chaddy Posted February 18, 2013 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 So for the sake of clarity, and to avoid the necessity of having to read between the lines, are you saying the XIX is OK and the XII is not? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 So for the sake of clarity, and to avoid the necessity of having to read between the lines, are you saying the XIX is OK and the XII is not? Cheers It would be the logical deduction. But the difference is very small, and I need to check it again. The thing about the back of the fuselage as too thick on the Mk.XII seems also to be true. Corrected on the XIX. NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Just for info the Airfix XII and 17 wings are 1.25mm too wide over chord and the L/E is 1mm too far back with the T/E being app 2.15mm out of place to the rear. I don't have a SH 15. Just for the record the XII and 17 are too deep in the belly and the fins are too high. The new Mk 19 is fine. John Edited February 18, 2013 by John Aero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddy Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Thanks John. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlanceHR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Now please please NPL tell me that the Airfix Mk.XIX fuselage is slightly slimmer than MK.XII and I'll order them ASAP. @Jonathan I'm tired of buying new kits as they appear and then selling them in disappointment. So I'll rather wait until the first excitement is over and the real picture becomes clear. I've been following your build with great interest, believe me. @lufbramatt Sadly there is no "dislike post" button on BM. If you don't like the subject, simply skip the topic. And you completely misunderstood the whole point of the topic. Vedran Edited February 18, 2013 by dragonlanceHR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Now please please NPL tell me that the Airfix Mk.XIX fuselage is slightly slimmer than MK.XII and I'll order them ASAP. @Jonathan I'm tired of buying new kits as they appear and then selling them in disappointment. So I'll rather wait until the first excitement is over and the real picture becomes clear. I've been following your build with great interest, believe me. @lufbramatt Sadly there is no "dislike post" button on BM. If you don't like the subject, simply skip the topic. And you completely misunderstood the whole point of the topic. Vedran Sorry, Vedran, that's just a little too cryptic for my feeble brain. Could you perhaps elucidate? Pip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlanceHR Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Which point? Firstly, my main gripe with the Mk.XII was that the fuselage looked too fat in side view. Edgar confirmed that it was about 1mm over the Cooke drawings (don't quote me on that). The first reports pn Mk.XIX from Telford, by Roy Sutherland, were "It has a bit slimmer fuselage than Mk.XII". I'm dying for a side-by-side profile shot of Mk.XII and Mk.XIX fuselages. Sadly NPL provided only the top view. Second, Jonathan Mock said that everyone is waiting for measurements and no one dares to buy the kit and I answered that. Thirdly, there were three posts in this topic in the manner of "oh what's the fuss, just shut up and build it" variety. I see that now we can "like posts" (a sad facebook-ish thing, really); so why can't I also "dislike" someones post? Vedran 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Second, Jonathan Mock said that everyone is waiting for measurements and no one dares to buy the kit and I answered that.I didn't say 'dared", I was merely musing on an oft-internet forum phenomenon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The new Mk.19 is IMO the first 1/48 kit we can call accurate it's begining to fit the Bentley drawings very well and they match with other research. I might have one small quibble but more anon as Chivalry is on 4. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 Vedran, I shall make a new try tomorrow. Found the photo I made of little use. NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Eisenman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Not sure what "fat looking fuselage" is. But for the helluvit, I measured the fuselage of the SH Seafire XV and Airfix Sefire XVII with a Pocket Slide Caliper . At 50mm in from the rudder hinge line, the SH kit measures 22mm high by 13mm wide. The Airfix measured 23.5mm x 13mm. Perhaps the fat is in the handeling of the molded curves. As a note, the fuselage catapault spools on the SH kit are about 4mm further back than the Airfix kit. On the Airfix, they are just at the 50mm mark in from rudder hinge. On the SH they are 46mm in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welkin Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) The first reports pn Mk.XIX from Telford, by Roy Sutherland, were "It has a bit slimmer fuselage than Mk.XII". I'm dying for a side-by-side profile shot of Mk.XII and Mk.XIX fuselages. Sadly NPL provided only the top view. The Airfix PR.XIX in front; the Mk.XII behind - the difference varies from 1-2mm. Edited February 18, 2013 by Welkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Three cheers for Welkin! Huzza! Thirdly, there were three posts in this topic in the manner of "oh what's the fuss, just shut up and build it" variety. I see that now we can "like posts" (a sad facebook-ish thing, really); so why can't I also "dislike" someones post? "Lance" (... can I call you Lance?) I don't really like the "sad facebook-ish" contagion either, but I confess I have begun to occasionally use this option (Liking) when I don't have anything in particular to say about a post, but want the poster to know that I appreciated it. And I have to admit, I'm always a little pleased to see that someone has liked one of mine. As for the converse, I completely agree