Spitfire XIVc 1/72

[sroubos]

I can measure the kits, but where exactly does the firewall start? Is that the panel line in front of the windshield?

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

The firewall is the back of the cowling - it's kinked.

[Beard]

Thank you to Graham for providing the measurements and taking the time to compare the Airfix Spitfires to the plans.

Hopefully, once Sroubus has measured the Academy Spitfire, the matter can be resolved (and I can know whether to buy some Academy XIVs, or not).

Edited October 27, 2015 by Beard

[John Thompson]

Thanks for that, Graham. FWIW, I like the Academy kit, flawed or not. Please correct me if I misunderstood, but the message I take from your post is that the Airfix Mk IX matches more-or-less exactly the Monforton drawings (or their dimensions) from the firewall aft to the rudder post. This includes the lengthwise dimension, I assume; if so, the Academy fuselage is 2mm shorter than the Airfix fuselage in this dimension. The fuselage also appears very slightly deeper, but this would be corrected by eliminating the "hunchback" effect noted elsewhere. The shorter length combined with the curvature of the upper fuselage outline would account for the chubby appearance of the Academy kit.

John

[sroubos]

I do apologize but I misread - I don't actually have the Airfix Mk IX my stash... I'll do my best to get an accurate measurement of the Academy XIV though.

I can measure up the Fujimi XIV and the AZ Models IX if that helps?

[Nick Millman]

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.

That is simply not true. "Those who like the kit" have neither discounted everything against it (at least not those which have been established) nor discounted the Montforton book!

Lets at least bring the pro and con exaggerations to an end!

I have the Academy XIV, the Airfix IX and XIX and the Fujimi XIV so I will now compare all of them with the plans and with each other.

Nick

[Graham Boak]

Beard: the Airfix Mk.IX was criticised because of being slightly longer in the fuselage than earlier kits of the subject, so this is really why I turned to Monforton then. The Airfix kit matched the dimensions pretty well exactly. I don't recall just where the difference with earlier kits came, other than in front of the cockpit.

The AZ Mk.IX is 1mm short overall, but (AFAIK) spread over the whole kit rather than being in any one place, so is unlikely to affect any comparison. However,I've no idea what it is like on fuselage depth - the only AZ Spitfires I have are very late ones of a slightly earlier vintage than their Mk.IX.

If you place a scale rule on an unassembled Academy fuselage, at the end of the trailing edge fairing, the depth should be easily measurable. If it's assembled you'll need a micrometer. If it comes out over 16.7mm it's too deep, but maybe not by much?

[Gwart]

The AZ IX is just shy of 16.5 mm by my measuring.

Shane.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Gwart

[Nick Millman]

FWIW I make the depth of the Academy fuselage on the vertical panel line at the trailing edge of the wing fillet just under 18mm (so a difference of + 1.3mm) and the corresponding depth on the Cooke plan the same.

In photographs the XIV does seem to have a slightly 'hunchback' look immediately behind the cockpit so is it absolutely certain that the IX and XIV fuselages were identical? The IX always looks sleeker to me anyway.

Nick

[Nick Millman]

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.

Yes, and there is no such preamble in the 1978 Scale Models article which is featured as a 'first' so I presume Mr Cooke's 1977 plans appeared there for the first time. I don't know about Aeromodeller magazine from the same publisher which often featured the same plans.

There is also another Scale Models article about Mr Cooke's larger scale Spitfire models but I'd need to identify which one and dig it out.

Nick

[sroubos]

Thanks for saving me the trouble Nick - I measured the wrong thing in any case

[Nick Millman]

Comparison image of fuselage parts. Fujimi fuselage depth is 17mm and it is the longest of all the kits. Don't have the AZ kit.

Nick

[Gwart]

In photographs the XIV does seem to have a slightly 'hunchback' look immediately behind the cockpit so is it absolutely certain that the IX and XIV fuselages were identical? The IX always looks sleeker to me anyway.

Nick

The tail on the XIV starts around a foot before the IX's does ,this adds to the perception of a bulkier rear fuselage.

Edited in for the opposite effect .

With the original tail from the VIII converted to prototype for the XIV,it not only looks super delicate but really stretched

Edited October 27, 2015 by Gwart

[lunarhighway]

FWIW I make the depth of the Academy fuselage on the vertical panel line at the trailing edge of the wing fillet just under 18mm (so a difference of + 1.3mm) and the corresponding depth on the Cooke plan the same.

In photographs the XIV does seem to have a slightly 'hunchback' look immediately behind the cockpit so is it absolutely certain that the IX and XIV fuselages were identical? The IX always looks sleeker to me anyway.

