1/48 Airfix Seafire XV

[Troy Smith]

On 04/10/2014 at 14:45, Tim T said:

As has been mentioned the Special Hobby Seafire XV is out there and is a good kit. You can cross-kit the Airfix Seafire XVII and Spit XII also. There was an article in Airfix Model World that did just that. If memory serves it was one of Tony O'Toole's builds. I am sure he will be along at some point. The Seafire kit has two sets of wings, so it is not as wasteful as it sounds as you can still build two models out of the bits. You may need the Heritage set though for the radiator etc.

On 04/10/2014 at 17:37, Andrew Jones said:

No it's not really , too short , cockpit position wrong , also wing position and shape. A much better model will result from cross-kitting the Airfix Mk XII and Seafire XVII.

Andrew

The SH kit gets a right dressing down from Andrew.

I've been doing some research/comparisons, with kits and plans trying to work out what's what.

Now, the general consensus is the new Airfix VB is the best so far regards shape and dimensions, being based on new research by Arthur Bentley.

I've had a compare with the Cooke plans, and Cox Mk I , and Spitfire the Canadians.

The SH kit while it owes much to the Tamiya kit.    

2020 edit The SH kit if owes a debt, it is to the Hasegawa Vb

 

Looking at a Seafire III compared to the Airfix VB, if you align the cockpits, the nose is short by about 1mm, as is the tail, and the wing needs moving forward about 2mm, but the wing fillets on the fuselage are in the same place at the rear at least, meaning that shifting the wing forward is a reasonably simple job, of some trimming of the wing fillet and some shimming and trimming,and some filling.

the wings are under 1mm in difference, though the SH wing in the aileron area is about 1mm too short.

Comparing the new Airfix VB with a Tamiya I is interesting, line up the rear of the cockpit, and the rear fuselages line up exactly, panel lines, rudder hinge,

The shortness seems to be in the panel between the cockpit door and the fuel tank?

I can't find my contour comb, but a caliper at the front of the cockpit door gets 17mm on the Airfix VB and 18mm on the Tamiya I, SH Seafire III is 18mm too, so directly above the difference is noticeable...

.

I think I'm going mad, surrounded by bits of Spitfire trying to work out what lines up with what and how.

Later, I'll dig out an Airfix XII, Aeroclub XII and SH Seafire XV, and see how they compare....or maybe not tonight, but in the next few days...

I'd post up some pics but the camera batteries are knacked 

I have some new ones on order.

One other thing, ages ago Edgar mentioned that Peter Cooke said there was an error in the rear fuselage of his highly rated Spitfire drawings, but not what the error was!

Compared to the Airfix kit, they are shorter by 1-1.5mm [by eye] the vertical panel line on the spine that cuts through the roundel is to far forward....

I must eat now. this has taken far too long!!

[Edgar]

The complaint about the Airfix nose is that the entire nose is angled low, not that the shape itself is off (essentially the thrust line is low,

On Griffon-powered Spitfires, the thrust line was angled down by about 2 degrees, compared to the straight line of the Merlin.

[davidelvy]

Andrew,

The complaint about the Airfix nose is that the entire nose is angled low...(essentially the thrust line is low, just like the old Vb kit).

I thought that the complaint about the old Vb was that the thrust line is too high.

[Troy Smith]

No it's not really , too short , cockpit position wrong , also wing position and shape. A much better model will result from cross-kitting the Airfix Mk XII and Seafire XVII.

Airfix hybred Seafire XV

Mention has been made of the nose of the Airfix XII being wrong , however , comparison of the Airfix and Aeroclub noses show they are within a whisker of being identical.

Andrew

Feeling inspired i took a trek through the plastic jungle and dug out the Aeroclub XII and Airfix XII.

in short, the SH Seafire XV and Aeroclub XII are a reasonable match, the Airfix rear fuselage is a much worse match, even wiggling it about, the nose is too short, by about 1.5mm, the rear fuselage at the transport joint is 1.6mm deeper. This means that you can see a gap after the kit plastic wall thickness.

as the fuselage depth at the thinnest 'vertical' height is about 16.5mm Aeroclub and 18mm Airfix this is very noticable when seen side by side, in much thesame way the big Academy nose and Hasegawa fuselage are.

