ICM Models (Ukraine) Spitfire IX

[sailorboy61]

Just wondered if anyone else had spotted these about.

I have a couple of Eduard Mk IXs with lots of extras in the stash, but before I set too on these, I wanted to have a play around with a simple spit. Saw these on Ebay, and thought at that price must be worth ago, especially with the added figures and diorama details included, £12.99 posted. (also comes without figures even cheaper)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/291229848738?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

Arrived yesterday, and after a quick look through the box, was pretty impressed. I didnt get the Eduard out for a comparison but think we all know the standard of that kit.

Detail in the ICM box is pretty good, the engine bay is built up of several parts and the panels can be cut from the main body to display it. Likewise the cockpit too is pretty nice.

There is some sprue around, but not too much, and there is on mine at leat, a lack of ejector pin marks. One issue I did not though was quite a bit of shrinkage/sinkage on several part. The propellor roots inparticular stand outm but where detail has been molded onto one side of a part, there is often a little sinkage on the other side. OK, so with a bit of work this is 'easily' addressed, but I dont think it dtracts from the kit given the price bracket - certainly in my opinion anyway, worth a bash as a trial piece.

Decals are minimal, but look a great colour and are well printed.

Edited September 19, 2014 by sailorboy61

[Bonehammer]

I have a few in various stages of completion. Shrinkages are a common issue with this kit; you're lucky that the wheels are useable and the canopy is clear! I've read unfavourable comments about their accuracy made by people who know the Spitfire more than I do, but they look good to me. Beware of the decals, they might disintegrate upon contact with water.

[sailorboy61]

Thanks for the heads up - not so concerned about the accuracy of this one, more as a trial for the eduard kits as construction looks quite similar. The clear parts arent the best, but at least you get an open and closed set. The wheels I was suprised being one piece. It's bound to have pitfalls at the price, but as a modelling exercise, I think it passes.

[Iain Wyllie]

.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Iain Wyllie

[Miggers]

I have a few in various stages of completion. Shrinkages are a common issue with this kit; you're lucky that the wheels are useable and the canopy is clear! I've read unfavourable comments about their accuracy made by people who know the Spitfire more than I do, but they look good to me. Beware of the decals, they might disintegrate upon contact with water.

Upto the advent of the Eduard IX,the ICM two-stage Merlin Spits are considered to be the most accurate

in 1/48th and can certainly still hold their own.

Search on here for two excellent builds of the Revell(ICM)Spit XVI by Dreamcatcher and Plastix,

they'll show you what can be done with an ICM Spitfire kit.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Miggers

[Doug Rogers]

ICM had a lot of quality control issues with their Spitfire kits in the earlier days, with sink marks and short shots. Generally (but not always!) the kits in the white boxes tend to be better, the earlier kits were issued in blue boxes.

As has been said, if you're patient they can be made into a very nice Spitfire. Having said that, I don't think I'll be buying anymore with the advent of the Eduard kit.

[Troy Smith]

Just wondered if anyone else had spotted these about.

I have a couple of Eduard Mk IXs with lots of extras in the stash, but before I set too on these, I wanted to have a play around with a simple spit.

Use the word 'simple' in conjection with the ICM Spitfire at your peril, I think tricky is more useful.

It has some quirks, which can cause problem if you don't take care, especially regarding the engine and the firewall pushing out the fuselage and affecting dihedral. Forewarned is forearmed in this case.

Been discussed at length at various sites, but this a few pages back

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234966502-icm-spitfire-mk-ix/

Covers most of it, and has useful links.

If you have Eduard Spitfire spares, replace the wheels, as the hubs are poor, [or drill out the ICM hubs and use spare Eduard ones]

[sailorboy61]

Use the word 'simple' in conjection with the ICM Spitfire at your peril, I think tricky is more useful.

It has some quirks, which can cause problem if you don't take care, especially regarding the engine and the firewall pushing out the fuselage and affecting dihedral. Forewarned is forearmed in this case.

Been discussed at length at various sites, but this a few pages back

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234966502-icm-spitfire-mk-ix/

Covers most of it, and has useful links.