Nick

While as far as i know the rear fuselage was dimensionally identical, the rear fin of the xiv extends further forward than on the ix, that combined with the longer nose of the xiv makes the rear fuselage spine of the xiv look proportionally shorter in visual comparison. As most photographs are taken at an angle perspective distortion also comes into play

[Graham Boak]

Nick: When the Airfix PR Mk.XIX appeared there was considerable discussion about its (apparently) short nose, which largely died down after the comment that the leading edge chord was too far forward (because of the excessive chord). However, I don't know that the matter was entirely settled, and this posting of yours raises the doubt again. I have three appropriate fuselages: the Fujimi, a Ventura Mk.XVIII, and a Frog. The Frog one was lengthened slightly many years ago - I believe the recommended solution was an Airfix Tiger wheel behind the spinner (and slightly drooped), though looking at it now I just used plasticard. All three fuselages are very close to being the same length, and a close match to Peter's fuselage drawing. If the Fujimi is the right length then both the Academy and the Airfix are too short. I presume in the nose?.

Looking at the highlights in your photo, although it is of course difficult to be certain, it does seem that the Academy fuselage is too rounded too low - look just in front of the tailwheel for example. This, coupled with the short nose and the deep fuselage, may explain why Spitfire enthusiasts considered that it just didn't look right without ever needing to resort to scale rules and micrometers..

Going back to the Frog for a moment: if a short fuselage was produced before Peter Cooke's drawings were ever available, perhaps there is some older plan that Academy and others were working to. That in the Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, perhaps?

[Gwart]

My first red lines ever,the back plate to wing leading edge is a bit clumsy .The bottom 2 bodies are compostites to fix what i perceive as the shape problem in the academy kit.The areas to measure are a combination of John @Aeroclubs measurements which tally with Monforton and Aviaeology profile plans.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Gwart

[Nick Millman]

Going back to the Frog for a moment: if a short fuselage was produced before Peter Cooke's drawings were ever available, perhaps there is some older plan that Academy and others were working to. That in the Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, perhaps?

Academy appear to have based some of their earlier kits on Frog kits - the P-40 Tomahawk, Avenger and Wildcat for example. When a photo of the Spit XIV model appeared in the Academy catalogue it looked exactly like the Frog kit and was expected to be a clone, to much disappointment. But when the kit actually appeared I recall the initial positive comments that it was an all new mould. IIRC this was around the time that Academy and Minicraft split.

I always thought the Frog Wildcat looked too fat and the Academy kit was exactly similar in appearance, but they are not as fat as the new Airfix kit - which is another story!

Nick

[Navy Bird]

For what it's worth, I just measured AZ and Fujimi Mk.XIV kits and compared them to the dimensions in Shane's post #91 above. Here is what I get:

For the AZ high back kit:

Back plate to wing leading edge = 22mm

Back plate to station 15 = 57mm

Station 15 to rudder post = 59mm

Overall (back plate to rudder post) = 116mm

The fuselage depth at station 15 (from Graham's post #82) = 16.5mm

For the Fujimi XIV kit:

(Same order as above) 22.5mm, 57mm, and 60mm. Overall 117mm

Depth is 16mm.

Cheers,

Bill

[occa]

Academy appear to have based some of their earlier kits on Frog kits - the P-40 Tomahawk, Avenger and Wildcat for example. When a photo of the Spit XIV model appeared in the Academy catalogue it looked exactly like the Frog kit and was expected to be a clone, to much disappointment. But when the kit actually appeared I recall the initial positive comments that it was an all new mould. IIRC this was around the time that Academy and Minicraft split.

I always thought the Frog Wildcat looked too fat and the Academy kit was exactly similar in appearance, but they are not as fat as the new Airfix kit - which is another story!

Nick

I already noticed that on the 3D rendering and commented on it then long before the kit came out, unfortunately Airfix have botcheed this one up a bit ...

Unlike with the Beaufighter the Hasegawa is in this case the more accurate one.

[gingerbob]

Good heavens, next we'll be talking about "sleek" Wildcats!

[Graham Boak]

There's already been some discussion on the Wildcat. It is pretty clear that the canopy is too low and the spine too squat, but if it only is a matter of this fault making the F4F appear too fat, then it's fairly easily corrected with a replacement from Falcon/Squadron and some putty. If on the other hand it kit is too fat, perhaps someone could measure it against other kits and plans and quote these values? People have played with photo side views of kit and original without proving anything.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Graham Boak

[Greenshirt]

I did measure, here: http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/index.php?showtopic=7307&st=45

I finally got my hands on this kit. As a kit it's absolutely beautiful. I'm trying hard not to dive in, but I've got too many half started subjects I'm trying to finish right now.

The build article described earlier makes the canopy and spine appear squat when compared to photos of the real thing as well as the Hasegawa kit. I pulled out one of my Hasegawa F4F-4 kits for comparison, as well as took a look at the 2001 Richard Caruna drawings I have from the December 2001 SAMI article.

I have no idea how acceptable or accurate the Caruna drawings are considered, but they are the only ones I've got. I measured at the canopy and spine, since that's the concern area.

I'm pretty good with my caliper to +/- 0.005 inches which is about .1 mm.

