Building a "better" Spitfire XII

[Christer A]

I've become infatuated with Eduards Spitfire (probably a bit too much) lately and that got me thinking.

Would it be a good idea to chop the Griffin of the Airfix XII and marry that to an (preferably Overtrees) Eduard VIII airframe?

That way you'll get a lovely detailed XII, with a sliding hood that isn't made in one piece and looks a bit weird.

Or am I trying/thinking too much, since the Airfix XII is a quite fine kit anyway?

//Christer

Edited January 15, 2016 by Christer A

[Bedders]

It could be done I imagine, but you'd need to change the radiator/oil cooler arrangement too.

Justin

[Christer A]

Ah, yes you're right. I didn't think about those.

Also, it looks like the Airfix fuselage (and thereby engine) is higher then Eduards.

That's more trouble than it's worth I reckon.

[elger]

What about using the Special Hobby kit (which is also not without its issues) for this? At least it doesn't seem to have the too tall fuselage.

[Biggles87]

Having nearly finished the Airfix Mk XII, I would say use that. The panel lines are a little heavy, but that can be easily fixed, and you don't have to use the combined hood and rear transparency.With a little refinement, and perhaps a Barracuda Mk VIII cockpit set you will have a nice model, and you will stil have one of your overtrees left to use with one of the multiple decal options in the ' Easy Eight '

Cheers

John

[Fernando]

Hi, all,

The Airfix XII (as the Seafire XVII) is too tall in sideview; that's very apparent even in bad pictures of the assembled model. The SH, on its part, shares the "too short" fuselage and badly positioned wing of its Vc brothers (and their forefathers, the Tamiya kits) Any kitbash that goes around these problems will render a better model. Even the same plan you have with a Hasegawa Spit IX -which anyway cannot produce a good IX by itself so it is dead cost!- would work. If only Eduard would sell fuselage sprues, you could cut the noses and add these to the rest of any of the two kits (and, of course, Vcs. But that's another story)

What I have done once is kitbashing an Aeroclub XII fuselage to a Hasegawa kit. It came out fine. The article is somewhere in the HS website.

Fernando

[Mustango70]

Here is a link to an article about Airfix/Eduard models marriage to an Mk.XII

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/9192-konversija-Eduard-1-48-Spitfire-Mk-XII.html

[Christer A]

That Russian job turned out better than good!

Interesting....

But I still haven't got any overtrees

[Biggles87]

Oops sorry, I wasn't aware of the ' too tall ' issue. It still looks like a Spitfire XII to me and went together very well, which is one of my prime considerations these days.

John

[gingerbob]

Another thing to be aware of (assuming that I'm remembering correctly) is that the Airfix XII gives you "forward link" gear legs, doors, and cutout under the wing, while in reality the XII used spline-type. Not too hard to adjust, but it needs doing.

bob

p.s. I really ought to study the different single-stage Griffon noses available to figure out which is the most accurate. Just haven't gotten to it.

[Troy Smith]

I've become infatuated with Eduards Spitfire (probably a bit too much) lately and that got me thinking.

Would it be a good idea to chop the Griffin of the Airfix XII and marry that to an (preferably Overtrees) Eduard VIII airframe?

That way you'll get a lovely detailed XII, with a sliding hood that isn't made in one piece and looks a bit weird.

Or am I trying/thinking too much, since the Airfix XII is a quite fine kit anyway?

//Christer

In short, No.

The Airfix Spitfire XII nose is not great, the prop blades are way to thin, while the nose can be fixed, the blades are much harder to do.

Even with corrections, I think the easiest way to an accurate XII would be Special Hobby, as the Airfix Spitfire XII is a decent kit, but not a very accurate one, I think it can be fixed 'with some modelling skill' but the blades fix is going to be a PITA, shame Quickboost or the like has not made some replacements...

So adding an Airfix nose to an Eduard VIII is not going to make an accurate XII

The are comments above about the Special Hobby kit having the wing in the wrong place, the Airfix XII does as well, plus is has the 'Tamiya' wing problem, meaning it a little too broad in chord.

The fuselage is to deep, the fin is too high, so the rudder is too big.... actually I wrote this and saved it as a draft....

I thread on ARC got me curious.

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=286049&st=0

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth of the Airfix Spitfire XII, though curiously less over the Seafire XVII which shares the same issues.

The big one that came up was it was 'fat' and/or too deep. Gaston Marty went so far as to make a horizontal slice down one which was a rather extreme measure, and created it's own problems.

see here

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=277566&view=findpost&p=2640857

Then was it's just too deep, and sand a bit off.

well, the ARC thread made me dig out the box, where I'd stashed the Aeroclub XII conversion, and the Cooke plans.

