therollercoaster

Giorgios link to the Spitfire Sites S31 walkaround is excellent. The images shows the actual structure of the hood, aft transparency and the sealing strips in great detail and is a bit of an eye-opener when compared to the parts included in the kit. That said, the hood or the PR.XIX was 'double-glazed', so maybe the thickness of the kit parts isn't all that bad after all!

You could probably use a vac hood from one of the Falcon sets and do the job, you still need to build up the front frame of the aft section though for it to look right. Hope this helps.

Just to re-iterate Mr Mocks comments, the one-piece 'open' hood part is independent of the parts for the 'closed' option. The problem with using the 'closed' parts to depict the canopy open is that the framework of the aft section has been moulded as part of the frame of the sliding hood, so if you pose it open the rear section is too short to meet the seat frame/bulkhead correctly. It seems to be possible to pose the closed hood in the open position as Mr Mocks pictures show, so all is not lost but for a correct representation you'll need to add a forward frame to the aft section and reduce the heavy frame from the aft of the hood. I found a picture at planephotos.net that shows the hood more clearly, I don't know about linking the image directly but here is a link, I hope it works. http://www.planephotos.net/photos/8yfwp6yhmmx0wdgv7wwq.jpg In fact is seems that there is no forward 'frame' for the hood either, I think the PR hood may be much like the hood of a Hunter with fore and aft seals fixed to the windscreen and rear section.

Now you see the aft clear panel should come forward far enough to reach the seat bulkhead, it also has a much bulkier forward frame than a non-pressurized Spitfire because the frame incorporates the rubber sealing strip for the aft edge of the hood to seal against. There is a very clear picture at the foot of page 104 of the SAM Datafile on Griffon Spits that shows the layout. On my model I can't get the separate hood to sit over the spine in the fully open position without stressing the plastic and taping it in place. Admitedly I'm not as far along as you are, I've only taped the clear parts on so far, but I don't think I'd try flexing the canopy hood around too much make it fit, Anyway, as I said, I'm making mine closed up so it doesn't bother me at all.

I'm afraid Mr Gibson is correct, the separate sliding hood is too thick to fit over the rear section and fuselage spine as it comes and the rear section is short by the width of its frame which seems to be represented as part of the back frame of the hood. The parts supplied for a closed canopy can't be used as they come to model the canopy open and some people obviously aren't keen on the one-piece open-canopy part that Airfix have devised. As I'm making mine with the canopy shut its no concern to me. I'm more disappointed with the obvious effort put into the forward cockpit bulkhead while still including those incredibly crude block rudder pedals, that seems to be wasted effort. And of course the incredibly thick trailing edges of the wing tips, ailerons and those peculiar flaps, I really don't know why Airfix provide separate flaps given how seldom they were seen deployed, the mouldings result in a doorstep thick trailing edge, in this case unwelcome sink marks due to the internal 'detail' and fiddly assembly at the rear of the wing root, it was the same with the Mk.XII and Seafire kits, and with that ugly Mk.I they produced a few years back! They've become an unwelcome feature, or gimmick, of Airfix Spitfires. Its surprising really as the trailing edges of the elevators and rudder are almost sharp enough to shave with! A couple of details that I've noticed that might also bear closer attention: The radiator fairings aren't quite right in profile, there isn't enough of a radius at the leading edge and the fairings should flat along the bottom before curving up to the aft flap shroud, Airfix have done quite a nice job but the profile is a continuous curve from front to rear. The wheel hubs are 3-spoke, I always thought this pattern of wheel was intended to carry a tyre with a larger cross-section which dictated the bulged fairing on top of the wing above the tyres retracted position. Its not really much of an issue as the wheels are readily replaced with a 4-spoke pattern from an aftermarket supplier.

I've just picked one up at Modelzone. My impression is that its a good quality Airfix kit that is excellent value for money, but its not as good as some of the hyperbole we've seen on some forums!

I imagine the best way to get a nice Spitfire XIV would to be to wait until Airfix release one...

Thats very impressive, it'll look great alongside the Sea Vixen! Can we have a Meteor F.8 next please?

Last but not least there is the canopy itself, the bomber canopy windscreen was two panels in a 'V', the fighter had a flat screen.

Not a problem, buy 3 or 4! Thats what I'm planning, I've got decals going back to the old Almarks PR over Europe sheet!

The most sense I've seen expressed in this whole debate. Different people enjoy thier hobbies in different ways, to criticise a 'faction' for thier interest or lack of interest in the finer points of a new kit is simply devisive and ultimately self-destructive. We don't all have to get along, but it'd be nice to think we could all enjoy our personal take on the hobby without being subject to snarky remarks and thinly-veiled insults of other that don't agree with our choices or opinions, criticise the model, not the modeller, the model has no feelings, it won't be happy or sad if someone thinks its good or bad because its just a piece of plastic!

At last something to spend my Christmas Modelzone tokens on!

This thread over on Modelshipwrights by Al Bubnis is a mine of information with links, pictures, notes and details of suitable reference books: http://modelshipwrights.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=188556&page=1 There are two or three other threads about the Italeri Vosper there as well.

