New Spitfire mk. XVIe AZmodel 1/72

[CzechKits.com]

Test build of new AZmodel Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XVIe in 1/72

[occa]

Deleted, my mistake .... sorry to all

Edited September 26, 2012 by occa

[Miggers]

Hope it comes with both sets of exhausts and wheels because it's got post-war three spoke wheel bulges

over the wings and post-war tubular pipes on there.

The outer.303 ejection ports shouldn't be there for an e wing nor the gun ports in the leading edge.

Someone has confused their c's with their e's I think.

Panel lines also look a bit heavy.

That upper cowl does look a bit suspect,but the lower looks good.

The prop doesn't look too bad,spinner looks a little blunt though.

Separate elevators and radiator flaps(NOT wing flaps)would've been nice.

Hopefully,that's a test shot and there's room for improvement.

[occa]

Hope it comes with both sets of exhausts and wheels because it's got post-war three spoke wheel bulges

over the wings and post-war tubular pipes on there.

The outer.303 ejection ports shouldn't be there for an e wing nor the gun ports in the leading edge.

Someone has confused their c's with their e's I think.

Panel lines also look a bit heavy.

That upper cowl does look a bit suspect,but the lower looks good.

The prop doesn't look too bad,spinner looks a little blunt though.

Separate elevators and radiator flaps(NOT wing flaps)would've been nice.

Hopefully,that's a test shot and there's room for improvement.

That is put too mildly, it completely lacks the prominent long bulged covers above the exhausts.

Edited September 25, 2012 by occa

[Miggers]

That is put too mildly, it completely lacks the prominent long bulged covers above the exhausts.

That's EXACTLY what I was doing,putting it mildly

[CzechKits.com]

Next time I'll do better photos. -)

[Edgar]

I'm a little concerned over these "prominent cowling bulges," since they aren't that prominent.:-

The cannon barrel fairing is too long, since it's "C" wing length, and should be about 6" shorter on an "E."

Also the .5" muzzle fairing is too long, the fairing on the cannon cover is too far forward, and the teardrop bulges, over the wheel wells, are much too prominent; they were only about 1" deep, and dictated solely by change of wheel tracking (although this is always associated with post-war use of the IX, it's entirely possible that the XVI did have the bulges, since hard runways were preferred for its operations.)

(They had nothing to do with three-spoke wheels, incidentally, which were never designed for the XVI, being intended for the 21-24, and only fitted well after the end of the war; the XVI would have had the 4-spoke wheel, for added strength, due to the extra loads it was asked to carry.)

Difficult to see, in the photos, but the elevators should be metal-covered, and wartime exhausts should be fish-tails.

Covers over, and under, the outer gun compartments, should be entirely plain, with no holes or bulges, since they were used as homes for oxygen and compressed-air bottles.

Radiator flaps were temperature-controlled, and automatic (with pilot override when necessary,) so it would be a rare sight to see them lowered, when parked.

Edgar

Edited September 26, 2012 by Edgar

[J.C. Bahr]

Mostly looks fine to my eye! Wish that had been available when I did my conversion:

http://www.arcair.com/Gal4/3401-3500/gal3459_Spitfire_Bahr/00.shtm

[Graeme H]

That is put too mildly, it completely lacks the prominent long bulged covers above the exhausts.

Are you sure you interpreted the roman numerals correctly, it's a XVI (16) which is Merlin powered

[Peter AZmodel/Admiral]

How someone can manage to get the upper engine covers so wrong after all these years is beyond me, the precious AZ model was even better in that respect tho not perfect either.

We can only hope AZ reacts and adds a replacement part for that mishap.

Otherwise it looks very good so far,well except that the coolers look too flat.

Hello,Dear Occa

Please,this is Spitfire Mk.XVIe (16e) ,no Spitfire XIVe.

This version really big bulge over the engine had.

Picture looks much different. Reality is really OK -

coolers, propeller, negative engraving.

The boxes contain all the alternate bulges and wheels.

This model is no longer short run,

is made using the same technology, such as Eduard models.