If you have Eduard Spitfire spares, replace the wheels, as the hubs are poor, [or drill out the ICM hubs and use spare Eduard ones]

Thanks Troy,

I've had a read through the referred threads - yes, simple is probably the wrong word - perhaps I should try one of my Eduard ones first as practice instead!!

[Heraldcoupe]

Having owned a couple of these for some years, I decided to build a Mk XVIe before it's made completely redundant by Eduard.

The kit was generally well liked of when released, criticism generally being limited to the fiddly build and a slightly slim nose and fuselage, and of course the quality issues which plagued the early releases. Yet building this one, I was rather surprised to find the exhausts sit considerably higher than they should. This doesn't help the already too narrow nose as the exhausts sit in the curved upper part of the cowling.

Given the scorn heaped on the Occidental kit for it's mishapen nose, I'm astonished this seems to have gone largely unnoticed.

I'm part way through correcting mine by chopping down the side cowlings and grafting in the spare upper cowling from an Airfix MkIX.

Cheers,

Bill.

[Paramedic]

Do not wait building the Eduard Spit! They are fun and beautiful to build, nothing to be afraid of..

But by all means try some painting on the ICMs..

[Fernando]

Hi, Paramedic,

Having a couple of Eduard Spits in the stash, tackling an ICM would be nothing but a waste of time. In no way it could be considered a "training" in the former: they are fiddly, unfriendly kits which demand a lot of putty and sanding just to get them together, and a lot of effort to make them square.

Though they were considered "the most accurate" long nosed Merlins before the issuing of the Eduards, it was generally understood that any modeller striving for accuracy was sacrificing buildabilty when going for one of them. The only way to close the fuselage is working around the firewall bulkhead. Fitting of the nose panels is a pain, and next to impossible with the engine in position (undersized as it is); the wingtips leave a violent step and the ailerons do not match the recesses.

Even so, they were not accuracy issues. The "sit" was already covered, and the way to tackle it is moving the legs to the outside, creating a new mounting pin for them. The fuselage behind the cockpit is too thin; look at the rear frame or at the rear quarter window and you'll notice it is triangular, instead of "domed"; a wedge of plastic in between the fuselage sides and replacing the transparent would do. The nose behind the engine firewall is too thin, but you could re-skin it with some putty. Propeller blades are suspect, and the cone is too pointy. The "short" carburettor intake is not correct for a IX, it is a I-II-V unit; if you choose a "late" intake, the fiddly assembly will drive you nuts.

The more Hasegawa or Eduard parts you have to throw in... the better.

Sincerely, I think they have been rendered obsolete by the Eduard kit. I am using them as fuselages to create short-nosed Merlins with cockpits and wings in the correct relative positions, kitbashing them with SH or Tamiya noses and wings.

Fernando

[Andrew Jones]

Sincerely, I think they have been rendered obsolete by the Eduard kit. I am using them as fuselages to create short-nosed Merlins with cockpits and wings in the correct relative positions, kitbashing them with SH or Tamiya noses and wings.

Fernando

Why bother ? both the Tamiya and SH kits are so inaccurate the're not really worth bothering with , and with the advent of the new Airfix Vb a short nosed Merlin Spitfire becomes a doddle. I've just binned a SH Seafire III I was building because it had so many faults , I'd spent a lot of time cutting and rebuilding the fuselage but decided enough was enough. By this side of these two kits the ICM Spitfire is a Prince indeed.

Andrew

[Fernando]

Hi, Andrew,

Really, it is the fuselages in those kits which are "unacceptably inaccurate", mainly to the relative position of wing and cockpit. I have seen the work you were doing on the Seafire and it went a long way to correct it.

Wings in the SH are perfectly workable; in the Tamiya, less so, but still the only game if you are building a I/II/Va, and possibly the easiest for an early PR.

Of course, the new Airfix may be the way to go from now on; they involve kitbashing to get a Vc or similar. But you still have to buy them, and I already have the SHs, and the ICMs... that's why I am bothering.

BTW, the ICM IX is not a prince... it has its inaccuracies (the carburettor intake might be the most noticeable) and it is a pig to build.

Fernando

Edited September 20, 2014 by Fernando