Spitfire XIVc 1/72

[Gwart]

Monforton's book, based on Supermarine drawings and examination of four current examples, gives a full set of dimensions for the fuselage in painstaking detail. If the kit dimensions (from tail to the engine bulkhead in this case, or perhaps the wing leading edge given the engine difference) do not match the Monforton drawings, as Giorgio said, then the doubt is on the kit.

As for "millimetres" this is entirely dependent upon what you are measuring. On the length of a 1/72 Spitfire 1mm is negligible. On the width of the fuselage it is readily visible.

That's what i've used for some of my frankenstein griffon spits ,along with the instruction sheet from this decal set https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/AOD72S09 which has the best 1/72nd side profile of the XIV /XIV rv that i've found so far..

[Sten Ekedahl]

Here are pics of my unbuilt Ventura kit. Notice the staples I had to unpick to open up the bag ... just for you guys!!

I found an extra blade and undercart leg loose in the packet when opened as the little pack with more metal bits than I recalled in my earllier post. But I hope these pics will serve their purpose in illustrating an interesting kit that isn't as daunting as you may imagine. True one does need to add more to the cockpit but you can add as much as you like in the tiny cockpit which is pretty visible through the beautifully clear vacform parts by Falcon Vac.

Ah the memories! I built this kit some time back in the 1980's. It was a h*ll of a jobb and at the limit of my skills at the time. The completely bare cockpit was filled with the excellent Cooper Details resin cockpit set, still one of the best cockpit sets for any Spitfire. But AFAIK it is unfortunately not available any more. In the end the result turned out to be a very good Spitfire model, even appreciated by the judges at a couple of shows at the time.

[gingerbob]

First a disclaimer- while I'm a bit obsessive about Spitfires, I've mostly shunned 1/72 since it is hard enough to keep up with 1/48 (praise the gods!) and, to a degree, 1/32. So, my direct knowledge of the kits is lacking. But, for whatever reason, I just read through this thread, so I'll chip in:

But is that 'sleek look' correct?

Is the rudder issue perhaps the reason that the Academy kit rudder and Peter Cooke plan do not match?

Taking the first first, good point! Speaking for myself, I think of (or did) the XIV as sleek, but it is not unusual for me to look at photos and think that it looks slightly disappointingly "chunky". The low-back, of course, gets around that problem, which is why it is (in my HUMBLE opinion) the most lust inducing one of the whole Spitfire line!

I did not re-quote the images (post 26, I believe) so I rely on the discerning reader to go back and have a look. What I noticed first in the comparison is the proportion at the rudder horn, which seems too short (and the fin too narrow) on the kit vs. the real-thing photo. Then I looked back and the tailwheel door also seems shorter- is there perhaps some slice of length missing from the tail in this region? (The depth of the door also stands out, but that's been addressed already.)

it's good/bad that airfix didn't choose a more modular approach for their spitfire. Good as each new kit seems to surpass the previous in level of detail, but bad, as major components are not as compatible as they could be... where a few well chosen marks with perhaps some spare parts in the box, could provide all you need for every major mk out there.

Oh, that's been my grumble for years. With some understanding of Spitfire evolution and a bit of planning ahead, a company could have really done good things, and made it easier for those of us who like to mix and match. I especially can't understand why some of Airfix's recent Spit kits (and I'm thinking of 1/48, though I think there are examples in 72nd) introduce new errors, which had not been there on previous kits. It isn't as if the data keeps shifting! (And please, don't any of the valiant defenders of the faith of Airfix interpret this as wanton Airfix-bashing- I'm delighted with what they've been doing lately, but they ARE a model company.)

bob

[lunarhighway]

after seeing Nick Millman's comparison, i noticed the angle of both pictures wasn't exactly the same, and, as perspective might hide the fact the kit's proportions might be off, i set out to find an image that was more close. again no exact match as for one this is an XIX but also its banked abit more...stil is seems to be at the same yaw angle.... to my surprise things matched up almost perfectly... perhaps the width of the fuselage is a bit off, wich could make a different impression wen the model is seen from a more overhead angle, an angle from wich real planes are seldom seen....but from this angle i must admit it doen't look to bad

