Andrew Jones Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Just picked up the new Airfix Spitfire XII from my LMS, lovely kit, very impressed with the quality. But, I have been comparing the parts with other kits in my stash and it appears to be approx 1mm deeper in the fuselage than other kits, OK I know 1mm isn't much, but it almost exactly matches the Academy Spitfire XIV. Now, we have all been told the Academy Spit is a "bloater", being grossly overweight in this region. I have always understood that the dimensions of the Spitfire fuselage, [less engines and tails ] remained the same from the MkI to the MkXXI, so, is the Airfix kit overweight or is the Academy model not as bad as we've been led to believe ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenshb Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 When I first looked at my kit, I thought there was something odd about the fuselage - it seemed short. Comparing it with scans in the Montforton book confirmed that the length from the firewall to the rudder is spot on, and the upper curves look good, but the fuselage is about 1mm too deep where it meets the lower wing, and that pot-bellied look gives it that "short and fat" impression. Not sure how to correct that as it will have knock-on effects elsewhere. Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Just picked up the new Airfix Spitfire XII from my LMS, lovely kit, very impressed with the quality. But, I have been comparing the parts with other kits in my stash and it appears to be approx 1mm deeper in the fuselage than other kits, OK I know 1mm isn't much, but it almost exactly matches the Academy Spitfire XIV. Now, we have all been told the Academy Spit is a "bloater", being grossly overweight in this region. I have always understood that the dimensions of the Spitfire fuselage, [less engines and tails ] remained the same from the MkI to the MkXXI, so, is the Airfix kit overweight or is the Academy model not as bad as we've been led to believe ?. The Academy kit fuselage is a total disaster, full stop. Yes the Spitfire family (Hi-back) fuselages are the same from frame 5 to frame 19 (excepting things like the modified canted firewall top). I don't have a Mk.X11 yet to comment but the fuselage should fit the Montforton IX drawings. The XII's were modified from V's and VIII's. One real problem with Spitfire kit comparison is no company has got it right yet. This is plus the fact that the only (published) drawings of any Mk which are accurate are probably the Montforton ones. Even at this time I am coming up with conflicting rudder post heights in information which I hither to took to be accurate. John Edited February 4, 2011 by John Aero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Jones Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Just compared the fuselage against the Peter Cooke Spitfire XII/XIV drawings published in Scale Models magazine, they also seem to show the fuselage as 1mm too deep, I am l led to beleve they are reasonably accurate. But then again is 1mm worth worrying about as the kit certainly looks right overall. Edited February 4, 2011 by Andrew Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The Mk.XII was not converted from Mk.Vs and Mk.VIIIs, as is often claimed. It was a distinct design at the end of the Mk.V production run, with Mk.Vc wings and a redesigned fuselage - not just to take the Griffon but with recessed rivetting and (I'm told but can't detail) other structural changes. Some of them had the fixed tailwheel, and some had retractable tailwheels - presumably where the Mk.VIII myth comes from. The tail is a separate production item, so perhaps Supermarine were just initially using up excess stock. Jenshb "When I first looked at my kit, I thought there was something odd about the fuselage" Andrew "the kit certainly looks right overall." Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith in the uk Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I dont think 1mm is too much to worry about , it looks like a MKXII to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Wyllie Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Just picked up the new Airfix Spitfire XII from my LMS, lovely kit, very impressed with the quality. But, I have been comparing the parts with other kits in my stash and it appears to be approx 1mm deeper in the fuselage than other kits, OK I know 1mm isn't much, but it almost exactly matches the Academy Spitfire XIV. I agree that the fuselage from the rear of the wing fillet to the fin post is about 1mm too deep. I really didn't want to measure the kit, hoping it was more accurate but, comparing it with the Monforton drawings, it does have several easily seen issues. Not only the fuselage but the wing, too. The LE is too curved but this is easily fixed by sanding it to match the drawing. The chord at the root and inner side of the aileron is 1mm too large but the tip chord is correct. Whether correcting the wing plan or not, the tips need to be thinned so that the tips fit neatly. The span of the elevators is 2mm too large as well. What to do about it? The fuselage underside can be sanded down by 1mm without breaking through and the section re-established. The panel lines can be rescribed each time they start to get faint; this will maintain their position and save rescribing from scratch. If the beam approach aerial is cut off first, it can be replaced when the shaping is finished. On the wing the chord can be reduced by 1mm at the TE from the root to aileron and thinned from the inside to restore the fine TE. Happily, this puts the rear edge of the gun bay cover and the flap mechanism cover the correct distance from the TE. If these simple mods are done, the rudder can be reduced at the bottom edge to match the fuselage and the tailwheel leg reduced in length to keep the relationship of the wheel to the fuselage bottom correct. The aileron may need slight adjustment in chord at the inboard end to fit neatly and the flaps similarly. When assembled the rear of the wing fillet can be trimmed match the corrected TE of the wing. These are all quite easy to do and should greatly improve the appearance of the finished model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) The Mk.XII was not converted from Mk.Vs and Mk.VIIIs, as is often claimed. It was a distinct design at the end of the Mk.V production