To summarise, you can get the SH Seafire XV and the Aeroclub XII to mostly agree, there are serious mismatches between the Aeroclub XII and the Airfix XII.

the nose does dip down a fraction too much, about 0.5mm, but the cowl line bulges up a bit behind, making this appear worse.

The rudder post is the right height for a XIV, but not a XII

Overall the Airfix XII fuselage is the worst of the lot. The Airfix XII wings is slightly broader in chord than the Tamiya and SH wing.

The Aeroclub XII is longer than the Cooke drawings, which if I'm right about the error, is correct.

If you have the kits, dig them out and have a look. I've done this as carefully as i can without lining up kits up on a grid and plans and photographing it.

I thought that the complaint about the old Vb was that the thrust line is too high.

That's right David

There are posts by John Adams showing how to correct it!

[Col.]

Thanks for taking the time to compare the various kits and offer an insight to their differences Troy. If truth be told I'm still a bit confused as to what is correct, wrong, or for that matter correctable, throughout the stash of Seafires I have. Perhaps in this case, or my display case at least where no-one else will see them, ignorance is bliss and something that has a reasonable resemblance to a Seafire will serve the purpose.

[Aidrian]

If truth be told I'm still a bit confused as to what is correct, wrong, or for that matter correctable, throughout the stash of Seafires I have.

Anything is correctable, it all depends on just how much time and effort you are willing to put into the correction; knowing when to call it quits is also a useful skill.

There is enough meat in the Airfix XII fuselage mouldings to make it possible to sand away most of the extra depth if that bothers you, going any further would mean that you would need to fur the inside of the rear fuselage with plastic sheet or scrap.

If you go all out, I haven't checked to see if there is anything else that needs tweaking at the same time; sometimes correcting one issue makes another, initially less noticeable problem, stand out rather more than it did before. I did a model years ago (don't remember what it was now) with a similar issue of a slightly too deep fuselage and found that the tailplane needed to be re-positioned afterwards - it looked fine with the almost unnoticeable too-deep fuselage but was visibly wrong with the newly corrected one ...refer earlier note about knowing when to quit...

[Fernando]

Troy, thank you for the support to my earlier affirmation about the Airfix Spit XII's fuselage depth, even with measurements.

Though the Aeroclub and SH fuselages may match in length and even panels, the fundamental problem with the SH fuselage should be the wrong position of the wing; if similar to the Vc/Seafire III family, it should be too far back, while the aft line of the cockpit door should align perfectly with the trailing edge entry point to the fuselage, just like the Aeroclub fuselage. That's why IMHO it pays to use those fuselages with the SH kits.

Fernando

[Troy Smith]

Troy, thank you for the support to my earlier affirmation about the Airfix Spit XII's fuselage depth, even with measurements.

Though the Aeroclub and SH fuselages may match in length and even panels, the fundamental problem with the SH fuselage should be the wrong position of the wing; if similar to the Vc/Seafire III family, it should be too far back, while the aft line of the cockpit door should align perfectly with the trailing edge entry point to the fuselage, just like the Aeroclub fuselage. That's why IMHO it pays to use those fuselages with the SH kits.

Fernando

Hi Fernando

The wing is too far back, but I think it can be moved forwards, as the wing fillet/cockpit postion is the same on the Aeroclub Spit XII and SH Seafire XV.

The SH XV compared to the Cooke XII drawings shows the wing leading edge need to come further forward onto the cowling, as does comparison to the Aeroclub XII.

I figure that this will allow the wing to be moved forwards, just adding a little to fuselage leading edge root, and carving away away part of the rear fillet, as well as trimming and shimming the wing.

not ideal but not should be easy enough to do.

