Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Mike

Spitfire PR.XIX - 1:48 Airfix

Recommended Posts

I haven't seen it so cannot really comment. But just in case Airfix are reading, I would prefer to go back to the three part canopy as that gives a better representation of the real thing and allows the modeller to park their Spitfire with the canopy slightly ajar, as I sometimes like to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine arrived today! :yahoo:

I'm not really adding anything to the discussion, but I'm rather excited. :D:bounce:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I'm with you to a great extent Dave, and as I mentioned in the review i don't think the quality of the clear parts moulding is as good this time out. I'd probably go for a vacform canopy if I were going for the "scale thickness" thing, so I'll have to wait until one comes out :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you to a great extent Dave, and as I mentioned in the review i don't think the quality of the clear parts moulding is as good this time out. I'd probably go for a vacform canopy if I were going for the "scale thickness" thing, so I'll have to wait until one comes out :shrug:

As Mark (Busdriver) said above, "I hope Airfix are reading this" as I wouldn't like to see next year's XIVc messed up in the same way. I suppose it's all up to Tore Martin now.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say "messed up" Dave... it's only the open canopy option, afterall. And yes, Airfix do read Britmodeller... quite a bit by all accounts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, the inclusion of the of all-in-one combined option has no direct correlation to the conventional canopy breakdown. In order to use the combined part you have to chop away a section of the fuselage, the default option is the standard windscreen, hood and rear section that you want.

Forget the combined part, if you're not going to use it, it doesn't affect the design of the canopy in the kit. You can pose the canopy open using the kit parts - which I'll demonstrate on my build - or you can close the thing up.

The thickness of the conventional clear parts is entirely different and nothing to do with, nor influenced by, the combined part.

Edited by Jonathan Mock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, the inclusion of the of all-in-one combined option has no direct correlation to the conventional canopy breakdown. In order to use the combined part you have to chop away a section of the fuselage, the default option is the standard windscreen, hood and rear section that you want.

Forget the combined part, if you're not going to use it, it doesn't affect the design of the canopy in the kit. You can pose the canopy open using the kit parts - which I'll demonstrate on my build - or you can close the thing up.

The thickness of the conventional clear parts is entirely different and nothing to do with, nor influenced by, the combined part.

Jonathan, I know all this. I built the Mk XII and it's canopy is engineered the same way. I am saying that the one piece rear glass/canopy does tot work well. And I am we'll aware that a chunk has to be cut out of the back to accommodate it. Likewise, I know that the separate parts cannot be used to accurately portray an open canopy (rear glass too short in length) and not without modification (back end of canopy needs reaming out). There again, Airfix never intended the separate parts to be used this way.

My message is to Airfix, to please go back to the three piece canopy as the new innovation does not work.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan, I know all this. I built the Mk XII and it's canopy is engineered the same way. I am saying that the one piece rear glass/canopy does tot work well. And I am we'll aware that a chunk has to be cut out of the back to accommodate it. Likewise, I know that the separate parts cannot be used to accurately portray an open canopy (rear glass too short in length) and not without modification (back end of canopy needs reaming out). There again, Airfix never intended the separate parts to be used this way.

My message is to Airfix, to please go back to the three piece canopy as the new innovation does not work.

Dave

The combined part is an additional item, nothing more, you can still use the other parts in the open position - if the intention was they are only to be used in the closed configuration then one would imagine a single-peice closed canopy would have been included.

Whatever issues you find with the rest of the clear parts therein and thereafter mainly seems to be the thickness which would have been an issue anyway regardless, unless the parts have been moulded thinner.

Bottom line is that the normal canopy parts can be posed open.

Edited by Jonathan Mock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that the normal canopy parts can be posed open.

But they don't represent correctly the arrangement of the XIX without modifications, as the Rollercoaster explained clearly. These pictures show how the various parts are like:

http://spitfiresite.com/2011/06/guided-tour-of-the-spitfire-pr-mk-xix-the-lobelle-canopy.html

The rear part is too short as it is, lacking the forward frame. Clearly the normal parts were designed to represent a closed canopy only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let me finish my model - which is SFTB with no add ons - then we can determine whether it looks right or wrong.

And FWIW, I'm not keen on the combined part, but I just don't use it! And if I were building something a bit more involved, I'd be sourcing a vac form one as a matter of course regardless of how well the clear parts had been moulded.

Edited by Jonathan Mock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next topic for contention then... What colour to paint it? I've heard Humbrol 230 is too grey for PRU blue. Can anyone with any knowledge or experience confirm that?

