding attachment pins.

The other issue is VERY fine tolerances,  which especially in the cockpit can the throw off fitting the fuel tank cover,  I've seen a few builds where the builder did not realise this and then cursed later.

 

The Tamiya is short, fat,slab sided and the wing shape is too broad at centre chord.    On it'sown it's not too  bad,  next to a  correctly shaped kit it looks like  it'sover  done it over  Christmas

 

However the surface detail is more refined, and is mostly in the right place....

A while back @PlaStix did a dual build,  and I pitched in with some kit butchery

see

but the  whole thread is worth a read, as it also deals with the fuel tank fit and UC attachment,  plus some very  neat brush paiting too boot.

My pics are on PB, but are showing up for me with an embed fix in Firefox.

 

As you  can  see  it's possible to fix up  the Tamiya 'with some  modelling skill'  

I've not got as far as finding out how the mods affect the canopy fit.

 

The Airfix has the correct cockpit sidewalls,  but the only kits that have these inn 1/48th are the new tool Airfix I/V,the Eduard VIII/IX/XVI family and the Special Hobby family.

 

I was surprised to note the Hasegawa Vb  makes a stab at them.   

The Hase Vb is on initial inspection pretty good,  a little short in the fuselage but the rest  looks OK.   I mention this as some internet sources will tell you it's 1/50th.  It's not.   I was put  off by and eventually got one cheap out of curiosity.

 

Like @gingerbob  I have a box of 1/48th Spitfires and Seafires that are taped together,  measured, compared, mulled over,  and tweaked.... but not actually finished...  

What I can tell you is there is some right cobblers about on the net regarding what's what with 1/48th Spit kits....

 

feel free to  ask for clarifications if you wish.

 

HTH

T

 

 

 

Cheers for that.   Well....a few clarifications wouldn't be too shabby.

[SeaVenom]

On 1/28/2018 at 6:31 PM, Starfighter said:

Well if the Airfix spitfire is anything like their 1/48 Hurricane you can keep it ! It might be accurate, but I found the Hurricane over complicated and  not easy to get everything lined up . . . i ended up chucking it in the bin and built the Trumpeter 1/24 Hurricane Mk. i . . . A much more enjoyable build . . .Rant over,  I'll get me coat !

 

 

I've built the Hurricane but it definitely has a few issues.    The main problem I found was the front underneath of the fuselage.  There's a bit of a step there but luckily it's not too bad.

[Antoine]

On 28/01/2018 at 1:32 AM, Troy Smith said:

A while back @PlaStix did a dual build,  and I pitched in with some kit butchery

see:

 

Sadly, most of the pics are gone with Photobucket...

[Troy Smith]

11 hours ago, SeaVenom said:

Well....a few clarifications wouldn't be too shabby.

what  would you like clairifying?    The linked thread does deal  with the main problems,  I didn't do the wing, but that's pretty easy.

You will need to  remove the aileron, and rescribe the flap line,  but the reshape is simple otherwise.

 

I like @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies post here so much I'll quote it

2 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I get the impression modellers fall broadly into two camps;

 

1) Wish to make an accurate representation of a real subject

 

2) Wish to make an attractive looking small subject

 

Those in camp 1 value shape accuracy first and foremost, as mhaselden observed, if the shape is wrong then to correct it destroys all of the qualities that would have appealed to camp 2 anyway. E.g. the 1/48 Tamiya Spitfires - if you want a Spitfire that's shaped like a Spitfire then the Tamiya's convenient and easy parts fit and crisp detail is all worth zero because you'll saw the kit into pieces and glue it back together then rework the entire surface to fix the fundamental shape flaws.

 

Those in camp 2 value precise fit and the aesthetic appeal of surface detail more. It is more important that the model builds up easily to something that looks good than it is important that it holds much resemblance to what it was supposed to be.

 

 

I've heard it said that waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay sounds brilliant so long as you don't know what either of those things are. In a similar vein, Trumpeter models tend to look good provided you never actually check them against the original subject and that's true of their aircraft and ship kits generally. They make very nice kits of little aeroplanes and ships - they're just not scale models of what's written on the front of the box.

 

Though specifically it is possible to not damage much surface detail in the Tamiya Spitfires,  as I tried to stress in my posts on this, as that would make the entire excercise pointless.  

 

8 hours ago, Antoine said:

Sadly, most of the pics are gone with Photobucket...

they work in Firefox with a photobucket embed fix  or such like,  also in Chrome

for example of these

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=photobuckeyt+embed+fix&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=0NJxWu7-Cq-GgAaInYGoAg

 

I've been to lazy to re-do aIl the pics,   and I have not had the linear time work on doing a complete build and documentation,   partly as the I really get satisfaction from analysing and solving the problem(s) , less from writing it up, and doing all the pics neatly...

( I need a secretary)

 

On 28/01/2018 at 00:32, Troy Smith said:

What I can tell you is there is some right cobblers about on the net regarding what's what with 1/48th Spit kits....

by  this,  comments get made,  become "fact"  and don't get rechecked.

 

Cases in point,  frequent negative comments on the Special Hobby Spitfires/Seafires,   the black/white polarisation on the Tamiya Spitfires (fixable with the right info and some medium modelling skill)  to the drivel about Mk.XIV,   in particular the AM fixes for the Academy kit,   which just supply a new nose,  when the real problem is the excess depth of the fuselage,  and wing (kit wing  is 8mm deep, it should be about 7mm)

It also has the Tamiya wing problem.   Oh, and the Hobbycraft Spitfire XIV is actaully very  well shaped overall, if somewhat basic..

