modelglue Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Hello, This morning I took a look through my spares box and found a few Tamiya centre and rear section canopies. It dawned on me that I had a short shot in another spitfire kit and compared them to see if I could make a swap. The Tamiya Mk. Vb rear most section was very skinny in comparison to the Hasegawa Mk. IX. I took out a few more kits and discovered the Fujimi Mk. XIV and the Sword PR. IV were very different as well. Was there a large change in the size of the windscreen, hood, or rear (backlight?) sections between Marks? Taking out of consideration armoured/unarmoured and PR style windscreens. The Fujimi seemed monstrous, yet came from a later Mark. And I won't mention the Academy... Which canopy should be considered "The Best" ? Thank you for looking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warhawk Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 IIRC, the Hasegawa VIII/IX kit fuselage is shorter and slightly "skinnier" than it should be, while Academy XIV for example, is way too wide at that point. It even earned an unofficial nickname as "Spitfire on steroids". This guy did an in-depth research on Spitfire and found that Tamiya is also not without its faults in the rear fuselage shape I currently regard the Sword series of early Spits bang-on for accuracy and best in terms of level of detail. Regards, Aleksandar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 There were differences in canopies before and after the introduction of the internal armoured windscreen, and before that there were a few types. In theory the later marks should all have the same canopies for a given configuration, however in model form things change a lot... I would agree with Aleksandar that the Sword Spitfires seem to be the best in this scale, however I've not compared the parts to measurements 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 Thanks both for the replies, I am after a certain consistency with the canopies. I have the Academy built (before it was discovered to be well flawed) and the Tamiya Mk.Vb which I personally hold in high regard despite the rear fuselage tapering too much in lateral chord towards the cockpit. The Hase' Fuselage is indeed a bit smaller in some dimensions, yet has a larger canopy than the Tamiya. Giorgio, would you have a specific Mark in mind when you theorize that later examples should all be similar, after that point? I only have one Sword model on hand, and it has a resin canopy. I will analyze the Sword Mk. Vc when it arrives and compare with the Hasegawa Mk. IX version. I have a few more on the way as well, which may shed some light including the Special Hobby Mk. 21 and the AZ model Mk. XVI. Are the Airfix Mk I / II / V / IX / XIX generally accurate with regard to the canopies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Once the internal armoured windscreen arrived on the Mk.Vc. The size of the opening should be the same, with the same width across the central segment. Pressurised canopies should have a wide base to the last segment because they go further down the side of the fuselage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 Excellent, thank you Graham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Graham already anwered on the canopy variation, so I'll pass to the Airfix kits: I believe that the XIX is s bit narrow, this is only my feeling though. I've checked the Mk.I against the Falcon set when I built an early aircraft and found that the length of the clear parts in the kit was longer than the falcon canopy. Who's right ? Not sure, the older ('70s) airfix mould has the same length of the Falcon parts while the new mould has not only a longer cowling but also a longer canopy. I've yet to check the IX but I can add that for example the Italeri kits have a narrow canopy while the Academy XIV has a too wide canopy as a result of the overly bloated fuselage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The Falcon parts are designed to fit specific kits rather than being tied to the original's dimensions. They cannot be used as a guide to what is right. Having said that, there are a few examples where they have gone beyond the limits of the transparencies to correct faults in the fuselage of the intended kits, notably the two Halifax. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsprop Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I seem to remember some discussion on a thread about Fujimi's canopy, particularly the blown hood being 'overly large', IIRC the conclusion was that it was reasonably accurate. It is possible that this thread was about Tango India Mike's Spitfires, but don't quote me. The Fujimi XIV bubble canopy could do with a vacform, but it's not too far off. Kit part Vacform Ben 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 Nice work Ben. I think I will replace the Fujimi XIV lowback blown canopy with the Mk. 24 extras, pending more fit ups and research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I seem to remember some discussion on a thread about Fujimi's canopy, particularly the blown hood being 'overly large', IIRC the conclusion was that it was reasonably accurate. It is possible that this thread was about Tango India Mike's Spitfires, but don't quote me. I said that about their highbacks, to be sure. I still think they look weird. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 I said that about their highbacks, to be sure. I still think they look weird. The highback hood is too big? ...it seemed to be in my assessment. Or was the weirdness in reference to the odd hump the Fujimi exhibits? I will have the latter issue resolved via the Quickboost replacement. Also, the Sword XVI lowback blown hood might be a viable candidate to replace the Fujimi like part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The highback hood is too big? ...it seemed to be in my assessment. Or was the weirdness in reference to the odd hump the Fujimi exhibits? I will have the latter issue resolved via the Quickboost replacement. Also, the Sword XVI lowback blown hood might be a viable candidate to replace the Fujimi like part. The highback Fujimi hood looks too big to my eyes. The quickboost replacement, IIRC, does not correct the hump, merely saves you from having to glue the two sides of it together. The lowback Fujimi hood seems fine to me, but I tried to use a Sword highback canopy on a Fujimi highback once...no dice. 1 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