Does anybody have any mix ratios for making PRU Blue from Tamiya or Gunze colours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought about the open canopy. Would it be possible to plunge mould it so that it would sit correctly on the fuselage?

If nothing else it shows that Airfix are thinking about solutions to problems. If it's rejected by the modelling fraternity, which it seems to be in this case, then they may drop the idea.

As I said, just a thought

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall be getting one as I really want to do a 32nd scale Swedish machine, but for space reasons 48th is alot better! Great review Mike, kit looks superb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought about the open canopy. Would it be possible to plunge mould it so that it would sit correctly on the fuselage?

Trevor

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Edited by therollercoaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for a mainstream model kit costing the mid 20 quid range, I am really liking what I am seeing. I think I can overcome the canopy bits easily enough with a little TLC. Besides, I've yet to find a model that builds itself. I'm going to have a lot of fun building this one. Now the only question is do I put together an order to ship across the pond so I get it quick, or do I wait a month for it to hit the states? Decisions decisions. My pre-war Airfix Mk I needs companionship in any event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'

Thank you for posting the pic. I am looking forward to build this kit, cos this aircraft flew its last mission from my aerodrome. The hangar in the background of the picture is due for demolition soon. Only 1 hangar left standing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shock! Horror! :yikes: There are sink marks on the undersurfaces of the wingtips. This kit is unbuildable! :rofl:

But seriously, folks... I've just compared the wings of this kit with those of the Hasegawa IX. The Airfix undersurfaces are a lot longer to accommodate the two camera ports. To fit the Hasegawa wings to the Airfix fuselage, the large gap (10mm) will need to be plugged with a curved section - not exactly difficult. The forward part of the wing/fuselage fairing will need to be filed down - again, not exactly difficult. The rear part of that fairing fits very well to the Hasegawa wing with only a smidge of filler being required. The same is true for fitting the Airfix radiators to the Hasegawa wing. So, combining the two kits to produce a XIV will be very easy.

That leaves us with an Airfix wing and Hasegawa fuselage. Combining those should give us a PR.XI. In this case, a section of the fuselage undersurface will have to be cut out to accomodate the Airfix wing. The Hasegawa wing/fuselage fairing will have to be shimmed to meet the Airfix wing. Once again, not exactly difficult.

I'm currently building the XIX pretty much OOB. I'm also putting an Airfix 24 fuselage on a Hasegawa wing to give an FR.XIV. I'm now very tempted to buy another Airfix XIX, drag a Hasegawa IX from The Stash and build a XIV and a PR.XI at the same time to give me a huge splodge of Spitfires.

Edited by Enzo Matrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S

I'm currently building the XIX pretty much OOB. I'm also putting an Airfix 24 fuselage on a Hasegawa wing to give an FR.XIV. I'm now very tempted to buy another Airfix XIX, drag a Hasegawa IX from The Stash and build a XIV and a PR.XI at the same time to give me a huge splodge of Spitfires.

You can't beat a huge splodge of Spitfires Enzo!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid question: Why use the Hasegawa Mk IX fuslage and not the ICM? Or wait for the Eduard. I mean the Hasegawa fuselage has some widely discussed dimension problems and though they may be regarded OK for an OOB - I have the Hasegawa and the Aeroclub corrected fuselage and think many will be happy with the Hasegawa one - I think regarding the efford in to mix kits I would go with the ICM, which is maybe more fiddly but also a bit more accurate AFAIK. Or wait for the Eduard Mk IX (there will be a weekend ed too sooner or later). I plan to mix ICM Mk.VIII/IX with Airfix Mk 22/24 nose and other pieces to somehow work out an Mk XIV - that is why I am asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid question: Why use the Hasegawa Mk IX fuslage and not the ICM? Or wait for the Eduard.

Not a stupid question.

The answer is... because I have eight Hasegawa kits in The Stash and because I'm incredibly impatient! :lol:

The eight Hasegawa wings will all be used to make Griffon engined aircraft of some description, either using the XIX or 22/24 fuselages. However, if the Eduard Weekend Spitfire kit is released before I get round to making a PR.XI, I'll no doubt try that instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good review of a really top looking kit - thanks.

I normally stick to 1/72 scale but I'll be picking up one of these for sure!

It's good to see Airfix constantly improving their range, quality and accuracy. In particular, I note that Airfix have correctly depicted the PS888 serial on the decal sheet, unlike the one offered in the 1/72 scale kit (which is close but not correct).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...