Current "best ofs" for Spitfires in 1/72?

[Procopius]

I've seen, in my perambulations about the web, many a list of the best 1/72 kits for the various marks of Spitfire. Foolishly, I ignored one of these lists once and purchased three Tamiya Mark Vs, which look alarmingly hunchbacked, among other problems. They sit sullenly on my workbench, and I hear the bells of Notre Dame whenever I glance their way.

So to avoid this, I thought I'd ask one of those tiresome "which is best" questions, but for all marks of the Spitfire, so I can print it out and memorize it, and maybe even keep it in my wallet, using the space formerly occupied by all of this money I have just sitting there*.

So, what are the best kits in the various scales? I hasten to add, injection-molded kits, resin ones I know are often nicer, but I'm a simple man. I sort of assume the Airfix Spitfire I/Ia/II is the best for the Mark I/II family, but am I right? Who makes the best Vs? Sword? AZ? The ancient Airfix Vb? A Scale Canadian's blog suggested the Italeri Vb was one of the best of a kind of bad lot. Is the Airfix IX the best? Are the Hasegawa IX/VIIIs truly out of scale?

*=I don't really have any money.

[Test Graham]

If you are objecting the a hunchback on the Tamiya (personally I can't stand the wing) then I suspect you are looking for most accurate - just saying "best" introduces other options, like fit.

Airfix is indeed the best Mk.I/II

The best Mk.Vc is the Sword, on appearance in box and limited comments from those who have finished it. The Italeri Mk.V is pretty poor in a number of ways, the Airfix have their problems - but you can get a Mk.Va from the Mk.I/II.

The best Mk.IX is possibly the Sword but I haven't tried it yet so can't confirm it. Reviews appear to be rare at the moment, but complimentary. The newer Airfix has an excellent fuselage but poor wing in chord and ailerons, and is overall a bit simplified. The Hasegawa is undernourished rather than being "out of scale" as such - it has an undersized rear.

The best Mk.XII is Xtrakit.

I quite like AZ and Fujimi for the later Griffon variants, but the promised Airfix Mk.22 will be worth looking out for.

There's always the Ventura range, if you don't mind a bit of work in preparation, and they are lack details.

That's a summary rather than a long essay on each.

[Greenshirt]

Well, this could be dangerous because "best" is in the eye of the beholder. For my response I'll use a balance of cost, accuracy and detail. All in 72nd:

K5054 - CMR. Both early variations. While expensive you get great detail.

Mk I, II, II LR and Va - Airfix new tooling, good detail, low cost and very accurate. Only vice is deep panel lines.

Mk Vb - Tamiya. Albeit with some minor inaccuracies it has greater detail than Airfix and both are much more accurate than Revell. could probably bash the wings to the Airfix Mk I kit...

Mk Vc - Sword.

Mk VII / VIII - Hasegawa if you can find them, but CMR is more accurate but also more expensive.

Mk IX - Airfix new tooling is accurate but it needs details and corrections depending on the subvariant and subject.

Mk XII - Xtrakit.

Mk XIVc - none, really. Mate the Fujimi fuselage to the Academy wing and you start getting close. Needs an accurate cockpit.

Mk XIVe - Fujimi, but it requires some fiddling to get the details correct and it needs a cockpit.

Mk XIVe low back. - Fujimi and same comments apply as above.

Mk XVI low back - Sword, but the old Heller is pretty good and very inexpensive.

Mk XVII - MPM.

Mk 21 - ??

Mk 22/24 - Probably the new Airfix when released, could be Xtrakit (I don't have it) but CMR is very accurate albeit expensive.

Seafires

Mk Ib, IIc and III - Sword.

Mk XV, XVII - CMR.

Mk 45/46 - Admiral? I don't have these so it's conjecture.

Mk 47 - CMR.

PR - I don't know enough yet about available kits or conversions to even speculate.

Just one modeler's opinion.

Tim

P.S. I'll take those Tamiya Mk Vb for the shipping cost if you don't want them.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Greenshirt

[John Thompson]

This should be interesting - I might follow your example and make my own wallet insert based on the replies! Oh, and don't believe anything those Canadians tell you - they're probably up to something, like trying to flog a whole stack of those Italeri Mk.V's...

John

[Procopius]

If you are objecting the a hunchback on the Tamiya (personally I can't stand the wing) then I suspect you are looking for most accurate - just saying "best" introduces other options, like fit.

