Special Hobby Seafire Mk XV is out

[Scooby]

I just purchased the said kit off of ebay from a seller in Poland.

I know I have read here that a few of you think it would be easier to cross kit the recent Airfix Spit and Seafire kits to come up with an easy to build Seafire Mk XV. But I was happy with what I saw in the online images of this kit.

I have a question, I also read here that the external fuselage stiffener on the kit is not accurate. Was it not external? I want to build a RCN Seafire and I can't find any images of the stiffener on our Seafires.

Any input would be appreciated.

[Edgar]

I have test reports on three airframes, NS487, NS490, and NS493, and, on all of them, the stiffener can be clearly seen; I don't know if it disappeared during production, of course, but there's no sign of a modification ordering its removal.

Edgar

[Scooby]

I have test reports on three airframes, NS487, NS490, and NS493, and, on all of them, the stiffener can be clearly seen; I don't know if it disappeared during production, of course, but there's no sign of a modification ordering its removal.

Edgar

Thanks Edgar, we should just rename you "Mr. Spitfire."

[Andrew Jones]

I have test reports on three airframes, NS487, NS490, and NS493, and, on all of them, the stiffener can be clearly seen; I don't know if it disappeared during production, of course, but there's no sign of a modification ordering its removal.

Edgar

Whilst not wishing to disasgree with Edgar in any way, it would appear from study of photographs ,that the early aircraft with the Mk III type hooks had the external stiffeners , the later "sting hooked" aircraft had internal stiffeners.

Andrew

[alvin5182]

Gents:

Not wanting to upset anyone's apple cart, but I have studied the photos in the Leo Pettipas books on the RCN and Seafire 15s in particular. There does not appear to be "external" stiffeners on any of the a/c in the book, regardless of finish. However, on some ( a few of the photos) there appears to be a stiffener panel which would be flush with the surrounding panels and is quite difficult to see on most photos. It appears to be the same size, length and width as the stiffeners used on Seafire IIIs BUT it does not "stand proud" of the fuselage as it does on the IIIs. Clear as mud?

Alvin5182

Edited March 27, 2012 by alvin5182

[alvin5182]

Gents:

Not wanting to upset anyone's apple cart, but I have studied the photos in the Leo Pettipas books on the RCN and Seafire 15s in particular. There does not appear to be "external" stiffeners on any of the a/c in the book, regardless of finish. However, on some ( a few of the photos) there appears to be a stiffener panel which would be flush with the surrounding panels and is quite difficult to see on most photos. It appears to be the same size and length and width as the stiffeners used on Seafire IIIs BUT it does not "stand proud" of the fuselage as it does on the IIIs. Clear as mud?

Traces of the panel can be seen in this photo of AA*J Ser # PR434 . It appears at the bottom of the roundel and disappears behind the man on the right in the photo.

Alvin5182

[Miggers]

Whilst not wishing to disasgree with Edgar in any way, it would appear from study of photographs ,that the early aircraft with the Mk III type hooks had the external stiffeners , the later "sting hooked" aircraft had internal stiffeners.

Andrew

That Andrew,is what I've always thought would be the case,but I've also read somewhere that the external stiffeners

fitted to Merlin Seafires was fitted internally on Griffon Seafires(Mk's XV/XVII that is).

Griffon engined were a developement(or at least their parentage in the Spit/Sea development)of/was the XII.

Merlin engined were developed from the Mk V,though both the XV and XVII were fitted with the Sea III's

manual folding wing.

The fact that the Canadians were supplied (from RN stocks)with both A frame and sting hooked XV's

may well be worth some investigation(different rudders for each hook type at least).

Mark

Edited March 27, 2012 by Miggers

[alvin5182]

The internal diagrams in the Pettipas book do show the longerons, but doesn't say they were internal or external. I suspect the internals, based on the few photos where you can see the demarcation lines and the fact the fuselage appears smooth. The internal diagrams are adapted from "Cross and Scarborough 1971:50." If that helps at all!

Alvin5182

[Test Graham]

In engineering terms, I would expect to see different stiffening required for the A-frame, which transfers its load to the frame just behind the cockpit, to that required by the sting, which is pulling (and wagging) the tail. So maybe that is relevant.

[alvin5182]

Graham:

Altho the photos in Pettipas' book are grainy at best, I can make out the same "strip" on the starboard side of the fuselage on a tail stinger hook a/c as well. Can't see the dimensions and length of the longerons tho. Appears to be roughly the same size!