At the aft closed canopy frame, where it meets the spine, the drawing measured at 0.310" wide and 0.270" high. Both kits compare at 0.305" wide but the Hasegawa kit is ~10% higher at 0.305" and the Airfix is ~10% lower at 0.230". So comparing the Hasegawa to the Airfix (or vice versa) amplifies the error to 20+% making the Airfix look that much worse. But remember that BOTH are off by ~10%.

The open canopy on the Airfix kit, the width is yet another 10% wider as is the height. So making the Airfix kit with an open canopy using the provided part makes the spine and canopy look really wrong, by as much as 30% when compared to the Hasegawa kit -- which is what I believe we were seeing in the review article. That much deviation is very noticeable as we've noted earlier in this thread.

For myself, I don't typically build open cockpits so the difference isn't significant. If the Airfix is the only Wildcat on your shelf, it's as accurate as the Hasegawa kit. If both are on your shelf you may notice a difference, but like me some folks may also have the awful Academy Wildcat so having another fairly accurate model just improves things. I've also got the Sword kits, albeit not on the display shelf yet.

For giggles I placed both fuselage sides together. Wow, both kits matched in overall shape nearly perfectly, with exception of the spine at the aft canopy as noted above. Only one small issue showed itself: It appears the Airfix wing is ~1mm to far forward, which makes the LE to cowl distance about 1mm too short. Interestingly, the Hasegawa is 1mm too long in that same measurement (LE to cowl) when compared to the Caruna drawings, so the root chord dimension may be slightly off on the Hasegawa. I struggled with the TE location on both kits as it's not a straightforward measurement, meaning I could not accurately measure real chord on either kit at the root. But that difference between LE and cowl on both kits is noticeable when comparing kits directly. I didn't notice it until then.

In summary, the Airfix Wildcat is as accurate as the Hasegawa kit, but in terms of value has more detail both inside and with the wings / wing fold. As with most kits of the Wildcat, if you want the canopy open it's best to use a vacform replacement.

Tim

PS: I find the plastic Airfix uses seems to amplify the appearance of the recessed panel lines. On close inspection they don't seem any deeper or wider than Hasegawa's, but when holding the kit up in different lighting they just "look" deeper/wider. My only thought is the color/sheen/hardness of the plastic, which is markedly different.

[tempestfan]

I don't want to steer this Spit XIV thread further off course, but my preferred drawings for a comparison of a Wildcat would be those in the Harry Dann-authored Squadron books and in the AeroDetail book.

[Giorgio N]

Nick, thanks for posting the picture with the various fuselages compared. I'll see if I can also post pictures of the AZ fuselage, the Airfix Mk.22 (different tail but the cowling should be the same) and of Aeroclub's PR.XIX vacform conversion. The latter was the one that best matched the measurements (not surprising IMHO given the reputation of Aeroclub).

And of course I've yet to take the picture of the completed original Academy nose together with the modified one.

Nick: When the Airfix PR Mk.XIX appeared there was considerable discussion about its (apparently) short nose, which largely died down after the comment that the leading edge chord was too far forward (because of the excessive chord). However, I don't know that the matter was entirely settled, and this posting of yours raises the doubt again. I have three appropriate fuselages: the Fujimi, a Ventura Mk.XVIII, and a Frog. The Frog one was lengthened slightly many years ago - I believe the recommended solution was an Airfix Tiger wheel behind the spinner (and slightly drooped), though looking at it now I just used plasticard. All three fuselages are very close to being the same length, and a close match to Peter's fuselage drawing. If the Fujimi is the right length then both the Academy and the Airfix are too short. I presume in the nose?.

Looking at the highlights in your photo, although it is of course difficult to be certain, it does seem that the Academy fuselage is too rounded too low - look just in front of the tailwheel for example. This, coupled with the short nose and the deep fuselage, may explain why Spitfire enthusiasts considered that it just didn't look right without ever needing to resort to scale rules and micrometers..

Going back to the Frog for a moment: if a short fuselage was produced before Peter Cooke's drawings were ever available, perhaps there is some older plan that Academy and others were working to. That in the Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, perhaps?

Graham, I believe that the Academy and Airfix kits are too short in different areas: the Korean kit is too short in the rear fuselage but nose is OK, the Airfix kit is the opposite. I have to look for the measurements I took a few years ago on these kits. Incidentally, some of the discussion on the Airfix kit was the result of a thread I started here on BM, thread that brought a lot of interesting information that I later used to compare the various two-stage Griffon engined kits

Edited October 29, 2015 by Giorgio N

[Giorgio N]

Speaking of the Fujimi kits, IIRC Roy Sutherland of Cooper Details and Barracudacals fame wrote a review many years ago where he criticized some of the shapes. Wonder if anyone has any link or a copy of such review ? Roy has a reputation for loving Spitfires and having a strong interest in accurate shapes, would love to read his comments on that kit