run, with Mk.Vc wings and a redesigned fuselage - not just to take the Griffon but with recessed rivetting and (I'm told but can't detail) other structural changes. Some of them had the fixed tailwheel, and some had retractable tailwheels - presumably where the Mk.VIII myth comes from. The tail is a separate production item, so perhaps Supermarine were just initially using up excess stock.Jenshb "When I first looked at my kit, I thought there was something odd about the fuselage" Andrew "the kit certainly looks right overall." Hmmm. Whilst I'm generally happy to conceed to Graham re the flush riveting on production XIIs certainly 6 Mk.VIIIs were converted as part of the 'Griffonisation' of the Spitfire which is at best a nightmare to sift through and again I agree as to the rear fuselages (usage of V and VIII stock). I was without going too deep, trying to say that contourwise the shape of the Spitfire fuselage didn't change dimensionally throughout it's highback life . The prototype with the short Griffon had the canted firewall of the enlarged oil tank but the production a/c did not. John Edited February 4, 2011 by John Aero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCC Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 this might be appropriate http://www.seawarstore.com/IBRCShirt.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) The Mk.XII was not converted from Mk.Vs and Mk.VIIIs... Some of them had the fixed tailwheel, and some had retractable tailwheels - presumably where the Mk.VIII myth comes from. The tail is a separate production item, so perhaps Supermarine were just initially using up excess stock. That and the division of serials between two lots, I suspect, lead to the "some Vs, some VIIIs" story- and the usual factor of having seen it stated in various books. As for the tailwheels, the XII and PR.XI were coming into production as Supermarine was shifting from the Mk.Vc airframe (including IX) to the Mk.III based airframe- VII/VIII. A few early PR.XIs were also built with fixed tailwheels (sometimes erroneously identified as "converted Mk.IXs"). If I remember right the transition to retract happened for both types around Feb/Mar '43. The Seafire IIc and IX were also phasing out about then (lingering a little longer, I think). Probably it was more a case of production of the new tail with retract taking a little while to get rolling so that there were enough to go around. bob (I haven't had a chance to paw an Airfix XII yet.) p.s. I meant to see if other comments had been made while writing the above. John, the converted VIIIs you refer to (VIIIG) were initially testbeds for the Griffon 61, and then served as "prototypes" (developmental workhorses) for the XIV. Nothing to do with XIIs. One other thing that the XII had (unless I've misread it) is stainless steel longerons- hardly something that would be installed if "converting" a Mk.V fuselage! (that isn't meant to be a snarky comment directed at you.) p.p.s. "CCC", I've got to get me one of them shirts- thanks for reminding me. I'll wear it proudly (with tongue still in cheek). If YOU were making a subtle snarky comment, then... well, too bad- it backfired! Edited February 4, 2011 by gingerbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheModeller Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) OK I know 1mm isn't much, but it almost exactly matches the Academy Spitfire XIV. Now, we have all been told the Academy Spit is a "bloater", being grossly overweight in this region. The Academy kit is as bad as you've been told, however the rear fuselage depth is less of an issue than the deep cowl and overly thick wing. I've just got my Mk.XII and opened it up last night for a little test fitting and fiddling. The rear fuselage does seem a little deep though I'd warn against comparing it to other mainstream kits as few of them have such subtleties completely right either. Comparison with the Montforton drawings, accepted as the best around, seems to confirm that the rear fuselage is a little deep along the underside, that said, I don't much care for relying on 'scale' drawings no matter who produced them. To my Mk.I eyeball the rear fuselage looks a bit portly, but as Iain has said this can be remedied with some careful sanding, the mouldings have plenty of meat on them and will take such modification easily enough from the look of it. The forward fuselage and cowl look right and I'm not overly fussed about the wing planform but for my model I think I'll have at the aft fuselage with a sanding block when I clean up the seam. I don't like the flattened tyres or the seat or the heavily moulded radiator housing. The tyres look too flat but I'd routinely replace them with Ultracast resin anyway, and I have plenty of Ultracast Spit seats in the stash as well so thats not a concern, the radiator housing will probably get a lot of thinning and scraping and I reckon I'll do away with the moulded flap and scratch a more realistic one from thin plastic sheet. EDIT Couple of other minor points now I'm looking at the actual parts, not convinced by the shape of the cowl bulges, they look a bit big and pronounced, again some sanding and re-establishing the surface details will help. The insides of the wings need a little sanding to reduce thier depth and match the tip mouldings, and while I like the idea of the 'open' canopy hood moulding the clear parts are very thick, I'd be inclined to use the windscreen and aft transparency and replace the hood with one from the spares box or maybe vac part. The dimensional error is a bit disappointing but fixable and overall I think this is a pretty fine stab at a Mk.XII. Drewe Manton and Spencer Pollard have both built and completed the kit already and the results certainly look excellent, a little fettling and I'll be happy with this one. Edited February 4, 2011 by TheModeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCC Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) p.p.s. "CCC", I've got to get me one of them shirts- thanks for reminding me. I'll wear it proudly (with tongue still in cheek). If YOU were making a subtle snarky comment, then... well, too bad- it backfired! I beg to differ, comment exactly as expected would love one myself if they were only available over here as well. an untapped market? pity postage is now crippling Edited February 4, 2011 by CCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Shirt ordered! I just hope it is dimensionally correct, because I waffled between Medium and Large. I'd seen that before, and with model contests coming up, and a monthly group I now associate with, I figured I'd better seize the moment. Thanks again for the reminder. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Hi, all, In the other thread, and "admittedly having seen only photographs of a finished example", I remarked that the main u/c legs looked too short and the tailwheel too long (or improperly pushed into its slot in that particular build), making the "seat" to look like squatted. I also proposed that might be the cause was a too deep fuselage sides. Now there is more evidence pointing to this! For all the unacceptability of the Academy's fuselage, the wing is not overly thick... it looks even on the thin side! Last, it is not true that there is not an option... the Aeroclub fuselage would mate to the wing of your choice with a minimum of fuss, certainly less than dimensionally correcting a kit. Just food for thought, Fernando Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheModeller Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) For all the unacceptability of the Academy's fuselage, the wing is not overly thick... it looks even on the thin side! I beg to differ, the Academy XIV wing is like a breeze-block, always has been and was well discussed in the modelling press when it was released, IIRC the Aeroclub XIV conversion set included instructions on thinning the wing if it was going to be used. If I were to use it for any model I'd block-sand a good few millimetres of the mating faces, fortunately I don't have to, the Hasegawa IX wing is much better and readily modified. While the Aeroclub XII conversion is another option and still available via Hannants I'd suggest that the work needed to do the job would amount to far more effort than a bit of sanding of the Airfix kits lower fuselage, the seam needs cleaning up anyway, its not that hard to reduce the underside profile at the same time. YMMV. Edited February 4, 2011 by TheModeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I beg to differ, the Academy XIV wing is like a breeze-block, always has been and was well discussed in the modelling press when it was released, IIRC the Aeroclub XIV conversion set included instructions on thinning the wing if it was going to be used.YMMV. True. The roots are a bit oversized, and indeed the instructions in the Aeroclub conversion so indicates (I did that even... you r right) But it is only on the leading edge roots... and not even a couple of millimeters... on the inner mating side, not the outside... I was thinking of an overly thick wing along the whole perimeter, like AX Spit Vc. Besides, the AX fuselage looks overly deep at cockpit line (stress look, I haven't measured). Cleaning panel lines in the AB? Maybe, just a little... Still, sanding the exterior of the gentle curving fuselage seems more daunting. Fernando Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheModeller Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Still, sanding the exterior of the gentle curving fuselage seems more daunting. Please yourself, I've just been to the spares box and dug out the remains of an Academy XIV, and am as sure now as I was when it was released that there isn't a single part of the whole kit worth a damn. Besides, the thread is about the Airfix kits dimensions, not about the Aeroclub alternative or the virtues of the Academy wings. After spending most of the day examining the new kit alongside what drawings and photos I could find in my refs I'll take the Airfix kit and sand the lower aft fuselage line thanks. A bit of sanding and re-profiling maybe too 'daunting' for some but I reckon its a simple job. YMMV. Edited February 4, 2011 by TheModeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 A very nice police sergeant has kindly just dropped a Mk.XII on my desk. Very quick check and some issues are apparent. The overly deep fuselage, nose contours, wing chord, leading edge and also the fin is a little too tall. I do agree that the build done by Spence looks superb. and any corrections are pretty easy. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Just to recap for those of us that don't have and cant afford Montforton book: 1) Reduce the depth of fuselage by 1mm, adjusting rudder and tailwheel to suit? 2) Reduce trailing edge of wing from root to aileron cutout by 1mm, adjust aileron and flap to suit? 3) Reduce curve of leading edge, but by how much and where? Interested to hear folk saying wing ends needed thinned to fit the tips as mine fitted fine without this? Thanks, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Monforton book is currently going cheap from Ian Allan, if that's not too late..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 when it came to adding a different rudder to my Spit XII to convert it into a Seafire XV I found that the rudder post was too deep! I`m no rivet counter by any means but the correct measurement in 1/48th scale is 30mm.........maybe a fraction of a milimetre bigger, but the Airfix rudder post is taller than this. Other than that I`m well chuffed with it and its well on the way to becoming a Seafire XV......WOT NO FILLER AT THE WING ROOTS.......beautiful! Cheers Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Monforton book is currently going cheap from Ian Allan, if that's not too late..... Except they've run out, and are having difficulty obtaining more. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheModeller Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Except they've run out, and are having difficulty obtaining more. Back in stock and shipping as of 04/02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Back in stock and shipping as of 04/02. Ian Allen shows out of stock today (05/02) and a price of 55 GBP - and $164 from Amazon USA. For now I will trust those of you who have the Monforton plans to correctly apply them to new Spitfire kit releases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Well, I now know which plans Airfix used for the XII. The plans show all of the known faults perfectly. SAMI Datafile Griffon Spitfires, produced in Poland. I'll put them on my lightbox later for comparison. John 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