When you see a model with your own eyes, you will be really satisfied.

Also already preparing Spitfire Mk.XVI with high back.

It will be in the distribution end of October.

Sorry for bad English.

Peter AZmodel /Admiral

[Col.]

There seems to be some clever engineering to allow various options. The wing bulges as separate items may be less prominent after a little fitting. Not a Spitfire expert so will bow to the superior knowledge of others here but good to see another mark covered with a modern kit.

[Colin @ Freightdog Models]

This has shared parts with the recent Mk.IX kits already out which is a lovely kit, and I'd agree they actually do look lile Eduard mouldings. They are a big step up from earlier kits. Good luck Petr, hopefully more long run kits will follow!

Colin

[occa]

Are you sure you interpreted the roman numerals correctly, it's a XVI (16) which is Merlin powered

Hello,Dear Occa

Please,this is Spitfire Mk.XVIe (16e) ,no Spitfire XIVe.

This version really big bulge over the engine had.

Picture looks much different. Reality is really OK -

coolers, propeller, negative engraving.

The boxes contain all the alternate bulges and wheels.

This model is no longer short run,

is made using the same technology, such as Eduard models.

When you see a model with your own eyes, you will be really satisfied.

Also already preparing Spitfire Mk.XVI with high back.

It will be in the distribution end of October.

Sorry for bad English.

Peter AZmodel /Admiral

Yes you are both right, I should really try to look closer before I complain, aaarrrggghh ...

My sincere apology to everyone that got affected.

I now voluntarily will stand into the corner for five minutes.

Edited September 26, 2012 by occa

[Peter AZmodel/Admiral]

For: Occa

Cha, cha. Nothing happens apology's accepted.

Only I really thought for a moment, which is what a mistake.

Then it hit me, that you mean Spit 14.Master model for Spit IX I worked personally and I know that I were to seek to do 100% work. Determining how we did it is really up to you modelers.

Now I continue on the new P-39 Airacobra, Fiat CR-32 and DH-82, DHC-1 Chipmunk. All these models are new tool.

Surprise outside the program is 1/72 F4F-3 / Martlet Mk.III. Already we give it into molds.

Best regards

Petr AZ Muzikant

[mike romeo]

I did wonder what specifically was wrong with the cowling, given the original (now deleted - thanks, Occa) somewhat vitriolic condemnation.

I'm glad it turned out to be Roman numeral confusion, coz the kit looks rather good to my inexpert eye. Thanks for posting, Petr!

regards,

Martin

[Miggers]

When I commented on the cowling,I meant that it seemed a little too "humped"

just behind the spinner rather than the gentle ballooning shape,but of course,

that could be the angle it's been photographed at.

What about those case/link ejector ports below the outer gun bays and the ports

in the leading edges though Petr?

It looks,judging from picture 5,that the IX kit's c wing has been modified to try and

represent the e wing.

That looks like a tweak to the mould to blank off the extra cannon stub just

outboard of the cannon blast tube fairing.

Edgar is right the bulges should be much less prominent for a wartime Spit with

the revised tracking and raked u/c legs.

[J.C. Bahr]

Now I continue on the new P-39 Airacobra... All these models are new tool

Now ya got my attention! In 1/72?... and I'm assuming it'll be a vast improvement over the Academy?

[Peter AZmodel/Admiral]

Now ya got my attention! In 1/72?... and I'm assuming it'll be a vast improvement over the Academy?

Dear modellers

I can really promise. Academy is skinny as Heller. These two models are virtually the same, but the Academy has a new engraving. Otherwise the same mistakes as Heller.

Our model is really a new tool and new technology HQ. I am preparing him personally, so perhaps it goes well.

We are manufacturer of masters-workers who are already doing bad publicity for us not to work.

Customers were right, models Vengeance, Tunnan, Ki-48, Spitfire 22 not 100% good.

Now we try with our new models to improve the reputation.

Best regards

Petr AZ

[Arie Vos]

I really like the new Spitfires. Very nice models and easy to build.

Thanks for producing these excellent models.