The Cooke plans are about 1mm too short in the rear fuselage, and the Aeroclub is based on this.

Anyway, after much squinting and shifting about I came up with a fix

OK, the kit

the real thing

I know, don't take measurements from a photo etc etc, and it's hard to get the same angle, but the above are close, and hopefully will show the problems described below. The top model better shows the rear fuselage/rudder problem

In particular note the position of the engine panel/exhaust compared to the spinner.

from http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/63060-spitfire-xii-airfix-148/page-2

This link http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=277566&view=findpost&p=2640857

provided these,

This suggest some reshaping of the rocker cover maybe needed, but note the position of bulges on the cowl, and their spacing, higher up and closer together on the real thing.

also, note the longer space at back of cowl behind covers.

from this http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/63060-spitfire-xii-airfix-148/

So I finally had a bash the some corrections, my research showed the shortness was in the engine bay, the firewall to rudder post being the right length.

The nose is also too deep, but the rocker covers and exhaust are too low, if you look carefully at the above pictures all these details can be made out.

One other complaint was the slope of the nose, this is fine, but it looks wrong as the rocker covers are too low.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/74743-1-48-spitfire-fuselage-comparisons/page-2#entry827000

Being thrifty I try to salvage kits, ideally correcting faults without too much mess.

Here's the Airfix XII modified, over the Cooke plans and the Aeroclub XII.

Not a very good photo but I was trying to get all this in on shot, so the modified Airfix is at an angle to show rear fuse thinning

This all held togther with gaffa tape and blutack, apart from the nose splice.

The Airfix XII has been reduced in depth at the rear fuselage, I have shaded orange the other side, to show how much was removed. A little more maybe needs to come off.

Note the ICM Rudder, and the fin has been shortened and reprofiled.

The Airfix rudder could be reprofiled, but given an easy use of an alternate part, why make work for your self.

The kit rudder could be used to make a XIV rudder possibly.

Now the fun, the nose is too short, which makes it too deep, I have added 2mm.

A cut in the lower panel reduces depth, and makes the nose slimmer.

After much head scratching, i realised that the side panel is not deep enough, and so the rocker covers are too low.

The red line is the new panel line. Note previous mounting hole, the line of plastic underneath needs removing and building up below exhausts.

One subtle point, the Griffon sloped down more than a Merlin, 2 degrees IIRC, look at the datum line on the drawing and the exhaust slope down.

The single stage nose looks to be the same as the two stage griffon, which is longer due to the extra stage.

Adding the splice is major surgery, but apart from that the above modifications are pretty simple and apart from the spare rudder (available as duplicated option in both ICM and Eduard kits) just use kit parts.

The biggest problem to fix is the prop blades, they are much too skinny, and XII blades are quite a complex shape, I had a goo at reshaping using the Aeroclub blade as a guide, and after supergluing plastic strip to the existing blade edge (and fingers) and much sanding and scraping I left this for another day.

This build used modified Academy blades

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/63060-spitfire-xii-airfix-148/page-2#entry707516

I noticed that the ICM blades while oversize for the Merlin, could be used for the basis of new blades, though the aerofoil is the wrong way round so it would require more work.

The extension means a gap to fill under the nose, and the wing will come up at the rear, and a little at the front, which helps the depth problem.

Possibly the cockpit bottom edges will need sanding back, but the fuselage was the big problem and I wanted to see if fairly simple fix was possible.

The wing as discussed above is too broad in chord, this needs to come mostly off the trailing edge, and thus the rear fillet will need some reshaping. You can just see two pencil lines above the fillet, the rear is where the fillet needs to come back too.

the rear point of the wing fillet needs reshaping, correct shape pencilled in.

the pencil line to the left of thumb is the correct position of the fuel tank cover line.

One final point, I noticed that the wheel wells are ovoid, they should be round, though the sides slope backwardso the top is still round, but slightly further back. Note in the top right the drawing of the wheel well which shows this feature.

It is a common fault on Spitfire models are having them oval.

comments and error corrections welcome.

the one point I am not so sure of now, the engine bay length.