Edited October 24, 2015 by lunarhighway

[Nick Millman]

I did not re-quote the images (post 26, I believe) so I rely on the discerning reader to go back and have a look. What I noticed first in the comparison is the proportion at the rudder horn, which seems too short (and the fin too narrow) on the kit vs. the real-thing photo. Then I looked back and the tailwheel door also seems shorter- is there perhaps some slice of length missing from the tail in this region? (The depth of the door also stands out, but that's been addressed already.)

bob

Re the tailwheel door the Academy kit matches the P B Cooke 1977 plan and the Ventura kit doesn't look much different. I had another look at the rudder and see that the Academy fin is indeed narrower in chord than the plan whilst the rudder is the same size. This makes the overall length short by about 2mm (approx a scale 5.67 inches). As the tailplanes appear to be in the right location a solution would be to cut off the rudder (which is conveniently one piece), leaving the 'horn' at the fin top, add a plastic card extension to the rear of the existing fin, re-attach the rudder, fill and re-scribe the top lines. The actuating rod would also need to be reinstated. This modification might contribute to the overall appearance of the rear fuselage. Or, alternatively, just live with it as it is . . .

The Academy fuselage matches up to the plan in width and cross section.

Contemplating the Ventura kit and the shortcomings of the Academy kit I think life is just too short, but that's a personal view! Apart from anything else the separate rocker covers on the Academy kit look less tricky to assemble than the separate cowling pieces of the Ventura kit which are reminiscent of those Italeri Spitfires.

Nick

[gingerbob]

Thanks Nick, looks like I was on to something.

bob

[Work In Progress]

It is possible that some of the generally poor reputation of the shape of the Academy 1/72 XIV may be cultural cross-talk from the well documented truly horrific shape errors of their 1/48 kit. Personally I find the 1/72 kit to be salvegeable, the 1/48 kit not so.

[Nick Millman]

It is possible that some of the generally poor reputation of the shape of the Academy 1/72 XIV may be cultural cross-talk from the well documented truly horrific shape errors of their 1/48 kit. Personally I find the 1/72 kit to be salvegeable, the 1/48 kit not so.

That's an interesting observation. I've suspected for some time that the reputation of the kit is worse than its shortcomings warrant but looking at the substance of the issues has confirmed that for me. I'll be building mine, probably warts and all, and not looking for a Ventura kit any time soon.

Nick

[Plasto]

Hi,

I've built a XIVc from the Airfix XIX and IXc kits.

It was a pretty straightforward conversion.

Plus you get bits left over to build a XI....

HTH

Plasto

Edited October 26, 2015 by Plasto

[Work In Progress]

Looks terrific!

[sroubos]

Well, if this topic has convinced me of one thing it's that the poor Academy XIV has been exonerated from any wrong doing. I will definitely keep my eyes peeled for another one - it really was a joy to build...

[Giorgio N]

Well, if this topic has convinced me of one thing it's that the poor Academy XIV has been exonerated from any wrong doing. I will definitely keep my eyes peeled for another one - it really was a joy to build...

Has it also been exonarated from the guilt of being inaccurate too ? It's been compared with measurements and found to differ in some areas by more than 10%, does not sound too accurate to me. It's riddled with errors, some easier to correct than others.. needs new radiators and propeller, decals are often useless. On the plus side it is a joy to build and has some very nice detail in several areas.