Quite right of you to bring this up, I should definitely clarify! I am indeed referring to out-of-the-box accuracy.

[Chuck1945]

Pretty much concur with other comments:

Airfix for I/II/Va, add the 3D parts for a II/LR or Pavla for the early PR versions

(AZ's early Spitfires are quite good in shape and detail but much more fiddly to build than Airfix)

For a Vb, the choices are Revell, Airfix, Tamiya, and Italeri. Revell has a pretty good fuselage, iirc, but totally missed the gull wing, Italeri is so-so, Airfix is ~40 years old although still pretty good shape-wise, and Tamiya is the best detailed and fitting albeit with a fuselage some say is too portly (don't see that myself, but I am not a certified Spit fanatic), the wing shape misses the elliptical shape - once again, to me, in 1/72, this is not immediately obvious.

Sword for Vc, but again it wont be a 'fall together' build

Hasegawa's VII/VIII/IX have overall fuselage length pretty much correct, but the proportions are off, plus one of the worst Spitfire props offered in 1/72 - unfortunately, the prop is also one of the major weak points in the new Airfix IX as well. If a Spit VII is desired, better results could be obtained converting the Airfix (or possibly Sword?) IX.

Xtrakit for XII

I built the Academy XIVc when it came out, however the fuselage is oversized and the underwing radiator housings are perpendicular to the ground instead of the wings - very difficult to fix. When Fujimi's Griffon engine Spit family was introduced, they cost about $30 each in the US, way to rich for me at the time.

I will not comment more on the various Griffon engine Spit versions. While I now have Fujimi, AZ, Xtrakit and Airfix offerings, I have not really examined them all that closely, beyond determining that the Airfix PR XIX is too short in the nose.

[Giorgio N]

If I can add my 2 pence worth, here's what I think of the various 1/72 kits:

Mk.I/II: the new airfix kit could have been the best, but it has no proper tridimensional representatio of the wing-fuselage fairing, with just a scribed panel line instead of the shape of the real thing. It's something quite noticeable to my eyes so this absence is to me a bad omission. Apart from this, it is more accurate than the tamiya kit and has good details, although a bit chunky. The old airfix was good too in shape, apart from the cowling that is probably too narrow. It also had no details. I've not built the AZ spitfires, so can't comment on them.

Mk.V: the sword kit is the best overall and is probably the best spitfire in this scale. It's a Vc only though, so if you want a Vb you need something else. The old airfix Vb was quite good apart from a couple of errors (like the aileron chord) but again it's very little detailed. The tamiya kit is well known for its shape problems (while being a great kit) and the italeri is IMHO rubbish. I don't like the revell kit either shapewise, short behind the canopy and with a bad loking cowling

Mk.VI: choose a Vb and add the parts specific for this version

Mk.IX: the new sword might be the best, but I've yet to see it (must buy it soon). Of the others, there has been a lot of discussion on the length of the hasegawa, ventura and airfix spitfire IXs, so I'm not yet sure myself which is correct in length. The airfix kit has an excessive wing chord but mainly it has very little details and some crude parts. The ventura is the most accurate according to some measurements (that rate airfix's IX as too long), the airfix is according to other measurements.... now if I say the airfix kit is little detailed I should say worse about the ventura kit, but the little that is included in this is correct, something that can't be said of the airfix kit.

Mk. VII: convert a suitable IX

Mk.VIII: same as above, although the hasegawa kit can be easily built into an VIII. AZ has announced a Mk.VIII for this year.

Mk.XII: Xtrakit, no other choice

Mk. XIV: the AZ is probably the best. The fujimi kit is not bad either.... still I believe that the best fuselage is the one aeroclub made in vacform many years ago. The problems of the academy kit are well known and the frog offering is better left on the shelves.

Mk.XVI: I believe Sword, but have yet to see it. The heller kit is not bad but needs something to be done to those huge radiators !

Mk.XVIII: again, AZ and again the aeroclub fuselage with the hasegawa wings and a resin propeller might be the best

PR. XIX: fujimi. The airfix kit is really too short. Again, the aeroclub fuselage is probably the best

Mk. 21: guess AZ again

Mk.22/24: Admiral IMHO over the MPM/Xtrakit offer. The ventura/Jay kit might be good too.. but if we call AZ/admiral/sword kits "short run kits", how should Ventura's be called ??? The forthcoming airfix kit looked very good in the pictures, might be worth waiting for that.