with your sentiment. Steven, I believe that the references to "fat" fuselages were all thinking of "too tall", rather than wide. Thanks for the measurements and observations! bob 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlanceHR Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Hip hip!!! Thanks Welkin, now I'm off to find the best price on the net. @gingerbob As long as you don't call me Shirley :-) Vedran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welkin Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You're welcome - I picked it up at Yeovilton and it is a really nice kit. Well done Airfix! P.S. Mk.XIV next, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT11SJ Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Gentlemen, The meeting point of wing fillet and the trailing edge of the wing matched the frame No.11, which means that the trailing edge was just below the backside of the hedarest. In other words, the Airfix 'XIX is correct in this respect. Tamiya, SpH and IMHO both earlier Airfix Griffon powered kits are spoiled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Gentlemen, The meeting point of wing fillet and the trailing edge of the wing matched the frame No.11, which means that the trailing edge was just below the backside of the hedarest. In other words, the Airfix 'XIX is correct in this respect. Tamiya, SpH and IMHO both earlier Airfix Griffon powered kits are spoiled. "Spoiled?" Couldn't you just say those kits are off in that particular dimension? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 Gentlemen, The meeting point of wing fillet and the trailing edge of the wing matched the frame No.11, which means that the trailing edge was just below the backside of the hedarest. In other words, the Airfix 'XIX is correct in this respect. Tamiya, SpH and IMHO both earlier Airfix Griffon powered kits are spoiled. Ho, ho! This means a total new situation: Now we have to speculate about how to convert the XIX into all other marks of the Spitfire, because all other kits are "spoiled"! Maybe EDuard will help--if we poor Spitfire fans are lucky. Somehow this does not work. NP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT11SJ Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 "Spoiled?" Couldn't you just say those kits are off in that particular dimension? If you like, I can say they are spoiled/flawed/misshapen -selection is yours - in this particular and some other dimensions( wing planform on Tamiya and fuselage height( 'fatness') on AF XII ). Is ignorance strength? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Is ignorance strength? Is rudeness uplifting? The vast majority, on here, manage to put their views across, without calling into question other members mental capacity. Edited February 20, 2013 by Edgar 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Russell Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) If you are using a pseudonym and are brand new (or at least your 'new' identity is) it seems rudeness (and trolling) are okay. Edited February 20, 2013 by Ed Russell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 To put it simply, the New Airfix Spitfire Mk X1X is a new benchmark in 1:48 scale. All other mainstream 1:48 scale kits are flawed in some way be they early Airfix, Tamiya, Hasegawa or eastern european. It's a pity but a simple truth. We have enough accurate measurements now from Edgar, Monforton,Bentley, GingerBob and myself to lay these arguments to rest for ever. John 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenko Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 To put it simply, the New Airfix Spitfire Mk X1X is a new benchmark in 1:48 scale. All other mainstream 1:48 scale kits are flawed in some way be they early Airfix, Tamiya, Hasegawa or eastern european. It's a pity but a simple truth. We have enough accurate measurements now from Edgar, Monforton,Bentley, GingerBob and myself to lay these arguments to rest for ever. John Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Eisenman Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) If you like, I can say they are spoiled/flawed/misshapen -selection is yours - in this particular and some other dimensions( wing planform on Tamiya and fuselage height( 'fatness') on AF XII ). Is ignorance strength? Perhaps English is not your first language. So before you use pejorative words, understand their meaning. But based on this discussion, we are not ignorant. We are in full knowledge of the pluses and minuses of each kit. With that information we can make informed decisions, as adults, as to what kits we buy and build, or don't buy. Ignorance is the absence of information. As much as it pains some to read threads that pick apart a model for issues of over-done panal lines and a couple milimeters of error, those threads may give many information that they may use to decide in buying a kit, before parting with their hard earned money. Having bought and built the Airfix Seafire XVII or SH XV, that was my decision based on information, not ignorance. Notwithsanding that I find the panel lines on the Airfix nausiating and the fit on the SH less than ideal ( ). I wanted those in my collection and I am willing to overlook those issues about which I am not ignorant. Edited February 20, 2013 by Steven Eisenman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Is rudeness uplifting? The vast majority, on here, manage to put their views across, without calling into question other members mental capacity. Ignorance has nothing whatsoever to do with mental capacity. Ignorance means lacking knowledge or awareness, or being uneducated (even if only on a specific point). The word has taken on a negative meaning in recent years that is not warranted. As I always say though, ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever 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