The Aeroclub XII matches the Cooke plans, but it should as that is what it was based upon.

see this http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234930585-spitfire-griffin-nose-drawings/

in particular

Today, I measured the Seafire 17, at Yeovilton; I had to use a folding measure, rather than a tape, so can't swear that each measure is within a fraction, but I used the old maxim "measure twice, cut once," so they are as follows (actual measure first in inches, then to 1/48 in mm, then the Airfix fuselage):-

Engine compartment 74.5" 39.4mm 39.1; fuel tank 34" 18 18.6; cockpit 57" 30.2 29.9; transport joint (middle) 114.5" 70.6 70.3. I couldn't get aft of the transport joint, because there were boxes, tables, and bodies in the way. However, totalling that lot, I make the real thing, in 1/48 148.2mm, and the Airfix fuselage 147.9, a difference of .3mm, or a fraction over half an inch; I can live with that, but it means that two printed plans have been printed short, while Peter's drawings have some of the panel lines in the wrong place.

Edgar

a quick recheck, the Airfix XII nose engine bay is 39mm, the Aeroclub is 41 mm, so my lengthening fix above depends on if the XII engine bay is the same length as the Seafire XVII engine.

Christer, one final point regarding the Eduard VIII/IX/XVI family,

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234986185-148-airfix-new-tool-spitfire-mki-x4382-from-no602-squadron-completed-on-31-10-at-1150-pm/page-2#entry2102051

Hi Peter

very neat work as usual.

a couple of points. Eduard made a boob on their Spitfire, in that the front of the wing, the 'D' section leading edge is made of thicker gauge metal, and the rivets are filled and rubbed down, they are pretty much invisible on the real thing. Check your own photos, but here's one, note smoothness of leading edge, same on top.

from http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/supermarine_spitfire_mk1a_p9444/index.php?Page=1

HTH

T

Note Eduard also made the common Spitfire kit mistake of ovoid wheel wells, they are in reality round, but the walls slope back, see above pic.

I'll recheck this for errors later.

HTH

T

[gingerbob]

Troy, just for clarification, is the bulk of the "quoted" text and corrections your own work, or are you quoting someone else's? The point about the exhausts relative to the spinner is questionable, or at least the provided evidence is- the model is rotated compared to the photo of the real thing, and one of the most significant changes that will cause (relevant to this) is the comparative position of the exhaust to the spinner. In case my reasoning isn't clear, the spinner, being round, won't change "position" with rotation, but the exhausts, being on the side of the fuselage, will rotate "down" as the camera angle goes higher. Not saying you are wrong, just that this isn't very convincing evidence.

Very good comparison looking down at the bumps, though!

bob

[Troy Smith]

Hi bob

To clarify, the big quote is my work, saved as draft message. (useful as it saves all the pics etc)

It was a 'work in progress' but as this came up I thought I'd put up my thoughts, incomplete as they are. I need to do more pics.

I went quietly nuts over this, but dig the Airfix XII out, and look at horizontal panel line compared to the spinner, the Airfix panel line is maybe 1mm too low, but this affects the position on the exhaust and rocker bulges. It's small but makes a surprising difference to the look.

In short, the Airfix XII is easily fixable, except for the hard bit, the prop blades. All

The problem on the Airfix XII that apply to the Airfix Seafire XVII as well are the too deep fuselage and 'Tamiya' wing, as well as the prop blades.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234977338-airfix-148-seafire-fxvii/

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/74606-supermarine-seafire/

good shot of the actual blade shapes

[gingerbob]

That reminds me, I meant to suggest that a blade set for a XIV or XIX would possibly work, though I'm not at all sure that the blade shape is identical (not even sure XII to Sea 17 are the same)

Thanks for clarifying. Why do I get the feeling that I'm doomed to digging out Griffon cowlings of various flavors today!? Worse things to do in life, of course...

bob

[Troy Smith]

That reminds me, I meant to suggest that a blade set for a XIV or XIX would possibly work, though I'm not at all sure that the blade shape is identical (not even sure XII to Sea 17 are the same)

Thanks for clarifying. Why do I get the feeling that I'm doomed to digging out Griffon cowlings of various flavors today!? Worse things to do in life, of course...

bob

Hi bob

it's a tricky area.

regarding the Mk. XII blades, member here Mark12, actually owned the remains of the only surviving Mk. XII!!!! EN224

thread here http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/Mark12/Album%204/12EN224-06-001.jpg

with this photo....what a garage!

The XII blade shape here looks the same, or very similar to the Seafire XVII above.

here's the Airfix XII by Tony Bell

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234932714-airfix-148-spitfire-mkxii/

it look like the Airfix blades match the shape of the blades in photos, but as they are usually at an angle to the camera, they are much too slim.