For the seafires:

Mk.Ib: Admiral, or convert a Vb

Mk.IIc: sword. HiPlanes did a short run kit that looked good to me, but the sword kit is easier to find and to build. Alternatively convert a Vc... but as the best Vc is sword's anyway there's no point.

Mk.III: Hi-planes probably, unless sword has made this version and I missed it....

Mk.XV and XVII: ventura in plastic, otherwise CMR in resin

45: Admiral

46: CMR

47: ventura in plastic, CMR in resin.

I might have forgotten something, and have not mentioned the PR versions, but this pretty much sums my "feelings" on 1/72 spits

[MDriskill]

I am vastly incompetent to answer most of your questions.

But...I will note that I absolutely love the new Airfix Mk I/Ia/II kits...and that there is an un-used bit on the sprues which looks suspiciously like a Mk V oil cooler. Perhaps it is safe to assume that this mark will eventually appear in their new lineup.

[Jazzie]

Having a bit of an obsession with Spitfires just now, i have built quite a few Mk I/IIs using the Airfix new tool as a base. I cant vouch for their accuracy as ive not built many others but as mentioned above, the only down side is the trenches! Ive built them OOB, using Aeroclub prototype conversion, 3-D Kits Rotol and LR conversions and even used Revell Vb bits to make a Ib so far and will do the same for IIb and Vb. A bit of fettling/filling/rescribing required but turned out ok for a first attempt. And i think im right in saying a Mk.VI can be built from this boxing with the required mods.

Arabest,

Geoff.

[Test Graham]

Giorgio: Paul Monforton measured three surviving Mk.IX Spitfires using modern laser measuring technology, if to rather excessive accuracy behind the decimal point! His resulting book is immensely detailed, and you'd have to have exceptionally good evidence before arguing with any of the drawings and measurements quoted in it. The fuselage of the new Airfix Spitfire Mk.IX matches his drawings (the wing doesn't, but that's been mentioned already). So yes, the earlier Spitfire Mk.IX kits are a little short in the nose.

Interestingly, the new Airfix Mk.I is also a little longer in the nose than its predecessors, but I haven't seen any such definitive statements for this variant.

I don't have any problem with calling Ventura kits "short run".

[Killingholme]

I empathise with your 'buildable-without-bother' mantra. It's how I model.

From experience, I'd recommend avoiding;

PM models Spitfires (avoid all of them, unless you want to rob the floats)

Airfix Vc (wing as thick as a Hurricane!)

Hobbyboss Vb (awful canopy, no gear doors included)

Academy XIV (looks like a slightly over-inflated spitfire-shaped novelty balloon)

Also:

Good (as in cheap!) source for spare parts, (especially handy if you're attempting to build a Ventura or a vacform), is the KP (Kopro) VIII/IX models.

PR.XI: MPM kit is good, but you have to drill and glaze all the camera holes yourself, and for some odd reason the side-facing camera is omitted from the instructions altogether. Haven't inspected PR.X kit but assume the same issue.

Will

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I've built a lot of Spitfire kits over the last year or 2 and have many more in the stash. I'm not a great accuracy expert so I can't say too much about the kits it that respect but I can comment on how I found the kits to build and their detailing.

Mk I (and II) - the Tamiya kit is the nicest to build and has the nicest detailing. The Airfix new tool kit is also fun to build with nice detailing but not quite as fine a Tamiya but a lot cheaper - great if you want to build loads of Mk I's early and later ones, Mk IIa's and II LR's and also a Va is possible. For these reasons it's my favourite Spitfire kit. The AZ Mk I/II isn't as easy to build but the detailing is nice - I'd recommend it if you want to do a Mk Ib, IIb or PR 1G, especially as last time I looked the Mk Ib and IIb were going cheaply at Hannants. The 3D kits parts for the Mk II and Mk II LR are also highly recommend add ons.

Mk Vb. The Tamiya is probably (not built mine as yet) the best to build and best detailed. It also gives you plenty of modelling options, like normal or clipped wing, and 2 different tropical filters.. The Airfix one is an old tool one and best avoided (I'm building one now - the gaps between the wing and fuselage is big and bad!). I've heard bad things about the Hobby Boss one. The Revell one is nicely detailed and a nice kit to build, and cheap! The Italeri one I think is nicely detailed and gives you plenty of modelling options like the Tamiya one and is cheap too. These kits all have known accuracy issues so perhaps the AZ ones might be the most accurate but will be the more challenging build.

