Airfix 48th scale Lightning - too obsessed or not?

[bobsyouruncle]

This is one of those 'am I so obsessed by detail that the subject doesn't get built?' versus ' is this is a simple but noticeable thing that I might be able to fix?' scenarios.

I think I must be alone in this one as no-one else ever seems to have mentioned it and all the reviews of the kit seem to have had no problems with the outline at all.

The trouble is that I've seen this detail and whenever I see it again it sort of grates on me and I think I'll have to try and do something about it.

It may well be that I am so completely obsessed by this small detail that it has gone way too far and ultimately stopped me enjoying what everyone else has found a

relatively simple delight to build. Maybe brain training is the answer?.

What am I talking about? Well it's the well loved Airfix 48th scale Lightning F2A/F6 kit.

I did touch on this some years ago here, but I still haven't been able to build it 'just as it is' and am still pondering a way around it.

I've got the cockpit set, the wheel bays detailing set, and the decals, etc. but I just need to sort out how to get around this stumbling block.

My problem is the area behind the canopy.

It's the side elevation outline which troubles me and it's not much to look at but as I said, I see it every time I try not to notice it.

I can try to explain better in pictures I think:-

This is the Airfix Lightning fuselage as it is on the sprue. The angle at point C is my concern.

If you're still here and decide to bear with me on this one, you can compare this to the real thing here (I've flipped this so as to have it pointing the same way):-

I tacked part 28 and the canopy (part15) into place with a blob of blu-tack to see the full angles on the kit and where adjustments could be made here:-

Point B where the canopy meets the fuselage has hardly any angle changes at all on the kit. It's almost a straight line from the apex of the canopy to point C to my eyes.

..compared this to a photo of the real thing where this angle is greater than the one which is very defined on the kit at point C :-

I had thought that this might be a simple fix of filing some of the spine off behind 'point B' and some re-engraving of the panels, but thinking about this more, I realised that for this to look right, this would mean not being able to close the canopy properly (may not be a problem if shown open?). I'm now thinking it might be a case of adding a higher spine

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else can actually see this besides me (as I do seem to be the only one to have an issue with it).

However, I did note that Airfix did change the kit profile from this on their 72nd scale kit (which looks very good to me).

I did e-mail them back in 2011 to see if anything could be changed before they re-released the F2/F6 but I was told it was too late.

With the new super (based on the real things in museums) accuracy that Airfix are now putting into kits and hoping they might reconsider for the forthcoming F3 re-release, I mailed them again but as yet this time have had no reply.

I expect they've probably written me off as an ultra obsessive freak (which I probably am), but my motives were purely to strive for that accurate outline and (if they'd brought one out with the changes), to save

myself some headaches on how to get around this one.

Like I said, I'm probably way over obsessive on this but can't see past this 'cranked' angle (my Dad used to always go on about the way to tell a Hurricane from a Spit was the 'humped back and I sort of see it as

an inversion of this) and I don't see the point of detailing say a cockpit, or wheelbay, if I can't get the outline to look right.

Just wondering if anyone had a suggestion or if I am completely mad.

Cheers Bob.

[robvulcan]

This looks like fun.

[Welkin]

I have built, or am building, a couple of these, and I must admit that I hadn't noticed that at all.

It doesn't bother me.

[cmatthewbacon]

I can't say that it worried me on either of the ones I've built either, but if it did, I'd do the following:

Assemble the fuselage halves. Remove the spine section in front of C (about 3/4 of the total length C --> B ) at the vertical panel lines, and shave a wedge off the bottom, deepest at the forward edge, to lower the angle of the spine top. Remove the top panel immediately behind the canopy (up to B ) and cut away the bottom a bit to lower the rear end to meet the modified section behind and leave the front end at the same height to meet the canopy edge. Blend with a Flexifile the rear canopy frame and the panel behind to get a consistent slope.

...but would I bother? No...

bestest,

M.

Edited August 31, 2015 by cmatthewbacon

[SeaVenom]

This is one of those 'am I so obsessed by detail that the subject doesn't get built?' versus ' is this is a simple but noticeable thing that I might be able to fix?' scenarios.