If you get a SH fuselage, held together, turn it upside down, and then put the wings on and move them about 2mm forward, you will see how this will need a shim on the underside, and a trim on the upper wing /fuse join.

I try to get some charge in the camera batteries and post up a few pics a bit later.

cheers

Troy

[Troy Smith]

I'm amazed at how annoying photobucket has become....it used to be easy but now is a right pain in the bottom.

Right, Special Hobby Seafire III, showing a wing moved forward about 2mm

some trimming and shimming, especially on that upper wing join but should show the basic idea.

note I blacked in the rear wing root to try to make it show up. This is what would need carefully removing from the fuse wing fillet, as well as filling the rear gap.

Now, early Griffon.

Aeroclub XII, Special Hobby XV, the Aeroclub is lighter grey, and shown over the Cooke plans, note it's slimness in rear fuselage.

Sorry, crap picture, Will do a better job later when can photo outside. but the cockpit door and rear large wing fillet line up very well, and this means the wing shift should work, as the following pictures hopefully will show

these two taped together for a 'best match' though could be done better.

The method of windscreen fitting differs so don't pay to much attention to that.

Note that the SH XV has the same problem as the Seafire III, wing too far back, same solution recommended.

I tried to align up the parts on the grid for reference. Not ideal lighting and waiting for camera batteries to die...

from below, which should show that some careful reshaping of the rear wing fillet is possible, and how much the wing needs to come forward, about 2mm

I think the Aeroclub could come forward a touch, the SH is a little short in the nose, maybe 1mm.

Any comments, suggestions and pointing of stupid assumptions is appreciated.

And, Aerocub XII in front, vs Airfix XII behind.

The Aeroclub is a touch slim, but the Airfix is very wonky, align it some one bit match and it puts something else horribly out.

I was trying to work out what was the best fit on Cooke drawings when batteries died.

If you get the length lined up, the cockpit is in the wrong place, as a most of the panel lines, if you line up the cockpit, the nose is too short, and the tail too long. Aligning on the fuselage wing fillet gives a short nose, the wing too far forwards and the tail too far back.

The rudder post is too high.

The wing is less of a problem, as it's nearly 2mm to broad in chord at the root compared to the new Airfix VB and Cooke.

I think a fix is possible, as from above it's looks about the right width, but will require some surgery...

A new rudder can be got from a Hase or ICM spare, the kit one could be made into a XIV one with a new horn though...

the 'hump' in front of the cockpit needs levelling off. ...

[Fernando]

Troy, in your first picture, there seems to be a faint pencil line going straight down the rear of the cockpit door... is that so? For, if it is, the wing trailing edge should align with that line, and in your picture it looks like it is still a couple of mm behind.

FErnando

Edited October 7, 2014 by Fernando

[Troy Smith]

Troy, in your first picture, there seems to be a faint pencil line going straight down the rear of the cockpit door... is that so? For, if it is, the wing trailing edge should align with that line, and in your picture it looks like it is still a couple of mm behind.

FErnando

HI Fernado

correct, well spotted, pencil line, from my first ponderings on this a while back, when the rear of cockpit door/trailing edge of wing 'alignment' came to my attention.

In fact, as far as i can see the rear of the cockpit door is slightly ahead of the trailing edge.

the high gloss warbird finish below maybe hideous but shows up a line of rivets well that come up from the TE, and are behind the door edge. Both Cooke and AR Clint drawings show the door edge to be approx 1.5 mm ahead of root fillet/wing join.[in 1/48th]

note this part of the Mortofon drawings from Hyperscale link at bottom, note the rivet line/root alignment

also, this is just dry fitted with gaffa tape, and no trimming, I was attempting to show that moving the wing was within the capabilities of most modellers, and the wing needs say 0.5-0.75 mm taking off one edge or other.

it's a hard to find a decent picture of this...

Anyone else have better pics, or know more?

this maybe relevant http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1411950622/Spitfire+wing+root+panel+line+confusion

[Andrew Jones]

The trailing edge of the wing should align with the seat bulkhead , this will put it just behind the rear edge of the cockpit door.