PR Mk IV Sword! They do normal and Tropical versions and have done them very nicely - another one to add to my stash!

Mk Vc - Sword all the time. I've built one and it was probably the nicest short run kit I've built. You also get several options - they do a normal Vc, a Vc Trop and a RAAF Trop with colour etch parts. All of them contain 4 nice resin cannon barrels - so you can do the 4 cannon ones if you have the decals.

Mk VI - Probably AZ for accuracy but if you want something cheaper with nice detailing, Italeri is another option.

Mk VII/VIII Hasegawa is the best option but they can get quite expensive on Ebay auctions, given that they aren't in production anymore.

Mk IX The Airfix new tool is very simplified in the cockpit and wheel well areas - very disappointing compared to their Mk I/II kit. The Hasegawa kit is the same basic kit as their Mk VII/VIII so is nice but expensive when you find them. The new Sword LF Mk IX looks really nice and I'll be having one to do the Israeli one - it's clipped wing only I think though.

PR Mk X - MPM do it but it has a vac form canopy which I hate!

Mk XII As people have said the Xtrakit is the only option but it is no longer in production, so you'll have to look on Ebay or wait and see if Airfix scale down their very nice 1/48 kit.

Mk XIV The Academy kit has people have said doesn't look quite right. Mine also didn't fit together as easily as Academy kits usually do, shame as it's nicely detailed. I have a Ltd Ed AZ Models kit in my stash and it looks nice, not the easiest build though I imagine.

Mk XVI Throw the Heller kit in the bin. I made one last year and it was awful. Mismatching parts, deformed canopy, lots of filling and sanding, it's only saving grace is that it's cheap. Spend more and buy the Sword kits. Sword do the normal fuselage type and the bubble canopy version and if they build as well as the Mk Vc, they will make very nice models.

Mk XVIII AZ models, very similar to the Mk XIV and I have this in my stash to build as well.

PR Mk XIX Despite it's faults the Airfix is very nice and enjoyable to build. I just wish the wheel wells were boxed in and a better decal sheet was provided.

Mk 21 I have the AZ Ltd Ed Contraprop version, should be similar to the Mk XIV and XVIII

MK 22 I've just built 2 of the Xtrakit ones and they certainly weren't engineered to fit together very well. They look nice when built but I'd wait a few months and see what the Airfix kit is like - I bet it's a better build!

Mk 24 Admiral would be the one, not sure who else does it.

If anyone is interested to know the Sword Seafire Mk II is now showing as Ltd Availibility at Hannants, which usually means the manufacturer know longer makes them.

We at MJW Models stock and can order 3D Kits/Admiral/AZ Models/Sword and Xtrakit as well as the more well known makes - if anyone wants any thing at discounted prices, hit the link below!

thanks

Mike

[johnd]

...

Hobbyboss Vb (awful canopy, no gear doors included)

...

Will

The Hobby Boss VB is actually quite good in my opinion, though you'll also need to replace the propeller.

John.

[Giorgio N]

Giorgio: Paul Monforton measured three surviving Mk.IX Spitfires using modern laser measuring technology, if to rather excessive accuracy behind the decimal point! His resulting book is immensely detailed, and you'd have to have exceptionally good evidence before arguing with any of the drawings and measurements quoted in it. The fuselage of the new Airfix Spitfire Mk.IX matches his drawings (the wing doesn't, but that's been mentioned already). So yes, the earlier Spitfire Mk.IX kits are a little short in the nose.

Interestingly, the new Airfix Mk.I is also a little longer in the nose than its predecessors, but I haven't seen any such definitive statements for this variant.

I don't have any problem with calling Ventura kits "short run".

Hi Graham, I remember we had discussed this a couple of years ago or so, and I had compared a few fuselages based on the Monforton measurements, with the airfix being maybe half a mm too long and the others several mm short. However I've been told that the CMR kit is shorter and is claimed to be based on original measurements too... as I don't have a CMR kit can't comment on this, but would be interested to know more.

Speaking of Ventura's spitfire IX, apart from the usual difficulties of building a Ventura kit, my main gripe is that the wing has the broad gun breech covers (typical of early IX/VIII) with an insert for the later (and more common) narrow bulges. What's worse is that the VIII kit is moulded with the pointed rudder, so any VIII needs some surgery, be it replacing the gun bulges (for a late VIII) or replacing the rudder (for an early one).