I think I must be alone in this one as no-one else ever seems to have mentioned it and all the reviews of the kit seem to have had no problems with the outline at all.

The trouble is that I've seen this detail and whenever I see it again it sort of grates on me and I think I'll have to try and do something about it.

It may well be that I am so completely obsessed by this small detail that it has gone way too far and ultimately stopped me enjoying what everyone else has found a

relatively simple delight to build. Maybe brain training is the answer?.

What am I talking about? Well it's the well loved Airfix 48th scale Lightning F2A/F6 kit.

I did touch on this some years ago here, but I still haven't been able to build it 'just as it is' and am still pondering a way around it.

I've got the cockpit set, the wheel bays detailing set, and the decals, etc. but I just need to sort out how to get around this stumbling block.

My problem is the area behind the canopy.

It's the side elevation outline which troubles me and it's not much to look at but as I said, I see it every time I try not to notice it.

I can try to explain better in pictures I think:-

This is the Airfix Lightning fuselage as it is on the sprue. The angle at point C is my concern.

If you're still here and decide to bear with me on this one, you can compare this to the real thing here (I've flipped this so as to have it pointing the same way):-

I tacked part 28 and the canopy (part15) into place with a blob of blu-tack to see the full angles on the kit and where adjustments could be made here:-

Point B where the canopy meets the fuselage has hardly any angle changes at all on the kit. It's almost a straight line from the apex of the canopy to point C to my eyes.

..compared this to a photo of the real thing where this angle is greater than the one which is very defined on the kit at point C :-

I had thought that this might be a simple fix of filing some of the spine off behind 'point B' and some re-engraving of the panels, but thinking about this more, I realised that for this to look right, this would mean not being able to close the canopy properly (may not be a problem if shown open?). I'm now thinking it might be a case of adding a higher spine

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else can actually see this besides me (as I do seem to be the only one to have an issue with it).

However, I did note that Airfix did change the kit profile from this on their 72nd scale kit (which looks very good to me).

I did e-mail them back in 2011 to see if anything could be changed before they re-released the F2/F6 but I was told it was too late.

With the new super (based on the real things in museums) accuracy that Airfix are now putting into kits and hoping they might reconsider for the forthcoming F3 re-release, I mailed them again but as yet this time have had no reply.

I expect they've probably written me off as an ultra obsessive freak (which I probably am), but my motives were purely to strive for that accurate outline and (if they'd brought one out with the changes), to save

myself some headaches on how to get around this one.

Like I said, I'm probably way over obsessive on this but can't see past this 'cranked' angle (my Dad used to always go on about the way to tell a Hurricane from a Spit was the 'humped back and I sort of see it as

an inversion of this) and I don't see the point of detailing say a cockpit, or wheelbay, if I can't get the outline to look right.

Just wondering if anyone had a suggestion or if I am completely mad.

Cheers Bob.

It's not a bad kit but the kit has a few issues as well as that. People quite rightly slagged off the Trumpy Lightnings because the wings didn't have the characteristic bend but after digging my 1/48th Lightning out I noticed the wing is straight on that too which for some reason I didn't notice before. It was probably because of the glowing reviews the kit had and I wasn't so aware of the shape at the time. Plus the undercarriage is a bit lacking.

[bobsyouruncle]

Hi guys.

Thanks very much for the suggestion on how to possibly make some changes, M.

I think I understand what you're saying as a way around this, but I don't think it would be as simple as that.

If I'm reading you right, I follow the idea of removing a wedge and thereby lowering the angle on the part of the C-B section. I'm thinking the trouble then is that with the forward end of the new C-B section lowered, (with the canopy angle being as it is), there won't really be any room to match up the canopy with that new lowered spine while keeping the profile looking right?

What I'm meaning is that if this new modified spine profile is where the yellow line is in the photo below, then I don't know what would happen to the profile between the red lines here, (the bit with the '?' symbol) - because of the canopy outline.

I think that if I want to keep the canopy the same, I'm going to have to raise the (or make a new) spine aft of point C and then I'd have room to mess with the area between C and the canopy (but if you think there's a better way

around this then I'm certainly all ears and open to suggestions).

