NPL Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 I don't care about all this about 3D scanning, if only I could get this damnes system of downloading pictures from Photobucket correct (saw Edagar exasperatión a month ago) . Have some new photos comparing te Mk.XIX to Airfix XII and Airfix XII top SH XÌI NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 Succeeded at last: Top Airfix XII, bottom Airfix XIX. As you see, the wings are a kittle forward on the XIX example. And from the other side. As seen from below. An Airfix/SH Mk.XII comparison: The wing problem is definitely there, but I am not shure that SH is by necessity "small". Checked their back parts against the drawing of Montforton, MAP 2896, and Clint. Which also lead me to a similar thing about Tamiya's 1:48 kits as too short, too fat etc. Well, in comparison to Montforton's drawing the back is short byat5 least one mm, but spot on when compared to MAP 2896, and almost spot on when we compare them to Clint. How much mythology is around out there? NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Belbin Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Are you on some kind of mission?? If you don't accept this 'mythology' that's your prerogative - but countless others have also made the comparisons and measurements and come to their own conclusions, most of which appear to tally. These topics have been discussed time and time again - why stir it all up again? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlanceHR Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 NPL, thanks. But pretty please with sugar on top I would like to see the photos from the profile - fuselage height was the issue with Mk.XII. Vedran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Ok, there's a wing problem - but which way? Please pretty please will someone actually quote a measurement for the thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 Are you on some kind of mission?? If you don't accept this 'mythology' that's your prerogative - but countless others have also made the comparisons and measurements and come to their own conclusions, most of which appear to tally. These topics have been discussed time and time again - why stir it all up again? Nick Because it still lurks behind most discussions about this aeroplane. When you don't have an easy access to the real thing (I have 300 km to the PR Mk.XIX in Linköping, and 400 km to the Mk.IX in Stauning in Western Jutland, and to get there I have to pay for crossing two big bridges, intogether about 100£), it will be the case to find the best drawings, and--something I recommended shortly--select you set of drawings and follow them. It could be the MAP set by Peter Cooke and others, or it could be the Clint drawings in Bracken (doubled up, as they are in 1:96). Montforton's is only of the Mk.IX & XVI. I haven't had time to study the new drawings in Kagero's Topdrawings. We should also remember Monforton's words that no Spitfire is alike, and he based this on his study of five existing Mk.IXs. Or we could forget all about dimension and just make the models including Hasegawa, Academy, you name it. But few would be satisfird with that solution. If any mission, it is directed against what you "hear": This version is too fat, this is too long, this is too short, etc. etc. In my daily work verification (rather falsification) of a thesis is what it is all about. Thus I have objected against the easy dismissal of Tamiya's 1:48 Mk.I & V, and against the alomost automatical dismissal of Special Hobby's meny different Spitfires as too small. We should always ask for documentation. It would be possible to write a whole book about these matters (or a library of books), but Airfix, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Special Hoby, etc. etc., will hardly survive if books are written and models left in the attic. NP 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lufbramatt Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) does anyone really care? after seeing Jen Wright's gorgeously finished Airfix PR19 at Yeovilton last week, the kit looks every inch a spitfire, capturing the long, sleek lines of the 19 perfectly. One mm here or there is pretty pointless to argue about. Edited February 16, 2013 by lufbramatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 does anyone really care? after seeing Jen Wright's gorgeously finished Airfix PR19 at Yeovilton last week, the kit looks every inch a spitfire, capturing the long, sleek lines of the 19 perfectly. One mm here or there is pretty pointless to argue about. Plainly these guys do mate. So why not leave them to it? No one doubts it looks like a Spitfire, but some of us want to explore the subject a little further. I'm rather enjoying this thread. Jonners PS I think they'd all cope well in an emergency! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 "We should also remember Monforton's words that no Spitfire is alike, and he based this on his study of five existing Mk.IXs." Yes, and he also talked about Mk.IXBs, and did not understand the difference between early and mid-production Mk.IXs. However, Spitfires were not assembled like a piece of Meccano Forth bridge, one piece added to another with tolerances building up to sizable dimensions. Key parts such as wings and fuselages were made on overall jigs: significant variation in overall length or differences between the key datums were just not possible, and these are the kind of basic measurement that are under discussion here. It doesn't matter that his drawings were only for Mk.IX/XVI, because the dimensions being called into question were the same on ALL Spitfires, certainly up to the Mk.XXs - and I'm not certain that the rudder post moved on those. You want to argue whether this was 20thou or 40thou or 60thou on the original, and you might have a case. 10cm? Absolute twaddle. Stronger words apply but are not permitted on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Does anyone care? Of course we bleeding care!. Armed with facts -an individual can then choose how to deal with them. As for re-treading old ground, don't assume for a minute that everyone on here has read the "old ground" ! I never knew about issues with the Mk XII, so when I get one, I can choose what to do about it - if anything, and ...while I'm on my hobby horse, this site IS supposed to be a discussion forum......... 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 If any mission, it is directed against what you "hear": This version is too fat, this is too long, this is too short, etc. etc. In my daily work verification (rather falsification) of a thesis is what it is all about. Thus I have objected against the easy dismissal of Tamiya's 1:48 Mk.I & V, and against the alomost automatical dismissal of Special Hobby's meny different Spitfires as too small. We should always ask for documentation. NP NP, I'm totally with you on that point. Stuff gets said enough times on forums and it becomes accepted fact, even if documented measurements contradict it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Edgar posted this at ARC some months ago. Dunno if it will be any help in this thread... