The Last Spitfire PR.XIX - 1:48 Airfix

[Tim T]

Having got my grubby mitts on this yesterday, I can say wholeheartedly that it is another cracker from Airfix. The panel lines are fine in real life and no worse than any of the other Spits in my stash. I agree with Mike though that the clear parts are not as good as they have been.

Now, which scheme to choose...

[Max Headroom]

I can wait. I think.

Andy

Andy!

The only thinking needed is to decide the scheme needed.

Go on go on go on go on

Trevor

Edited February 2, 2013 by Max Headroom

[Giorgio N]

A non pressurised machine has a totally different rear fixed clear part: on non pressurised machines the part is the same as other spitfires and does not reach as far down as the moving part. On pressurised machines the rear clear part is deeper and reaches down to the same level of the moving part. These machines also have a different type of rails on which the moving part slides while non pressurised machines have the same slots of the fighter versions.

Fortunately it's not hard to modify the part of a pressurised machine: glue the clear part in place, sand off the rails, scribe the slots and paint according to picture. And as said before, scribe the lines for the standard entry door and remove the intake. The cockpit also has differences, as the pressurised machines have a rear bulkhead that does not exist on non pressurised machines

[AnonymousAA72]

Nice one Airfix! Must get me one or two. I'd say thats exceptional value for money!

Just a couple of thoughts...Its a bit of a shame that Airfix chose to mould the intake on to the nose, easy enough to remove I suspect, but it would have made life a little easier in backdating to a non-pressurised machine.

I wonder how good a fit the wings from a Hasegawa/Revell MkIX would be......

[Andrew Jones]

Nice one Airfix! Must get me one or two. I'd say thats exceptional value for money!

Just a couple of thoughts...Its a bit of a shame that Airfix chose to mould the intake on to the nose, easy enough to remove I suspect, but it would have made life a little easier in backdating to a non-pressurised machine.

I wonder how good a fit the wings from a Hasegawa/Revell MkIX would be......

Don't forget , if you fitted the Hasegawa wings you would need to shorten the ailerons for a Mk XIV, possibly easier to use ICM wing as you have the option for long or short ailerons.

Andrew

[Enzo the Magnificent]

I wonder how good a fit the wings from a Hasegawa/Revell MkIX would be......

I'll be finding out soon...

[Miggers]

It looks very nice,another step up from(to me anyway)the lovely Seafire XVII.

The inclusion of the fuel tank back with the foot cut-outs is nice,I had to scratch them in for

my XVII and I hope the rudder pedals are better than the slabs in the XII and XVII(again scratched for my XVII).

My only comments are that I see they've given the three spokes wheels as the only option

but still not put the over-wing bulges in that are needed with the three spokers.

The option to do PS853 as she is displaying PS888's colours would have been nice too.

[Jennings Heilig]

Would it be worth yours (and Jennings) time looking at Hannants?

Not for me. I'm happy to wait for the money Hannants want for things...

[thx6667]

colour pic of PS 888

http://81squadron.com/LAST%20SPIT-PS888.jpg

There's a lot of Photoshop going on there!

[rs2man]

I wonder how good a fit the wings from a Hasegawa/Revell MkIX would be......

It seems to me that the best way to make a XIV would be to use the spare wings from the Airfix Seafire XVII . If you build the Seafire with folded wings , it leaves you with a nice set of C wings , which just need the fold lines filling , the ailerons shortening and some cannon barrels acquiring . Presumably they should be a pretty good fit .

[Stephen]

I've started building mine.Very good fit apart from the ailerons which I wish would just be moulded with the wings.

Stephen

[Bennygman]

I got mine (and a vampire) from Modelzone yesterday. Very happy with the extra internals and I can confirm that my Swedish decals are fine, which is good as I think I'll do that one first time out. Like mike says, the canopy is a slight disappointment but overall it's a nice kit of my favourite spitfire mark.