Andrew

[Edgar]

The trailing edge of the wing should align with the seat bulkhead , this will put it just behind the rear edge of the cockpit door.

At last; if you look at Cox & Cooke drawings, you'll see the t/e lines up at the rear of the bulkhead (there are stub formers, attached to the bulkhead, which is the point at which wingroot fairing starts to taper away to the fuselage.

This is a Supermarine drawing, and it's possible to see the curved line of the wing finishing at the rear of the bulkhead.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Edgar

[Fernando]

Hi, all,

Troy, from your pictures, it really looks like the line of rivets goes exactly to the wing´s trailing edge. In the picture of the "hideous glossy thing", it is very obvious; in the one of the F.XVI you can make out just two rivets (below the stencil); if you project the line, it comes to the trailing edge. In both cases it looks like the line is dead on the trailing edge (if not even a smudge behind it!).

Edgar, the reasoning that the line to consider is the bulkhead line, as opposed to the door´s line, is a good one; so it would be marginally to the rear of the latter. But the technical drawing is problematic; might it be that, considering the location of the wing is clearly not what the drawing intends to show, the line of the wing curvature is not that precise? Or be an illusion created by the complex curves in the fuselage bottom?

Fernando

[Troy Smith]

SH Seafire IIII with better pencil line

compare to, fillet needs work at front, but do-able

Airfix new VB fuse on SH wing

the little spots are rain drops, I shot this outside.

in order

Airfix new VB, SH Seafire III, Tamiya Spitfire I, ICM Spitfire IX

note how the Airfix and SH wing roots are good at back, and that the Tamiya rear fillet is a touch further forward. Note the slightly shorter SH fuse, but just a touch, and can be corrected.

may edit later, got to go.

[Edgar]

Sorry, Fernando, but you seem to want me to say that a member of the Supermarine drawing office staff might have made a mistake, and issued an incorrect drawing, which Joe Smith never noticed? I try to leave that sort of speculation to others.

This is a section of the Cox drawings (you'll find that the Cooke drawings match them for line-up, and show a clearer line for the rear of the door) and the t/e of the wing aligns with the rear of the seat bulkhead. There's another (French-Canadian who shall remain nameless) modeller, who relies solely on photos, and it proves impossible to point out to him that, unless you have your camera at exactly 90 degrees to the item you're photographing, misalignment can play havoc with your results. Give me drawings I can trust any time.

[Fernando]

Thank you, Edgar, I have no affiliation to the Franco-Canadian modeller you (didn't, actually) mention. No, I was not even suggesting that a factory drawing could have a mistake as such, only that, as the issue we were discussing was not the one covered by the drawing, it might be it had no intention or need of being precise or accurate. Even the small allowance shown by the drawing makes the situation a lot easier.

Fernando

[Fernando]

Hi, Troy,

Your comparisons are most telling. For one, they dissuaded me from mating the new Airfix fuselage to the SH's wings... way too different at the tail and also at the shoulder "kink". Trying to make the SH's wings forward doesn't seem more difficult. The entire nose should be detached (probably at the bulkhead in front of the fuel tank) and brought forward also (otherwise, just gluing the lower nose would be a nightmare -it is already with the kit "as is"). What do you think, the leading edge root should be "skirted" by the cut (and thus compensating the difference at the leading edge) or taken with the nose (thence creating a gap behing which should be filled -the continuity of the Karman fairing upper line would be compromised...

Any thought?

Fernando

[Andrew Jones]

Hi, Troy,

Your comparisons are most telling. For one, they dissuaded me from mating the new Airfix fuselage to the SH's wings... way too different at the tail and also at the shoulder "kink". Trying to make the SH's wings forward doesn't seem more difficult. The entire nose should be detached (probably at the bulkhead in front of the fuel tank) and brought forward also (otherwise, just gluing the lower nose would be a nightmare -it is already with the kit "as is"). What do you think, the leading edge root should be "skirted" by the cut (and thus compensating the difference at the leading edge) or taken with the nose (thence creating a gap behing which should be filled -the continuity of the Karman fairing upper line would be compromised...