Alvin5182

Edited March 27, 2012 by alvin5182

[Test Graham]

It may be that much the same solution was found workable and that only local changes were required, perhaps not even externally visible. Side loading and twist from asymmetric entry was a major problem with all Seafires, and the same would be true for both hooks. I would still expect some structural differences between the two, though.

[Spitfires Forever]

I had read in a Seafire book (one with tons of diagrams, blueprints, etc) that the structural reinforcement was internalized on the MK XV once they transisioned to Tje stinger type tail hook arrangement, but who knows, books can be wrong too.

I had read in a Seafire book (one with tons of diagrams, blueprints, etc) that the structural reinforcement was internalized on the MK XV once they transisioned to Tje stinger type tail hook arrangement, but who knows, books can be wrong too.

[Dereknf]

Mine turned up today. It looks very nice and having made some SH kits before so I have a fair idea what is in store.

I can post some photos if anyone is interested. I have an Airfix Spitfire XII in the stash which might make an interesting comparison.

[Dereknf]

Some photos as mentioned.

At the bottom are some comparisons with the Airfix Spitfire XII.

Spitfire XII /Seafire XV comparison. The MK.XII is in the lighter coloured plastic.

[Johann_Olivier]

Some photos as mentioned.

At the bottom are some comparisons with the Airfix Spitfire XII.

Spitfire XII /Seafire XV comparison. The MK.XII is in the lighter coloured plastic.

Thanks for the photos. Can't wait for my copies of the Mk XV and XVII!

The Airfix Spitfire Mk XII and Seafire Mk XVII fuselages (aft of the fire wall) scale out the same against the ICM Spitfire Mk IX/XVI and Aeroclub Replacement Fuselage for the Hasegawa kits. Dare I say that it is evident that the Airfix Spitfire Mk XII and Seafire Mk XVII fuselages are out by quite a bit? Unless Special Hobby, ICM and Aeroclub are all wrong?

Johann

[Work In Progress]

I have to say, I like the lines of the SH nose and tail more than I like the Airfix lines.

[Scooby]

I am jealous, my kit has not arrived yet. I ordered it the day it went up for sale. I am concerned as I hear the Polish Postal system isn't very reliable. And go figure, Sprue Brothers have them in stock now, I would have received the kit already from them.

Thanks for posting the comparisons.

[Miggers]

The Airfix Spitfire Mk XII and Seafire Mk XVII fuselages (aft of the fire wall) scale out the same against the ICM Spitfire Mk IX/XVI and Aeroclub Replacement Fuselage for the Hasegawa kits. Dare I say that it is evident that the Airfix Spitfire Mk XII and Seafire Mk XVII fuselages are out by quite a bit? Unless Special Hobby, ICM and Aeroclub are all wrong?

Johann

Erm,is it not supposed to be?

All Spit/Seafer fuselages(apart from the 22/24 and 46/47 series)were all the same distance from the rudder post

to the firewall(the oft mentioned frame five)irrespective of the engine fitted.

[gingerbob]

I think what he was trying to say is that the comparison shown above works out about the same when you compare the Airfix XII fuselage to the others mentioned. Yes, they should all agree, and clearly the XII fuselage doesn't, in depth, not in length.

bob

[Johann_Olivier]

I think what he was trying to say is that the comparison shown above works out about the same when you compare the Airfix XII fuselage to the others mentioned. Yes, they should all agree, and clearly the XII fuselage doesn't, in depth, not in length.

bob

Thanks Bob,

Yes indeed, what I was trying to say was that, compared to the mentioned kits, bar the Academy Spitfire Mk XIV, the Airfix Spitfire Mk XII and Seafire Mk XVII rear fuselages are too deep. According to MY OWN observations, it is quite noticeable. For some reason this has however either been downplayed, glanced over or ignored by the reviews I've seen.

[Test Graham]

I believe there was indeed some criticism of the Airfix kit's fuselage depth on the internet. Likely a search of this site will bring it to light. Not being a 1/48 modeller, I didn't pay it too much attention but it hardly surprises me to find reviewers not providing critical comments on accuracy matters. Many either do not know enough to tell the difference, or don't believe such things matter, or choose not to risk upsetting the providers of advertising and free kits. Or possibly, of course, have to make the model in a hurry to meet a deadline and don't have the time to check on such details. Good honest detailed critical reviews are few and far between, but all the more welcome when they do appear.

I would like to make the point that a number of the reviews in the new Airfix magazine have pointed out shortcomings in the recent Airfix kits under review. The reviewer, the editor, and presumably Airfix themselves, should be congratulated on this.