Following the comments above about using the 17 wings to make a 14, is that all that's required or are there modifications to intakes and such also? The 14 would be of interest as I have several freightdog decals for it (and a 17 in the stash).

Vampire looks nice too.

Steve.

[therollercoaster]

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

[Giorgio N]

Following the comments above about using the 17 wings to make a 14, is that all that's required or are there modifications to intakes and such also? The 14 would be of interest as I have several freightdog decals for it (and a 17 in the stash).

Steve.

All the modifications mentioned above for the non pressurised Mk.XIX must be applied to the XIV as well. In this case a new canopy is also needed. The various openings for the underfuselage camera must of course be removed

[Dave Gibson]

It's this which ruins it for me. There's no denying the fact that that combination canopy and rear glass does not work.

AIRFIX, can we please have a conventional canopy break-down when you do your Mk XIV.

A really nice kit spoiled.

Dave

Edited February 4, 2013 by Dave Gibson

[thx6667]

It's this which ruins it for me. There's no denying the fact that that combination canopy and rear glass does not work.

AIRFIX, can we please have a conventional canopy break-down when you do your Mk XIV.

A really nice kit spoiled.

Dave

There's a normal sliding hood and rear section included, and the former slots over the latter easily. Its clearly shown in Mike's photos.

[Dave Gibson]

There's a normal sliding hood and rear section included, and the former slots over the latter easily. Its clearly shown in Mike's photos.

It didn't on the Mk XII and I doubt it will here. Oh, and I've a feeling the rear glass would be too short longitidinally if used conventionally. athe canopy will probably ride high. As you have a kit, maybe you could verify this? Still, I'll find out soon enough as I have one on order.

Dave

[therollercoaster]

There's a normal sliding hood and rear section included, and the former slots over the latter easily. Its clearly shown in Mike's photos.

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.

Edited February 4, 2013 by therollercoaster

[thx6667]

It didn't on the Mk XII and I doubt it will here. Oh, and I've a feeling the rear glass would be too short longitidinally if used conventionally. athe canopy will probably ride high. As you have a kit, maybe you could verify this? Still, I'll find out soon enough as I have one on order.

Dave

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.

Well unless I'm missing something really quite major here:

Rear section taped onto the fuselage - fits fit length and width ways.

Sliding section then sits on top, touching both rails.

iPhone pics, will replace with proper ones later.

[Hepster]

I've just got to have one of these...

I enjoyed building the 1/72 version a couple of years back, and I want to have a go in carpet-monster resistant scale.

[Dave Gibson]

Well unless I'm missing something really quite major here:

You are missing something. It's too short longitudinally, as I said. It should stop just before the bulkhead.

Sliding section then sits on top, touching both rails.

iPhone pics, will replace with proper ones later.

Does it sit on when not being held down with tape? Jonathan, I've been through all of this with the Mk XII and I know that you have to sand off the the offending frame on the inside of the canopy for It to sit ok. It's the same engineering.

Dave.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Dave Gibson

[Mike]

Erm... have you guys missed the aspect of the additional hood part that has the rear fixed part "moulded in", which requires you to remove a little bit of the rear spine to accomodate it, or are you ignoring it because you don't like the idea? I'm just curious.

[Dave Gibson]

Erm... have you guys missed the aspect of the additional hood part that has the rear fixed part "moulded in", which requires you to remove a little bit of the rear spine to accomodate it, or are you ignoring it because you don't like the idea? I'm just curious.

That's the point Mike. The additional hood looks like a Coke bottle and certainly does not do a good job of representing the rear glass and canopy. Not one of Airfix's better innovations. A clear case of fixing something which wasn't bust.

Dave

[thx6667]

Does it sit on when not being held down with tape?

No, but conversely I've also found the wings won't stay on unless you glue them.

[therollercoaster]

Well unless I'm missing something really quite major here:

Rear section taped onto the fuselage - fits fit length and width ways.

Sliding section then sits on top, touching both rails.

iPhone pics, will replace with proper ones later.

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.