It's bigger fix than the Tamiya,  and does need a new spinner,   but most of these problems are shared by the Airfix Spit  XII and Seafire XVII,   which does not seem to be  appreciated,  the big visual difference is Airfix got the nose ring about right.

 

At least with Spitfire I can come up with  fixes that work, Hurricanes drive me  really batty as if  you stuff up the fuselage fabric then it's a major  job to fix  that, and most kits get it wrong. 

 

And now I need to sort out the weekly shopping run....

 

 

[Graham Boak]

My experience is with the 1/72, though I believe that the shapes are the same.  The Tamiya wing designer assumed that the elliptical curve on the trailing edge started where the wing appears  from the wing fuselage fairing, whereas it actually begins close to the fuselage centre-line.  This results in, as described, excessive chord at the midpoint.  I have cut it (two, actually) back to the correct shape and although the aileron isn't too badly affected (in my opinion), the flap certainly is.  Other shortcomings can be improved by a new spinner, propeller, exhausts and canopy.   However, thinning down the fuselage behind the canopy doesn't seem so amenable.  Overall, the investment in time and money is excessive, and all the more disappointing given Tamiya's deservedly fine reputation. 

 

As far as I can see the best use of a Tamiya kit would be to cut off the nose and use it to replace the one in the Italeri kit, though you could probably use the Tamiya undercarriage too (if to lesser benefit) and you still need a new spinner/propeller.  Plus a bit of straightforward work on the radiator.

[SeaVenom]

On 1/31/2018 at 3:01 PM, Troy Smith said:

what  would you like clairifying?    The linked thread does deal  with the main problems,  I didn't do the wing, but that's pretty easy.

You will need to  remove the aileron, and rescribe the flap line,  but the reshape is simple otherwise.

 

I like @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies post here so much I'll quote it

 

Though specifically it is possible to not damage much surface detail in the Tamiya Spitfires,  as I tried to stress in my posts on this, as that would make the entire excercise pointless.  

 

they work in Firefox with a photobucket embed fix  or such like,  also in Chrome

for example of these

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=photobuckeyt+embed+fix&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=0NJxWu7-Cq-GgAaInYGoAg

 

I've been to lazy to re-do aIl the pics,   and I have not had the linear time work on doing a complete build and documentation,   partly as the I really get satisfaction from analysing and solving the problem(s) , less from writing it up, and doing all the pics neatly...

( I need a secretary)

 

by  this,  comments get made,  become "fact"  and don't get rechecked.

 

Cases in point,  frequent negative comments on the Special Hobby Spitfires/Seafires,   the black/white polarisation on the Tamiya Spitfires (fixable with the right info and some medium modelling skill)  to the drivel about Mk.XIV,   in particular the AM fixes for the Academy kit,   which just supply a new nose,  when the real problem is the excess depth of the fuselage,  and wing (kit wing  is 8mm deep, it should be about 7mm)

It also has the Tamiya wing problem.   Oh, and the Hobbycraft Spitfire XIV is actaully very  well shaped overall, if somewhat basic..

It's bigger fix than the Tamiya,  and does need a new spinner,   but most of these problems are shared by the Airfix Spit  XII and Seafire XVII,   which does not seem to be  appreciated,  the big visual difference is Airfix got the nose ring about right.

 

At least with Spitfire I can come up with  fixes that work, Hurricanes drive me  really batty as if  you stuff up the fuselage fabric then it's a major  job to fix  that, and most kits get it wrong. 

 

And now I need to sort out the weekly shopping run....

 

 

 

 

Ok cheers for that!

[SeaVenom]

On 1/31/2018 at 3:56 PM, Graham Boak said:

My experience is with the 1/72, though I believe that the shapes are the same.  The Tamiya wing designer assumed that the elliptical curve on the trailing edge started where the wing appears  from the wing fuselage fairing, whereas it actually begins close to the fuselage centre-line.  This results in, as described, excessive chord at the midpoint.  I have cut it (two, actually) back to the correct shape and although the aileron isn't too badly affected (in my opinion), the flap certainly is.  Other shortcomings can be improved by a new spinner, propeller, exhausts and canopy.   However, thinning down the fuselage behind the canopy doesn't seem so amenable.  Overall, the investment in time and money is excessive, and all the more disappointing given Tamiya's deservedly fine reputation. 

 

As far as I can see the best use of a Tamiya kit would be to cut off the nose and use it to replace the one in the Italeri kit, though you could probably use the Tamiya undercarriage too (if to lesser benefit) and you still need a new spinner/propeller.  Plus a bit of straightforward work on the radiator.

 

 

 

 

Cheers for that also.

[gingerbob]

I just happened across this, so thought I'd offer it as another informed opinion:

 

Jon Bius' side-by-side comparison.  I'm pretty sure that Jon's a member here, and I consider him a "virtual friend"- we've shared by internet and mail, but not yet met in person.  (If you poke around a little, you'll also find him building the Airfix Mk.I, and other Spits.)

 

bob

[SeaVenom]

On 2/3/2018 at 9:47 AM, gingerbob said:

I just happened across this, so thought I'd offer it as another informed opinion:

 

Jon Bius' side-by-side comparison.  I'm pretty sure that Jon's a member here, and I consider him a "virtual friend"- we've shared by internet and mail, but not yet met in person.  (If you poke around a little, you'll also find him building the Airfix Mk.I, and other Spits.)

 

bob

 

Great.   Thanks for that.