What I've not mentioned before is that Ventura also did a VII. This is not as good as the IX and its canopy is not really correct for a VII.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Giorgio N

[GrzeM]

The HobbyBoss Spitfire isn't THAT bad. And is cheap. True, the canopy is unusable and the undercarriage lacks covers, also the wing is a little bit to thick in my opinion, but the surface details are subtle and the general appearance is very good.

Replacement vacu canopy isn't difficult to find for little cash, and the wheel covers may be easily done from scratch.

One can also use one of the aftermarket Rotol propellers, if it is needed.

There is no "ultimate" Spitfire V on the market, maybe except expensive, short run Sword kit. HobbyBoss isn't the best, but - with above reservations - worthy consideration.

Edited February 7, 2012 by GrzeM

[rs2man]

The Hobby Boss VB is actually quite good in my opinion, though you'll also need to replace the propeller.

John.

I’d have to agree with John on this one . Whilst the Hobby Boss kit’s small parts are somewhat lacking – poor wheels , awful prop , no undercarriage doors – and the canopy is truly awful , I rather like the look of the main airframe .

Cathy , my fiancée , built one a while back , for which I raided my spares box – she used Hasegawa Spitfire I wheels & U/C doors & an Airfix Vb prop . As regards the canopy , we found that the external-armour windscreen from the Italeri Vb or IX more or less fitted the fuselage & just needed a little PVA to fill the gaps round the base . The only fixed rear section which would fit was that from the Hobby Boss kit itself – it’s a little dubious in shape , but it’s not really visible with a Falcon vacform sliding section fixed over it .

All in all , we were pretty happy with the overall look of the finished item .

[Test Graham]

How expensive is the Sword as opposed to Hobbyboss+canopy+prop+spinner+extra details in cockpit+make extra parts up to a new wing? If all these are required to make it accurate, just HOW bad does it have to be? The original poster has asked for the most accurate kit: to present him with examples that "aren't THAT bad" or ignores accuracy altogether, seems to be missing his point.

Re accuracy, half a mm on overall fuselage length is acceptable to me, and not a long way from achievable tolerances. 2mm on overall length is undesireable but not necessarily noticeable if spread throughout the overall length, but unacceptable on individual parts (eg) nose. The short nose on a Ventura Spitfire Mk.IX doesn't count as a Fatal Flaw to me, but would be enough to differentiate between kits on the grounds of accuracy. However, 2mm difference in nose is the difference between a Mk.I and a Mk.II Hurricane (OK, plus radiator etc) so it would matter more.

I was slightly surprised by the Ventura Mk.VIII having the broad bulge - though this would permit making the 4-cannon example flown at Darwin - but after a quick check my Mk.VII has the narrow bulges. There were a number of releases of IXs/VIIIs and I wonder if they were all consistent? However, surely any Spitfire modeller will have a supply of different rudders? No matter: time to look to 3DModels forthcoming release for such extras?

[thx6667]

The HobbyBoss Spitfire isn't THAT bad. And is cheap. True, the canopy is unusable and the undercarriage lacks covers, also the wing is a little bit to thick in my opinion, but the surface details are subtle and the general appearance is very good.

Replacement vacu canopy isn't difficult to find for little cash, and the wheel covers may be easily done from scratch.

One can also use one of the aftermarket Rotol propellers, if it is needed.

There is no "ultimate" Spitfire V on the market, maybe except expensive, short run Sword kit. HobbyBoss isn't the best, but - with above reservations - worthy consideration.

I'll second that - as a stand-alone kit it is seriously lacking but I'd wager a lot of people making one (on the strength of the simplified assembly) will neither notice or care. But from my perspective I had enough Spitfire spares kicking around to make up the shortfalls in the kit, and while I can't speak for everyone, I'd be willing to bet that a fair few Spitfire modellers are likely to have a pile of bits or donor kits if they feel the need to work with the HobbyBoss kit. In terms of shape I prefer it over the Revell one, which can act as a cost effective source of spares, decals and an interior if you fancy retrofitting it into the HB kit.

[Giorgio N]

I was slightly surprised by the Ventura Mk.VIII having the broad bulge - though this would permit making the 4-cannon example flown at Darwin - but after a quick check my Mk.VII has the narrow bulges. There were a number of releases of IXs/VIIIs and I wonder if they were all consistent?