[Giorgio N]

Dear modellers

I can really promise. Academy is skinny as Heller. These two models are virtually the same, but the Academy has a new engraving. Otherwise the same mistakes as Heller.

Our model is really a new tool and new technology HQ. I am preparing him personally, so perhaps it goes well.

We are manufacturer of masters-workers who are already doing bad publicity for us not to work.

Customers were right, models Vengeance, Tunnan, Ki-48, Spitfire 22 not 100% good.

Now we try with our new models to improve the reputation.

Best regards

Petr AZ

Petr, this is the right attitude and I'm sure we all like it ! Good to see companies that continuously try to improve. Looking forward to seeing more of your new models in the shops !

[Spitfire31]


Customers were right, models Vengeance, Tunnan, Ki-48, Spitfire 22 not 100% good.
Now we try with our new models to improve the reputation.

Best regards
Petr AZ


I'm glad to hear that and in due course I'll test one of your new Spitfires.

Btw, the AZ 1:48 Pitts Special wasn't even 30 percent good. ;-) After opening that box and realizing that the only way to get a reasonably accurate Pitts was to scratch build virtually everything, I promised myself: – Never again an AZ kit!

But your Spit above doesn't look half bad! So, I might reconsider… :-D

Good to have you aboard here, Petr!

Best,

Joachim

Edited September 27, 2012 by Spitfire31

[occa]

When I commented on the cowling,I meant that it seemed a little too "humped"

just behind the spinner rather than the gentle ballooning shape,but of course,

that could be the angle it's been photographed at.

What about those case/link ejector ports below the outer gun bays and the ports

in the leading edges though Petr?

It looks,judging from picture 5,that the IX kit's c wing has been modified to try and

represent the e wing.

That looks like a tweak to the mould to blank off the extra cannon stub just

outboard of the cannon blast tube fairing.

Edgar is right the bulges should be much less prominent for a wartime Spit with

the revised tracking and raked u/c legs.

Isn't the Packard Merlin cowling slightly bulged at the top anyways?

At least I heard that somewhere and as far I know most Mk.XVI were built with that US license built engine ...

Edited September 27, 2012 by occa

[Peter AZmodel/Admiral]

I'm glad to hear that and in due course I'll test one of your new Spitfires.

Btw, the AZ 1:48 Pitts Special wasn't even 30 percent good. ;-) After opening that box and realizing that the only way to get a reasonably accurate Pitts was to scratch build virtually everything, I promised myself: – Never again an AZ kit!

But your Spit above doesn't look half bad! So, I might reconsider… :-D

Good to have you aboard here, Petr!

Best,

Joachim

To: Joachim.

Yes, I know what it looks like Pitts. Build can be very easy, but the need for perfection is a lot of work and editing. This is also not our master, that we took over from CMR.

I make a mistake, I had better do more checking and model revision.

Our new Spitfire Mk.IX I can highly recommend. Quality and processing of this new construction is against Pitts

"Premier League".

Best regards

Petr AZ Muzikant

[Edgar]

Isn't the Packard Merlin cowling slightly bulged at the top anyways?

No, and yes; the fittings for the Packard 266 caused problems with the cowling, when fitted to the IX, interfering with Merlin 60-series plumbing, so the cowling had to be "lifted" slightly, at the rear, to clear it. Rather than have separate cowlings for the two Marks, it appears that Castle Bromwich made them all the same; according to Westland, CB's "fixtures and fittings" weren't interchangeable, anyway, having to remain with the original airframe.

Edgar

[occa]

No, and yes; the fittings for the Packard 266 caused problems with the cowling, when fitted to the IX, interfering with Merlin 60-series plumbing, so the cowling had to be "lifted" slightly, at the rear, to clear it. Rather than have separate cowlings for the two Marks, it appears that Castle Bromwich made them all the same; according to Westland, CB's "fixtures and fittings" weren't interchangeable, anyway, having to remain with the original airframe.

Edgar

Thanks Edgar ...

So the Mk IX has the same cowling then? (Apart from the very early ones that were converted from the Mk.V)