[Gwart]

on the subject of perhaps silly airfix crosskits, i wonder if one could use arifix's mk22 to make a low back XIV or even an XVI when using the mk IX... granted on would have to discard the tail and wings, and find a suitable donor for said items. there's better and cheaper alternatives, but i guess it would be fun...

it's good/bad that airfix didn't choose a more modular approach for their spitfire. Good as each new kit seems to surpass the previous in level of detail, but bad, as major components are not as compatible as they could be... where a few well chosen marks with perhaps some spare parts in the box, could provide all you need for every major mk out there.

i really hope they will bring out a true XIV at some point (they could even include a V1 for a dogfight edition)

That Airfix 22 is a beautiful kit (the canopy is superb ),the undercarriage and oil coolers let it down a little but it's opens up lots of conversion possibilities.I'm using it as the base for FR XIV's and F/FR XVIII 's .

Edited October 27, 2015 by Gwart

[sroubos]

Has it also been exonarated from the guilt of being inaccurate too ? It's been compared with measurements and found to differ in some areas by more than 10%, does not sound too accurate to me. It's riddled with errors, some easier to correct than others.. needs new radiators and propeller, decals are often useless. On the plus side it is a joy to build and has some very nice detail in several areas.

That's the point, It's always been said it's grossly inaccurate but it has never been demonstrated. From the evidence shown in this thread my personal conclusion is that it's within acceptable margins of error - for me at least! The whole discussion about the radiators for example - I always accepted they were completely garbage, but now it appears to me a bit of work with a file can make them acceptable. Same with the props.

What it boils down to for me is that I thought it was a complete dog, and it appears it actually is not so bad, requiring less work than many other models I've built last year.

Again, these are my personal views. I fully accept many people hold it to a higher standard and still consider it a dog.

[TEMPESTMK5]

Good morning Sroubos and all others Spit XIV fans

Last year I built one Academy Spit XIV for the DDAY GB I replaced the radiators and the propeller by Quickboost ones (originally these were made for the Fujimi models but they can be used easily ), I also replaced the exhausts Academy provides rounds exhausts and the aircraft I wanted to represent had fishtails ones ..

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234966695-spit-mk-xiv-flt-lt-jean-maridor-sqn-91/

But it would be a great idea if Airfix could produce a Mk XIV next year ..

Patrice

Edited October 27, 2015 by TEMPESTMK5

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I built the Academy kit and was quite happy with it. The way these Chinese whispers propegate nowadays with virtually nobody willing to validate whatever they have heard before repeating and perpetuating it ad nauseum.

People are almost scared to open the box these days lest someone tell them their latest purchase / creation is irretrievably wrong (or that they merely need to smash it back in to kit form and start again).

Grumpy? Perhaps so, but radiator sides aside, the Academy kit really isn't as bad as it seems to be made out.

[Giorgio N]

That's the point, It's always been said it's grossly inaccurate but it has never been demonstrated. From the evidence shown in this thread my personal conclusion is that it's within acceptable margins of error - for me at least! The whole discussion about the radiators for example - I always accepted they were completely garbage, but now it appears to me a bit of work with a file can make them acceptable. Same with the props.

What it boils down to for me is that I thought it was a complete dog, and it appears it actually is not so bad, requiring less work than many other models I've built last year.

Again, these are my personal views. I fully accept many people hold it to a higher standard and still consider it a dog.

If you feel that the accuracy issues are acceptable to you this is indeed not a bad kit. It builds nicely and has nice detail.

However I would strongly disagree with the fact that its inaccuracies have never been demonstrated ! As said before, I've compared the kit to measurements taken on real Spitfires and the kit is grossly inaccurate in both width and height of the fuselage sections, starting ok at the tail and then arriving at being more than 10% overscale at the spinner. This results in what has been called the "Spitfire on steroids" effect. And then...