Thanks again,

Bob.

[cmatthewbacon]

a "back of the envelope" version:

You're only talking about a couple of degrees of angle change on each part, right?

Cut only the top panel D-D in the first picture. Lower the C-D section by slicing out wedges, and then insert a wedge under the top panel immediately behind the canopy to tilt it up. You will have to "adjust" the slope of the spine end so that it's in one line, matching the end of the canopy, and you will have to maybe combine inserting the wedge under the front of the top panel with removing a bit at the rear -- you really want point B to stay where it is and the top panel to rotate downwards around it so the back meets the lowered main spine at C but the apex at the front still meets the canopy...

Would that work?

bestest,

M.

[AnonymousAA72]

I think that the problem is that the canopy is slightly too high. Look at the line from the windscreen aft, and through the flared canopy frame. If that was lowered by a couple of mm, then the upper spine could be sanded flatter.. I haven't done this on any of the Lightning's that I've built over the years though, as I always have the hood up anyway....

[robvulcan]

I could be wrong as im tired looking at this but is it not the straight spine running behind the area we are currently looking at that might need raising about 1 mm to correct the steep slope as it looks a little shy compared to the real deal. Could be wrong but worth measuring.

Edited September 1, 2015 by robvulcan

[bobsyouruncle]

Thanks very much for the suggestions again guys.

M yes I see where you're coming from (and a very big thanks for indulging me and taking the time and trouble for laying it out for me, very much appreciated and great drawings). I think what's going to happen there is that it's going to leave too big an angle at that point in between B and C where part 28 would be angled up to meet the canopy though?

Bill, Hi, thanks yes I'd looked at the canopy and wondered about that but it's maybe going to be a bit fragile in my clumsy mitts and will probably end up getting scratched up or cracked I'm thinking.

Rob, thanks, yes I've just taken some measurements as you suggested and worked out some ratios for the spine height relative to the fairing top on the fuselage side (near the missile rail mounting) distance to where it meets the spine at points B and C.

I've used the two photos here of the actual thing for these rather than plans and compared this to the Kit photo.

Results are:- At point B, we are where we want to be on the kit as compared to the real thing (or at least I'm happy with that).

At point C, the spine needs to be up by 1.5 mm.

I think because it's got into my head that although we're talking millimetres, I'm going to have a go at it rather than leave it (I can pick up another one to replace the fuselage if it goes pear-shaped).

Now, that I've taken some measurements, I think plan B will be:-

To leave the canopy as it is (hopefully minimal disruption to cockpit area there).

Make a vertical cut down at point C to where the spine meets the fuselage and and make cuts down along joint between spine and fuselage rear of C.

Pivot spine at tail end up to new height at C. Support spine from below either with pins or plastic card glued to inside of fuselage plus added filler to brim edges.

With the section between B and C, either:-

1. Do a similar thing to what you said M and cut and tilt this section (but the opposite way) so that rear end goes up to meet the topline at C, cutting wedges, etc.

2. Just build up topline from B back to C using card and filler (hopefully simpler).

Fill in and re-engrave panel lines.

It's a starting plan of sorts anyway.

I might get back to you on this one when I've had a go (when I've found out if it worked or not).

Cheers Bob.

[robvulcan]

Nice work so looks like the spine is too low then. Rather than cut and loose plastic why not add plastic strip to the spine and sand to shape then rescribe as needed. It would be the easier route I think

[gingerbob]

I would see if there is reliable dimensional information to check against. Judging against photos can be misleading- as this discussion illustrates, you can start a chain-reaction of "correcting" if you're not careful! So best to understand what the problem really is before you start "fixing" it!

None of this is to suggest that you aren't right in your eyeball assessment of a discrepancy. You are unquestionably mad to worry about it, but I have the same syndrome, so I won't hold that against you.

Regardless, we expect a full report on your findings!

bob

[lightning770]

Bobsyouruncle

Personally I think you are abit obsessed with accuracy what you are looking at is so miner no one and I mean no one will ever know it was wrong. I make the Trumpeter 1/32 lightning often and that kit is all over the place but do I try correcting every mistake? no I'd never get it finished. Besides if you model it with the canopy open where's the problem.