My VII has narrow bulges too, but it's clearly unrelated to the VIII kit, as it has different wings with extended tips and moulded on radiators while the VIII has standard tips and separate radiators. Must say the VII is the only one I actually completed...

Not sure what was in the various IX/VIII boxes: the fuselage for my VIII has part of the aerovee filter moulded on, might be that other versions did not have this. Must check the rudder: the VIII has the pointed rudder moulded with the fuselage, but might also have the rounded rudder included on the sprue, will check later.

[The wooksta V2.0]

The Heller Spitfire XVIe. Depends on which boxing you get. The current ones (moulded in black plastic) are abysmal, with some serious warpage problems in the fuselage. I threw one together last year only to find the twist nearly too late and it almost got binned*. Even then, they're decent parts donors - exhausts, prop, wing, etc - if you have an Aeroclub vacform fuselage conversion.

The older ones, in the original black Heller box and the later phototop Heller/Humbrol boxes, both in silver plastic, are fine. You still have to replace the canopy and rudder (too tall) plus sand down the cowling to get rid of the bulge, but apart from that it's well worth having.

*It didn't. I hacked off the tail and added an A2Zee mk 18 fin/rudder, plus a home cast 20 series wing to do a hybrid what if aircraft.

[GrzeM]

How expensive is the Sword as opposed to Hobbyboss+canopy+prop+spinner+extra details in cockpit+make extra parts up to a new wing? If all these are required to make it accurate, just HOW bad does it have to be? The original poster has asked for the most accurate kit: to present him with examples that "aren't THAT bad" or ignores accuracy altogether, seems to be missing his point.

Well, my relatively positive opinion about the HobbyBoss kit was not an answer for the initial question about "the best", but for the later opinion that this kit should be avoided.

True, it takes some cost/effort to make HobbyBoss correct. But still it is easily buildable, has no more issues than many other Spitfire V kits including Revell, Airfix, Heller and Italeri, it is pretty easy to correct (very fine panel lines), and probably the cheapest (in my country you can have almost 4 of them for one Sword). Definitely no the top choice. Definitely not one to ba avoided.

[Vulcanicity]

I've built a couple of the Revell Vb kits, apart from poor spinner/prop, and the obvious issues with the wing (no gull wing at all, Mk. 1 oil cooler only) is there anything really wrong with the fuselage? Could you, say, add a Revell fuselage to the old Airfix Vb wing and get a decent Vb? The Revell certainly does have very nice surface detail, and with a little work to the cockpit makes a quality fuselage at least.

[The wooksta V2.0]

I'd agree. If you've a decent enough spares box and a Falcon Spitfire canopy set*, the Hobbyboss Vbs aren't that bad. I did half a dozen or so last year as what if's and with a modicum of work and some careful painting in the cockpit, they look reasonable enough, although the panel lines for the control surfaces will need etching in a bit more

*Hannants are knocking these out for about £13. Pricey? Possibly, but you get about 18 canopies, so it works out at less than a quid each. Try buying the equivalent canopies for that price from Squadron - and they are the exact same canopies!

[Killingholme]

I'll second that - as a stand-alone kit it is seriously lacking but I'd wager a lot of people making one (on the strength of the simplified assembly) will neither notice or care. But from my perspective I had enough Spitfire spares kicking around to make up the shortfalls in the kit, and while I can't speak for everyone, I'd be willing to bet that a fair few Spitfire modellers are likely to have a pile of bits or donor kits if they feel the need to work with the HobbyBoss kit. In terms of shape I prefer it over the Revell one, which can act as a cost effective source of spares, decals and an interior if you fancy retrofitting it into the HB kit.

As the one who originally slagged-off the Hobbyboss Vb kit, I must agree that your comment is a very fair point. (I used mine to build a Seafire Ib).

Will

[Killingholme]

The Heller Spitfire XVIe. Depends on which boxing you get. The current ones (moulded in black plastic) are abysmal, with some serious warpage problems in the fuselage. I threw one together last year only to find the twist nearly too late and it almost got binned*.

Interesting. I have heard this comment a lot. I own several recent issues of Heller's superb range of sailing ships, and they also also suffer from severe warpage issues. Looks like a manufacturer for which it is def. worth finding an older release.