The wider blades of the Aeroclub XII are seen in this build by Fernando Rolandelli

http://hyperscale.com/2007/features/spitfirexii48fr_1.htm

Daughter calls, more later

Look forward to your kit researches as well.

cheers

T

[gingerbob]

Well, don't expect much today- a Hobby Boss Tunnan arrived in the mail, and I've held the big bits to each other already. I know it is underscale, but I've got an evil plan that makes that pretty irrelevant... or put another way, makes that the least of this individual kit's problems

bob

p.s. I've been in that garage. Wish I'd brought a bigger handbag...

[Christer A]

Dang! That garage is really something!

Ok, so no easy way to make a XII then, but I'll head down to den and putty the Eduard wings anyway. Thanks for the tip and useful photo Troy!

[Troy Smith]

Dang! That garage is really something!

Ok, so no easy way to make a XII then, but I'll head down to den and putty the Eduard wings anyway. Thanks for the tip and useful photo Troy!

Build the Special Hobby XII, correct the wing position and length issue if you wish, see links below.

Hi, all,

The Airfix XII (as the Seafire XVII) is too tall in sideview; that's very apparent even in bad pictures of the assembled model. The SH, on its part, shares the "too short" fuselage and badly positioned wing of its Vc brothers (and their forefathers, the Tamiya kits) Any kitbash that goes around these problems will render a better model. Even the same plan you have with a Hasegawa Spit IX -which anyway cannot produce a good IX by itself so it is dead cost!- would work. If only Eduard would sell fuselage sprues, you could cut the noses and add these to the rest of any of the two kits (and, of course, Vcs. But that's another story)

What I have done once is kitbashing an Aeroclub XII fuselage to a Hasegawa kit. It came out fine. The article is somewhere in the HS website.

Fernando

I linked Fernando's build above.

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding the Special Hobby wing position and length, BUT if you are into the realm of considering combining two kits to make a Spitfire XII (or Seafire XV, as has been discussed here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234968126-148-airfix-seafire-xv/ before) then actually fixing the SH kit is really not hard, as while the wing trailing edge is too far back, the wing fillet on the fuselage is in the right place.

this problem, with pics and suggestions are discussed in detail in the above link.

The Tamiya kit has different problems to the SH kit, it's too short, a bit fat and wide, and the wing is too wide in chord.

fixable if you can be bothered

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234968337-two-148-mkvb-spitfires-tamiya-and-airfix-new-spitfire-collection-expansion-project-finished-photos-now-in-the-rfi-section-080615/page-3#entry1763506

and

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234968337-two-148-mkvb-spitfires-tamiya-and-airfix-new-spitfire-collection-expansion-project-finished-photos-now-in-the-rfi-section-080615/page-3#entry1763656

Fixing the SH kit is easier than fixing the Tamiya.

I'd also say only the Spitfire obsessed would bother, the SH kit is not horribly short, maybe 1.5mm and the wing position is at most 2mm too far back.

They are limited run kits, and won't assemble as easily as say the Airfix XII, but correcting an Airfix XII is a lot more work, and the wing is in the wrong place on that kit as well.

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

I don't have the SH Spit XII, but do have the Seafire XV, and it has a lot going for it. I would presume the SH Spit XII is much like their Seafire XV

sprue shots here

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234938689-spitfire-mkxii-148-special-hobby/

note well shaped prop blades.

The rear shifted wing trailing edge is also visible here.

[Troy Smith]

a brief update, I  just got a Special Hobby Spitfire XII at a price i  was happy with...

 

So a quick compare of data from  above, and the  Airfix and Aeroclub XII fuselages, and  the new tool Airfix Vb , and the Cooke drawings, taking on board Edgar's dimensions of the Yeovilton Seafire XVII (single stage Griffon, should be the same length)

 

The engine bay on the Cooke drawings is too long, so  the  engine bay on the Aeroclub XII is  too long, about 1.5mm, easy enough to  fix

The rear fuselage is a little  shallow as  well.

the Special Hobby main fault is the wing position, it's about 2mm too far  back, cue the wailing  and gnashing of  teeth from  the SH detractors.....

this is really not  too hard  to fix, as the wing  fillet is right, just requires moving  the leading edge fuselage  fillets forward, and  trimming the rear fillet back.  Ohh, that's lots  of  work  I hear from the  gallery..

 

BUT,  regarding  the Airfix  XII, I think my length adjustment  is unneeded,

 

but the Airfix  is still too deep all  along the  fuselage,  so the lower nose cut  is  still  needed, plus backing the inside  of  the  fuselage,

the too deep fuselage make the  fin is too high,and  the rudder too tall, as  the  pic. (easy fix, just use a spare from  the ICM, as shown,  or Eduard kits rudder.)

the nose does slope down too much, and  the exhaust thus rocker covers are  too low.  Not a hard fix, but more  filling and reinstating detail.