That's my two bobs worth.

Dave

[bobsyouruncle]

Rob, yes good idea, thanks. Think I'll be going down that route now.

Bob yes, I agree with what you say. It the end though, it'll be what actually looks right to my eye that will count most to me (of course it should look right if you've got all the correct measurements as you say, but I read that plans can be off and without a Lightning here to check against, photos are the best thing for me to go on for my own project this time I think. I wouldn't advise others to use my eyeball and measurements as a basis for their own projects for a minute though (that's my disclaimer).

Dave, thanks, yes I get what you say and I've been delaying long enough already trying to get my head around this one, so it's time for action now. One reason I wanted the outline looking right was because I fancied it with the canopy down.

I did get a reply from Hornby/Airfix this week after I'd written asking if they might be looking at this for the re-release of their F3 Lightning and they said this:-

Thank you for your e-mail and apologies for the delay in responding to you.

I will be happy to pass your suggestion and comments onto the Airfix Marketing and Development team, they do
appreciate all suggestions and take these on board when planning future ranges.

Kind Regards

Like you say Dave, it's probably the case that I'm the only one that gets niggled by this one so it won't matter to most what Airfix do, but I thought I'd ask them just in case there was time to tweak the fuselage a smidge.

Cheers Bob.

[lightning770]

Bob the airfix lightning is by far the best kit of this iconic aircraft, I just wish they would upscale it to either 1/32 (yes I know that's one scale airfix don't do) or 1/24th now that would be a superkit

Enjoy your build and keep us all updated.

Dave

[John Aero]

In my opinion Post 10 is the better solution. If cutting is involved i would cut at about half depth of the spine so as not to spoil the fuselage top interface to spine area.

John

[robvulcan]

Oh and your not to Obsessed, Passion is a wonderful thing and we all have "Our thing" But not everyone not even most will notice but still its worth doing if it makes you happy. Its the same with me obsessing over Vulcans and modding B2s to B1s totally different aircraft but to a few they are just Vulcans and to most its "Concorde" AHAHA . Its all fun the only caution is once you mod one thing then another and another you realize you might well just scratch yourself one from the start. Have fun

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

As Rob says above,we all have 'Our thing'

I built the Lightning straight from the box and am happy with it but wait 'til you see what I do with their 1/48 Scimitar

RG

[SeaVenom]

My main thing about it has always been the lacking undercarriage. I'd never even noticed the spine until this thread probably because of the "glowing" reviews this kit's received over the years. It's a good kit but could do with a revamp from Airfix.

[Ray S]

I had a quick look at the 1/72 version by Airfix yesterday, and that kink you originally posted does not seem to be there, so it seems to have been corrected on the new smaller kit. I know it is not any help here though...

Cheers, Ray

[SleeperService]

You may be obsessive but that doesn't mean you're wrong

I've just been looking at the cockpit and front fuselage from my stalled trainer and I think you're onto something. I know a lot wouldn't be bothered but I think it could be a relatively quick fix.

I suspect the canopy needs 'flattening' slightly and the height transition needs to be broken into a steep first bit which would be the canopy then a shallower fuselage section to Point C. Point B seems to be the canopy edge more or less. Seems Airfix have made the canopy a little too tall then steepened the fuselage angle to suit.

If you can vacform this may be a good project as recent Airfix clear parts have been a little variable. With all the detail work this kit cries out for it would be worthwhile IMHO.

[bobsyouruncle]

You may be obsessive but that doesn't mean you're wrong

I've just been looking at the cockpit and front fuselage from my stalled trainer and I think you're onto something. I know a lot wouldn't be bothered but I think it could be a relatively quick fix.

I suspect the canopy needs 'flattening' slightly and the height transition needs to be broken into a steep first bit which would be the canopy then a shallower fuselage section to Point C. Point B seems to be the canopy edge more or less. Seems Airfix have made the canopy a little too tall then steepened the fuselage angle to suit.

If you can vacform this may be a good project as recent Airfix clear parts have been a little variable. With all the detail work this kit cries out for it would be worthwhile IMHO.