- Rear fuselage too short

- shape of the fin not quite right (that I didn't notice before starting my model unfortunately)

- the radiators, not sure if a file is enough. The sidewalls should be at 90° to the wing but are at 90° to the ground, resulting in a skewed front area. Best solution is cut from the fuselage, cut the sidewalls, glue them at the correct angle, sort the fact that now one wall is higher than the other, glue back and fill the various gaps left. Or new radiators could be made from plasticard, it would take the same time

- spinner way too large in diameter, as a result of the fuselage sections errors

- propeller blades too short and wide

- wing a bit thin in section (that I never bothered with)

- size of the entry hatch

- rocker covers incorrectly shaped

Others have checked this kit and have come to the same conclusions

I built the Academy kit and was quite happy with it. The way these Chinese whispers propegate nowadays with virtually nobody willing to validate whatever they have heard before repeating and perpetuating it ad nauseum.

People are almost scared to open the box these days lest someone tell them their latest purchase / creation is irretrievably wrong (or that they merely need to smash it back in to kit form and start again).

Grumpy? Perhaps so, but radiator sides aside, the Academy kit really isn't as bad as it seems to be made out.

Sorry, no chinese whisper in this case. More than one modeller made the effort to check this kit and have posted the findings many and many times. Generic statements about nobody willing to validate rumours don't apply here.

[Vlad]

I accept that you've measured it against drawings but so has Nick and he hasn't found the same discrepancies. If two drawings disagree but are both respectable, what conclusions can we really draw?

And in any case my opinion is based on pictures of the built up model. I keep reading about this "steroid" look and I just can't see it. The kit looks fine in the side by side picture comparison Nick posted and also looks good to me in all the builds linked here.

In addition, I respect the fact you've spent a lot of effort correcting the kit shape in your build but in the photo you posted side by side with Nick's OOB one, no offense, I can't really see the difference.

My conclusion therefore is also that "by eye" there is nothing wildly wrong with the Academy kit.

[sroubos]

It looks ok to me in proportions as shown in earlier posts. To each his own I suppose.

I must confess I used QB exhausts in my build, better than the kit parts.

[Giorgio N]

I accept that you've measured it against drawings but so has Nick and he hasn't found the same discrepancies. If two drawings disagree but are both respectable, what conclusions can we really draw?

And in any case my opinion is based on pictures of the built up model. I keep reading about this "steroid" look and I just can't see it. The kit looks fine in the side by side picture comparison Nick posted and also looks good to me in all the builds linked here.

In addition, I respect the fact you've spent a lot of effort correcting the kit shape in your build but in the photo you posted side by side with Nick's OOB one, no offense, I can't really see the difference.

My conclusion therefore is also that "by eye" there is nothing wildly wrong with the Academy kit.

I never measured the kit against drawings, it was compared with measurements taken on real Spitfires. A very different comparison. Drawings can disagree, measurements on real aircrafts don't.

Regarding the look, clearly each modeller may love one subject more than another and each modeller will notice certain errors more on the subject he likes more ( I would never be able to see certain differences in say a Bf-109). At the same time every comparison should be made on the complete object, a profile view may or not say everything. I don't have a complete Academy kit here, but I have a hybrid Academy-Matchbox low back XIV built some years before. I may post a picture of the two together to show what I mean

[Vlad]

Well, you've got me there with my weakness for 109s. You're right, I would probably be much more critical in that case. I'm just basing my opinion on observation, I accept that the measurements are off, I don't have the expertise to contest that, but to me it doesnt stand out as so obviously wrong as the consensus seems to be. I always look forward to more pictures though!

[Nick Millman]

the kit is grossly inaccurate in both width and height of the fuselage sections,

But it's not "grossly inaccurate" compared to the published 1977 P B Cooke plans and it doesn't look that "grossly inaccurate" in photographic comparisons with the real aircraft. It has issues. As do some of the recent Airfix kits which have come in for far less condemnation.

And whilst I'm full of admiration for the efforts made to correct the kit's deficiencies, personally I'm not convinced from the results that the efforts are always worth it. For example I can't really see much difference between the original kit radiators and the replacements in Patrice's build linked above beyond the personal satisfaction of knowing that they are 'more accurate' (which is fair enough - it's his model).