Any thought?

Fernando

Much too complicated a solution to a simple problem , all you need to do is cut the fuselage as shown , this will automatically give the correct relationship between nose/ wing/ cockpit and address the length issue when rejoined with a 3mm spacer.

Andrew

[Troy Smith]

Hi, Troy,

Your comparisons are most telling. For one, they dissuaded me from mating the new Airfix fuselage to the SH's wings... way too different at the tail and also at the shoulder "kink". Trying to make the SH's wings forward doesn't seem more difficult. The entire nose should be detached (probably at the bulkhead in front of the fuel tank) and brought forward also (otherwise, just gluing the lower nose would be a nightmare -it is already with the kit "as is"). What do you think, the leading edge root should be "skirted" by the cut (and thus compensating the difference at the leading edge) or taken with the nose (thence creating a gap behing which should be filled -the continuity of the Karman fairing upper line would be compromised...

Any thought?

Fernando

Hi Fernando

the pics are not showing well the difference, or more precisely, lack of difference. I'm guessing you don't have the New VB to play with as yet?

Assuming the New Airfix VB is the new standard, attaching the SH wing to the VB fuselage is pretty easy, just trimming and shimming. The chord is good match, which is what the pic below is showing, just the two next to each other, no trimming. I'd be surprised if a compentent modeller could not get a good fit in under 15 mins, trim and shim.

The SH vs Airfix VB difference is maybe 2mm overall, you could add 1mm at tail transport joint, and the other 1mm seems to be in the area of instrument panel, but i'd suggest that if you really must, add a 1mm splice in a convenient part of the fuel tank, but I don't know if the end result is worth the hassle.

the lower panel can can just be trimmed.

I'm trying to aim for a compromise between accuracy and ease of work. The main complaint levelled against the SH was the wing postion, I suggest a way to do this with about as much work as the Airfix/SH cross.

The Karman fillet is not an issue, as you just add some material to the leading edge of the small part of wing on the fuselage, which is easy, chopping and adding a section is not.

while it may not be 'perfect' it's meant as a simple fix.

Much too complicated a solution to a simple problem , all you need to do is cut the fuselage as shown , this will automatically give the correct relationship between nose/ wing/ cockpit and address the length issue when rejoined with a 3mm spacer.

So, moving a wing forward about 2mm, and a bit of trimming and shimming is 'much too complicated' compared to chopping up a kit fuselage, and then rejoining and making good panel lines etc?

In comparison to what Andrew has just reposted, it's very easy, and what Andrew suggest I think is wrong, as it;s shifting the Karman fillet forwards compared to the cockpit door, when that relationship is correct, and adding too much in the fuel tank, which then means a lot of tricky rescribing, which would be a pain to match up.

If you wanted to go down that route, add a 1mm splice at the front end of the fuel tank, where the fillet is small, and a 1.5 mm splice at the rear transport joint.

Andrew, do you have the New VB kit? I also remember reading recently that you 'binned' a Special Hobby Seafire OK, here

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234967654-icm-models-ukraine-spitfire-ix/#entry1742284

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.

I've been sitting with the New VB and a SH Seafire III and Tamiya I and the basic part are all pretty close, the Tamiya I fuselage and new Airfix VB are a near exact match! There is about a 1mm mismatch foward of the cockpit, plus the wing position problem, same easy fix.

Meanwhile you seem quite happy with the Airfix XII which really does have shape and wing problems compared to the two 'so inaccurate' kits discussed above.

from

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234934966-airfix-pr-mkxix-what-happened/page-4

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

The ICM kit is known to be too narrow in the cowling, the Tamiya and SH are maybe 1mm wider than the new Airfix.