G-Factor sell a set of white-bronze gearlegs for the Tamiya kit. http://largescaleplanes.com/reviews/Aftermarket/WW2/gfactor/32012/32012.php But apart from the sharper detail there is no difference in o/a dimensions between them and the kit parts. I bought my set from Sprue Brothers last year.

I'd go for these wheels: http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32006 And if you plan to open the cockpit access door then one of these as well, great improvement over the rather crude kit part... http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32002 Its simpler to replace the seat, http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BCR32001 but you can always fashion the back padding with Milliput or scribed plastic card.

Your responses to others in this thread have been far more than derisive Mr Mock, 'dude', 'sport', 'slick', 'bucko'... I've not seen you make one comment regarding the material John Adams has posted illustrating the flaws with this kit, all you seem to have contributed is pointed remarks aimed at people who feel this kit is lacking and not what they want. Other than your own personal amusement is there anything constructive you have to offer the discussion or are we all just lab-rats for you to poke and prod in order to see what tricks you can make us perform? Oh, and I'm not 'alluding' to you being a troll, I'm saying outright that you're being a troll.

Which just proves that its possible to over-analyse pretty much anything to the point its no longer any fun. Then again I suppose you could just be a troll, although that seems a bit of a retrograde step from the lofty heights of published author.

Technically there were only two marks of Universal Carrier, the Mk.I and the Mk.II as depicted in Tamiyas 1/48th and 1/35th kits. There is a world of difference between a 'Bren Carrier' and a Universal Carrier. The UC came about as a result of standardising a number of similar designs which included the Bren Carrier and Scout Carrier. The principle differences between a Mk.I UC and a Mk.II UC include: The headlights (two on the Mk.I mounted on the front fenders, one on the Mk.II mounted on the front of the commanders armour). The 'rifle rest' around the top edge of the aft compartment was simple wooden batten screwed in place on the Mk.I, on the Mk.II it was replaced with tubular metal welded in place The long stowage chest across the rear of the hull of the Mk.II was inside the aft compartment of the Mk.I and the Mk.I had a smaller stowage compartment/POW can rack in the centre of the rear plate. As well as these main changes much of the internal stowage, fittings and engine shroud was redesigned in the Mk.II and there were also changes made to the stowage and seats in the front compartment as well. In 1/48th you can probably get away with changing the headlamps, rifle-rest and rear hull plate layout, leave out the radio set and fill the rear compartment with stowage and kit. A google search will turn up a great number of images and links but it does help to be able to identify the principle features of the different marks. Hope this helps.

I don't think 'defensive' is the word you're looking for, I feel sure that 'derisive' would be more apt.

Hmmm, you see there you go again with the casual, and unwanted, familiarity Mr Mock. I think I'll just leave it at that and avoid making any further posts.

I don't get your point about relying on the cottage industry for 'alternatives'? Up until this kit the only 1/48th injected Vampire kit on the market was the Hobbycraft family, and I don't think they've been commonly available for some time, even when they were the kits were pretty poor. Up until now the cottage industry seems to have been supplying the market with 1/48th scale Vampires just fine, are you suggesting that because a big manufacturer like Trumpeter can flood the market with a second-rate product then thats what most modellers will buy? Are they going to be buying it because its available and (we're told) they don't care about the flaws or because its available and they should be happy with what they're given?

But I'm not in the least bit 'wound up', as you put it, why do you presume I am? Its a plastic kit, the world won't stop turning because I think its rubbish. If others think its salvagable, well as you said, that is thier perogative, I didn't realise I had to agree.

Difference of opinion Mr Mock, I see nothing worth salvaging in this sorry mess of a kit, others think differently, I don't agree. And BTW, I don't think you know me well enough to call me 'dude' thanks very much.

Seconded, what a wasted opportunity for Trumpeter to produce something worthwhile, instead we get yet another ghastly characture of a classic British design, people can apologise all they like for its flaws and how it can all be fixed but in this day and age why would I want to fix it when I can buy an excellent alternative, even if it is resin. No, sorry Trumpeter, and all your apologists, make a decent product and you'll get some of my money, as it is I'm off to order an AC Vampire.

I honestly don't know about any service procedures that would be used in a 'engine-run', at a minimum a live body in the cockpit to control the throttle. I'd expect the radiator flaps to be open to maximise cooling. Its very rare to see a Spit of any mark with its flaps down unless its undergoing some sort of maintenance. I can't say if the flying controls would be locked off or not but with a damned great Griffon engine hammering away I'd have thought the ground crew would take some precautions to prevent the aircrafts flying surfaces from being buffeted about and possibly damaged, the aircraft would likely be locked down in some manner as well, I doubt any crew-chief would be happy relying on just the aircrafts brakes during such a test in case the pneumatics failed! What you need is a maintenance schedule/manual to give you the correct procedure to be used for such a test but thats probably getting too deep into the subject for a scale model really, but if anyone would have such information it would most likely be Edgar Brooks.