I've also been lured into the presumption that aftermarket improvement and correction parts that appear are always necessary but many of them have turned out to be little different to the kit parts they are supposed to replace. Or made so little difference to the look of the finished model as to question the value of the work needed to use them. So I've become a bit sceptical about all that, thinking it has as much to do with marketing as need.

As for measurements vs plans vs 'the look' we have been there before many times and there is seldom agreement about differences one to the other. Some models just don't look right before measurements or plans are even considered (for example, to me, the new Airfix Wildcat) but I don't believe that is really true of the Academy Spitfire XIV. And in Jonathan's review there are additional images of the model from the right rear and oblique overhead from left rear which to me still look good.

It would be interesting to see a photo of an Academy OOB and Fujimi XIV side by side though as I suspect the comparison might exacerbate the poor impression of the Academy kit, making it look chunkier and over scale.

Nick

[tempestfan]

But it's not "grossly inaccurate" compared to the published 1977 P B Cooke plans

Nick

Do you happen to have the SMI in which they were reprinted to hand ? IIRC there was some introductory text by Peter Cooke, and also IIRC he measured real airframes in preparation for the drawings, which again IIRC were the base for a range of 1/24 resin/fibre-reinforced plastic models. There's always the risk that the reprints were slightly out of scale, though, and if Academy used a set of incorrectly scaled drawings to base their kit on without checking the correct scale, that could explain something - if there is something wrong in the first place, of course.

[Graham Boak]

This thread is going round and round in circles. Those who like the kit seem determined to discount anything and everything counting against it. The current "gold standard" of Spitfire drawing is the book published by Paul Monforton, something only discounted by those who don't have a copy. It is far more detailed than any set of magazine drawings, however distinguished their creator. Giorgio has compared the Academy kit with these drawings, and says that they don't match. Further, that the differences are in accordance with the "eyeball" comments that the kit fuselage is distorted in height and width. Has no-one else attempted to make this comparison? Apparently not.

OK, let's make it easier to break out of the circle. The current Airfix Spitfire Mk.IX fuselage (and IIRC also the Mk.I/II) match the Monforton dimensions (not just drawings but quoted station numbers etc. taken from Supermarine information). How about someone with the Academy kit comparing the fuselage to the Airfix one, from the firewall aft? To my knowledge, no-one has ever suggested that this Airfix kit is too fat or too sleek.

[Graham Boak]

Returning to this, I hauled out the relevant Scale Models - and it is indeed a fine looking plan - also the Monforton book, the Airfix Spitfire Mk.I fuselage halves, an assembled Mk.IX, a scale rule and my trusty micrometer. The first point to check was that the two Airfix Spitfires agree, on the (possibly unwarranted) assumption that having been convinced of the Mk.IX's fuselage matching Monforton (the wing doesn't, sadly) then it was worth checking if this read across. It does. I chose station 15 as a reference, because this is immediately aft of the trailing edge fairing and thus the full depth is readily comparable. Any faults here, in width and/or height, should be noticeable on a kit.

Using Monforton first, the width of the Airfix kit is a very good match for the value given. So is the Peter Cooke drawing. So if the Academy kit matches Peter Cooke's drawing, it should be OK. (I've left the numbers upstairs - ask if you're interested.)

I then checked the height - I find Monforton's definitions of the section ordinates unhelpful on this point, but his drawings are, particularly the one in 1/24 scale hence saving the use of calculators to get to 1/72. The depth was 50mm in this scale, 16.67 in 1/72. The Airfix kit is a good match, the Peter Cooke drawing slightly larger (17.12). To confirm this, I laid the Airfix Spitfire fuselage half on Peter Cooke's plans and lined up the rudder post and the bottom of the fuselage. There is a small gap between the top of the Airfix fuselage and the line of the fuselage top in the plans, more or less continuous along the top of the fuselage.

I remain unable to compare the Academy Spitfire directly to either Peter's plans or the massive amount of detail in Monforton. Or, indeed, any Airfix equivalent.