I hope this does come across as a personal attack, this stuff is a storm in a teacup really, but as were somewhere that likes these little storms.....

well, it's just your statements are at odds with my personal observations, and I have been look at the kits concerned, and cross referencing to the Cooke, Cox and AR Clint drawings.

I have no preference in the kits, though I'm now quite happy with all of the one i have examined that they can be tweaked quite easily to a greater degree of accuracy, except the Airfix XII....

I mean it's not like they are something important like Hurricanes

Right, more photos

Airfix VB taped to SH Seafire III.

Airfix is pale grey. added red lines, to tail, at transport joint, to SH rear wing to show trim line, and at nose.

The windscreen/fuel tank are there to show it in place, but it's less than ideal.

note the in general very good match.

here's they are lined up undersides, note the distortion on the lens [the grid lines should be straight], and the pencil line where is you wanted to add a 1mm splice to the front, where I'd put it.

I pencilled in the panel lines on the Airfix to make them clearer. With the carved back SH trailing edge, then look at wing leading edges on fuse, not difficult to add some thing to build up the front on the SH.

close up of the nose,this is what I see. SH about 1mm shorter, maybe a touch more. which is about 2 inches [5cm] on the real thing

Here's a real VB, note the wing leading edge, and looking at above, how extending that LE will correct the shape and relationship to cowl panel.

close up of tail, about 1.5 mm, easy enough to fix, chop at transport joint and extend.

I've not as yet done what I have done with Hurricane plans, and printed out the sections on thin card, and then cut them out as templates... which was interesting.

I'll add a Tamiya I vs Airfix VB if the camera works.

here you go Airfix Vb [light grey] vs Tamiya I [dark grey]

Tamiya is about 1mm shorter around instrument panel BTW

.

One final point, both the SH and Tam wings are about 1mm shorter on each wing tip [minus tips] than the Airfix VB.

They both have a slightly greater dihedral as well than the new VB, but this is a greater dihedral is a better match for the Cooke plans, the only one I printed out a front view of.

I'm open to comments on flaws in my methods/ comparions or suggestions for improvements?

This thread has had over 2000 views, is no-one else going to try matching up parts?

[venomvixen]

Whats scheme is that blue VB in?

That looks wicked.

[jenko]

Whats scheme is that blue VB in?

That looks wicked.

Danni, it's the scheme used on BM597 when it went to Malta .

http://www.griffonmerlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/image.jpg

HTH

Dick

[venomvixen]

Tah muchly

[gingerbob]

I did a little bit of comparison between the Special Hobby Vc/Seafire III kits and the Seafire XV kit. Their fuselages are certainly in "functional agreement", but they do not precisely agree- some panel lines are just a hair off, including the back "edge" of the cockpit area, and the most noticeable thing is the back edge of the fin- that of the Vc is cut more forward compared to the Seafire XV (it is also narrower than the Airfix Spit XII, as Troy may have already shown in this thread). I do not yet have the new Airfix Vb to compare against, nor do I have the Special Hobby Spit XII (they did do one, didn't they?) Also, the transition from fuselage to fin isn't exactly the same, but again quite close.

The wings (Special Hobby) appear to be essentially the same in geometry, though I did note that the Seafire III boxing does give the wing-fold panel line, while the fuselage differs from the Vc only in having the "notch" for the A-Frame tailhook. It does not have the Seafire reinforcements molded on, whereas the Seafire XV does.

bob

Edited October 11, 2014 by gingerbob

[Fernando]

Hi, Troy,

In fact, the new Airfix Vb is the only one I got at hand; I am in the process of transferring from Kenya to Germany and my stuff is still sailing somewhere at the Gulf, well at striking distance of the same Somali pirates I was once helping to combat... would you think of a more fitting irony?

Up to now I have tried grafting new noses on Tamiya and SH kits (both can be seen in the Hyperscale site); but rest assured I shall try your method, I hope that in the near future.

I am still worried about the fitting of the lower cowling panel, ill fitting even without any modification; but that I think will be solved in the field.

Yours,

Fernando

Edited October 13, 2014 by Fernando