Hi, Sleeper thanks, yes, I initially thought the same as you and Bill have said about the canopy.

It will depend on where you take measurements from to be totally accurate, but I carried out a small experiment and measured the ratios of canopy depth (at it's deepest part where the apex is at the top) against the total fuselage and canopy

depth at the same point (because if you're thinking that it's too tall, it seemed to make sense to me to measure it against the depth of the fuselage) in these photos.

It works out from my photos that the canopy is approximately one quarter of the total depth of canopy and fuselage combined from my shots (my ratio of total depth/canopy height in photos was 3.9/1 in one shot and 4.08/1 in another, so if you split the difference again, you're talking 4/1).

The airfix kit canopy works out at 4.1/1 (it is according to my measurements here, actually very, very slightly not tall enough, but I would be very happy with that margin of error in the canopy as it is).

I'm fairly sure that the profile kink in the spine which I notice can be sorted out by just amending the spine and leaving the canopy alone.

It is difficult to tell exactly, but like you say, I think the main 'kink' or bend starts just behind the join of canopy frame to fuselage (point .

Interestingly, I did look at the colour side illustrations on the Airfix web pages for their 72nd scale Lightning (which looks very good to me, as I said earlier) and measured the canopy ratios on these illustrations (I haven't got this kit) and as with the 48th scale kit, these too work out at 4.1/1 (so the canopy here in this illustration is the same depth compared to the fuselage as their 48th scale kit, and yet it looks so right here):-

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/aircraft/1-72-scale-military-aircraft/english-electric-lightning-f6-1-72.html

you can compare to the airfix colour side illustrations of the 48th scale kit here:-

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/aircraft/1-48-scale-military-aircraft/english-electric-lightning-f-2a-f-6-1-48.html

So with all that in mind, I'm going to leave the canopy as it is, I think and go for the spine modification.

Cheers Bob.

[Tonka]

Well, it looks to me there is some angle question since the photo (bellow) used to illustrate the article is from an front angle slightly more pronounced than the kit's fuselage one which is right from the side at 90º.

To turn the kit much more correct I would go for the simpler way, using Milliput to fill the area between the YELLOW LINE and the dorsal spine . On the pics the real aircraft dorsal spine looks to be more "fat" (or deeper) than on the kit.

Tonka

[Kes]

Wow, that is a lot of effort for little return, there has to be a point where you say 'that'll do' and to me, this is way beyond that point.

It's natural that if you measure enough you will find anomalies, and when your reference is 2D photo's your datum point is flawed, parallax errors and such like?

Kudos to you in your pursuit of as complete accuracy as you can measure, but as you say, if it takes the joy out of this whole thing and stalls you from continuing while you find a solution to you 'perceived' problems, then you have to ask yourself where can you realistically draw the line?

Although, I'm am enjoying your problem solving skills and looking forward to your engineering solutions and how you will overcome your issues, some may argue that to solve these problems is the whole point of our hobby and where the challenge lies? Better than churning out endless out of the box shake n' bake kits?

. . . Kes (watching how this one goes)

[bobsyouruncle]

Hi Kes,

Yes, I totally understand what you're saying there.

I'm not a 'measurer' as a rule and I don't go out deliberately looking for errors. There was just something here that was catching my eye that just slightly niggled me as I couldn't see a simple way around it.

Anyhow, all it took in the end was a little thought and then just a case of plunging in and giving it a go.

Here's a quick link to my way of 'solving' this and in the end, what I thought would be horrific (cutting down the entire spine) proved actually very simple and as you say I've really enjoyed the challenge (from the point

I could see it was going to work for my eyes onwards) and am now very happy that this has been a part of my build.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234988708-airfix-48th-scale-lightning-f6-pre-wip-spine-mod/?hl=lightning

I'll be tweaking it a little more no doubt, but I can now enjoy carrying on with the rest of the build and have also solved the gun muzzle area thing.

It's a fine kit as it stands anyway and I have nothing but praise for Airfix for producing it anyway and who this week sent me out a complete set of replacement decals (after I'd asked if it was possible to buy a set with mine having faded).

Most excellent service indeed.

Cheers Bob.