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Does anyone care? Of course we bleeding care!. Armed with facts -an individual can then choose how to deal with them. As for re-treading old ground, don't assume for a minute that everyone on here has read the "old ground" ! I never knew about issues with the Mk XII, so when I get one, I can choose what to do about it - if anything, and ...while I'm on my hobby horse, this site IS supposed to be a discussion forum......... Very well said Billy. That's why there's peeps about that DO their research and others that don't care whether it's right or wrong because it looks "artistic". To me,it's not about artistic,it's about producing a historically correct miniature of a real aeroplane/car/ship/ locomotive/goods wagon/carriage or what have you and that means that people like you,Edgar,gingerbob, Nick Millman,Graham Boak,Jon Kunac-Tabinor,quite a few others and yes,me too go out ther and do the research,research and even more research. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerine_sedge Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Very well said Billy. That's why there's peeps about that DO their research and others that don't care whether it's right or wrong because it looks "artistic". To me,it's not about artistic,it's about producing a historically correct miniature of a real aeroplane/car/ship/ locomotive/goods wagon/carriage or what have you and that means that people like you,Edgar,gingerbob, Nick Millman,Graham Boak,Jon Kunac-Tabinor,quite a few others and yes,me too go out ther and do the research,research and even more research. I can't believe that after 70 odd years of Spitfires, we still do not seem to have a set of plans that people can agree are correct. We shouldn't have to do research to measure Spitfires, surely? I can only assume that many plans out there are incorrect because they have not been measured correctly, i.e. measured from photographs, incorrectly scaled, badly recorded etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Well four pages in and still no actual measurements of the two kits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlanceHR Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Well, didn't you build one recently? Vedran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 Well four pages in and still no actual measurements of the two kits. This is interesting (as I got it today): Airfix XII fuselage 16,8-9 From firewall (was it frame 5?) to end of tail (- rudder) 11,2 Special Hobby XII 16,9-17,0 " " " 11,0 The problems lie in the cockpit area, which may also explain that SH has the wing a little further back than Airfix I made several other measurements confirming that if the SH series is smaller than, say the Airfix ones, it's a trifle. And to get to the myth about Tamiya Mk.Vb it is exactly (give or take ½ mm) the same as Special Hobby, if we talk about the fuselage. Furthermore Tamiya's wing is in exactly the same position as the Airfix XIX. For what it is worth. NP PS: Everything in centimeters NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 And to get to the myth about Tamiya Mk.Vb it is exactly (give or take ½ mm) the same as Special Hobby, if we talk about the fuselage. Furthermore Tamiya's wing is in exactly the same position as the Airfix XIX. I've never seen anyone complain about the position of the Tamiya wing. Just to clarify, AFAIK the Tamiya kit has 3 areas of inaccuracy. 1 - it's a bit short, which is fixable 2 - the wing plan form has the curve starting at the wing root, rather than the centreline, as a result the wing chord is too broad at the mid point of each wing. This is fixable 3- it's a bit 'fat' around the cockpit area. This is probably unfixable, or not worth the effort and problems fixing it would take. HTH T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 Dear Troy, as I measured it an hour ago, it is not short, or if it is we talk about 1 mm. I know about the wing problem, and finally fat around the cockpit? That I will have to check another time. NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Well, didn't you build one recently? Vedran I thought I'd let NPL post the data seeing as it was his thread, more so as no one else seemed interested enough to go out and buy the kit and do it themselves. The build continues here: http://s3.zetaboards.com/locate_and_cement/topic/7615451/1/#new 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lufbramatt Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 4 pages in and I still don't actually get what is being said. But it's a new Spitfire kit so we must find something that is wrong! We just don't know what and why yet. But it's definately wrong. That much we can be sure of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 For what it's worth I have just got the new Airfix Mk X1X and as a benchmark. I think I am safe in saying we have our first truly accurate 1/48 scale kit of any Spitfire. I am using the Bentley and Monforton drawings and my own research. It's even got the the fin tip wooden block in the right place. Well done Airfix. John 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 It began when I spotted some divergencies between the XIX and XII (both Airfix). The result of the measurements of today says that the XIX is in perfect order. And thus I can happily agree with John. So my reason for opening this was not to find something wrong with the new kit. I made a control measurement with the SH XII. Moreover checking the XIX wing position with Tamiya, they are exactly the same. It is SH that places the wings to far back. NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) It began when I spotted some divergencies between the XIX and XII (both Airfix). The result of the measurements of today says that the XIX is in perfect order. And thus I can happily agree with John. So my reason for opening this was not to find something wrong with the new kit. I made a control measurement with the SH XII. Moreover checking the XIX wing position with Tamiya, they are exactly the same. It is SH that places the wings to far back. NP Ah thanks, that clears it up, I thought someone said the wing position of the new Airfix is the same as the SH kit has, probably they meant the older Mk.XII? Edited February 18, 2013 by occa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Eisenman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Just for clarification. It is now preseumed that both the Airfix Mk. XII / Seafire XVII have the wing in the same position as the SH Sefire XV. Is that correct? That would explaint why that, other then the significant difference in the shape of the trailing wing root fairing, the wings appears, to me, as being in the same location, in relation to the fuselage. My XIX is on the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now