In fact, the Airfix XII is a very good  match for the much damned Academy XIV high  back (try it, I just did, want to try bob?) apart  from  the oversized nose ring. The Academy has  the same  'Tamiya'  wing problem BTW.

 

The  wings  have the 'Tamiya' problem, and so are too broad in chord, easy enough  to fix,  plus  dealing  with the separate flaps, which does make  the wing reshape  easier but still another job. They also have oval wheel  wells. (then so  does the SH XII and the lauded Eduard IX kit...)

 

All  the above are fixable with 'some modelling skill' but the Airfix prop blades are really too slim,  I have a go  at a fix, but it's tricky shape.

A  member here, Plasto,used Barracudacals blades as replacements.

 

At this point remember the  SH  XII  has  fine  surface  detail, (Airfix is  trenchy) correct cockpit side walls, correct prop blades ,  etch seat belts and instrument panel and  some other bits, plus 4 decal options.

And  moving  the wing forward is still a lot less work than dealing with all the Airfix  faults.

 

when I  feel inspired I can do some comparison pics, but hope of interest.

 

cheers

T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gingerbob]

On 1/16/2016 at 9:04 AM, gingerbob said:

Why do I get the feeling that I'm doomed to digging out Griffon cowlings of various flavors today!? Worse things to do in life, of course...

 

Curiously enough, I'm getting that same feeling- it looks like deja-vu all over again.  (Not promising that I'll carry it out, but not the worst idea I've had today!)

[Bruce Archer]

Hi All!

     I am reading this with great interest, esp. about the Special Hobby Spitfire XII and Seafire XV. I have been saying the fuselage is too short, and the wing off for years. Measuring the Sh fuselage it is 1.5 mm too short. That, in itself is not really noticeable unless you are a stickler for 1005 accuracy, but add in the wing is 2-2.5 mm ( depending who you read, I say 2.0mm) makes the rear fuselage look like it was rear-ended, which spoils the whole "look" of the model.

      I corrected the fuselage and cowl the old fashioned way...mill file, sandpaper and filler. As I am on disability and retirement, Besides I have too many 2-Stage Merlin Spitfires to build to use an Eduard  Two-Stage Merlin Spitfire in a conversion.

      I live by : "Build what you want, how you want! It is your model...."

 

Bruce

[Troy Smith]

37 minutes ago, Bruce Archer said:

I have been saying the fuselage is too short, and the wing off for years. Measuring the Sh fuselage it is 1.5 mm too short. That, in itself is not really noticeable unless you are a stickler for 1005 accuracy, but add in the wing is 2-2.5 mm ( depending who you read, I say 2.0mm) makes the rear fuselage look like it was rear-ended, which spoils the whole "look" of the model.

 

the needed fixes,  note both kits are laid out in reference to the cutting mat lines. 

top new tool Airfix Vb, lower Special Hobby Seafire III (same length error on all the SH kits) 

Airfix vs SH cut fillet align IMG_0450 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

There are much worse Spitfire kits in the accuracy department,  that don't get the same bad press as the SH kits ....

read the links I posted in post #18 above for more.

 

one final point

Quote

The SH, on its part, shares the "too short" fuselage and badly positioned wing of its Vc brothers (and their forefathers, the Tamiya kits)

if the SH kits have a forefather,  it's the Hasegawa Vb kit, NOT the old tool Tamiya I/V 

Internet tosh will  say the Hase Vb is 1/50th. It's not, but it is short.

[NorthBayKid]

I know a chap who has done the conversion the OP mentioned, and he says it wasn’t at all difficult.

[Troy Smith]

2 minutes ago, NorthBayKid said:

I know a chap who has done the conversion the OP mentioned, and he says it wasn’t at all difficult.

but still inaccurate. The Airfix Mk.XII nose is not great, and the prop blades are terrible.  And chops up two kits.  And if you can do that surgery, you can lengthen the SH XII...

[Blackat]

Hello
I share my solution to Airfix fuselage failures
Since the Hasegara fuselage is not the best option to make a Spitfire XII, I decided to put a scalpel on it and it would serve to improve the Airfix kit.
Reading Troy's comments, using the blueprints he kindly shared with me (thanks Troy !!!), I made a partial copy of the nose of the Spitfire XIV and compared it to the nose of the XII. The tip matches almost perfectly, and only had to be thickened on the back to match the drawing.
Sanded and bonded, it looks much better than the original fuselage in the kit, I think so ...

 

.

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Blackat