Jump to content

Spitfire kit measurements - 1/72 compared


Greenshirt

Recommended Posts

Over in this topic we started chatting about accuracy/dimensions of kits, in 1/72 scale, and that prompted me to break out my caliper and do some measuring. I was asked to start a new thread with just the measurements, and here it is.

Hopefully others can add for the other kits out there. I find it useful to know which kits are just a bit off (I've yet to find one that is perfect) and in which dimension (chord, span, length, height).

Error is ~+/- 0.0025 (I can reliably judge the value to halfway between gradations, which are 0.01; but it may be off by half that half. Any errors are my own.

All measurements in inches, unless otherwise noted. Reference is "Spitfire Mk. IX & XVI Engineered", Paul H. Montforten, 2007. Full size values taken from Montforten. Frames are vertical members in the fuselage, stations are vertical members of the wing (aka ribs).

First, wings. Measurements from pages 7.28 (span) and 7.31 (chord).


Edit: Removed original photo to avoid confusion with update.

Next fuselage. This started as an effort shared by Edgar Brooks, I simply took his original idea and expanded on it. For those who may care:

A = Frame 5 (aka datum or firewall)

B = Frame 8

C = L/e of door opening, not on a frame

D = Frame 11, albeit Frame 11 is slightly aft of the panel line (an inch?)

E = Frame 15

F = Empennage break, aft of Frame 18a, last vertical

G = Rudder post

0-G = 326.64 inches or 4.537" at 1/72

Measurements of full size is on page 2.32 of Montforten for fuselage, for empennage on page 6.18.


Edit: Removed original photo to avoid confusion with update.

Summary:

Overall the Airfix F IX is the closest to Montforten, both for the fuselage and wings. The AZ and Sword kits are short in the fuselage, but not the empennage, strangely. However, and I have to stress this, no Spitfire kit is "perfect" in terms of dimensions. All are off by just a few thousands of an inch, and unless one is comparing them at the mating surfaces, it is very difficult to see them as "off", to my eye. Personally, I prefer the Airfix IX for an early, full span IX, and the AZ for the later clipped wing IX/XVI (standard high back), but the Sword for the XVI RV (rear view or bubble top) (although I have quite a few Heller XVI RV on my shelf!).

Both the AZ and Sword kits are lean in the fuselage at Fr 15 by about 1mm. See photos below...

First - AZ left fuselage superimposed on Airfix right fuselage half:


Spitfire%2Bcomparisons%2B-%2B3.jpg

Secondly - AZ right fuselage superimposed on Sword left fuselage half (near perfect alignment, albeit length is obviously short):

Spitfire%2Bcomparisons%2B-%2B1.jpg

I am still doing some analysis of the Airfix PR XIX. The wings and fuselage are interchangeable with the Airfix IX kit (great for cross kitting to make the PR X/XI or F XIV) to determine how "off" it may be. Preliminarily it seems the nose is not too far off, but I still don't have a great reference value for the nose lengths (0-Fr 5), so much more to do in this area.

Since I had the fuselages taped together...

Left photo: AZ is on left (tan) and Airfix on right (light gray).

Right photo: Sword on left (dark gray) and AZ on right (tan).

Spitfire%2Bcomparisons%2B-%2B4.jpgSpitfire%2Bcomparisons%2B-%2B2.jpg

Hope you find this useful.

Tim

Edited by Greenshirt
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again Tim, it's such an interesting comparison.

Here is a pic of the pair that caused me to ask you about the wingspan in the first place. The Airfix is on the left and the AZ is on the right (both have been modified into Mk XIV's using the nose and tail from the Airfix XIX kit).

IMG_2893_zpsocmadzzd.jpg

The wing tips are lined up with the line on the bottom of the pic - the camera angle makes it look like they're over the line. It's quite noticeable that the Airfix wing is larger, and apparently it is even a little short in span according to your Montforten measurements.

I don't want be seen as 'piling on' the AZ kit, it's one of my favorites and this is my fourth build of one. It's all I've been able to do to not purchase another Joypack, especially with the new sprue included in the recently released KP boxing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

Interesting stuff and I'm in the throes of lengthening an Airfix XIX by about 1.5mm to get it to where I think it needs to be. As well as fuselages it would be really useful to have an analysis of the various kits' wing shapes and spans too. Personally I think the Airfix IX/XIX wings are only slightly too broad in chord, but the shape & span are spot on. Whereas Sword/AZ have lovely surface detail but are scaled to about 1/74. That has not prevented me form building Sword kits, but I'm keen to do them before the Eduard IX family start arriving. I expect that will change the game considerably.

Justin

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comparisons (argh on the maths though - I'll just trust you and use the conclusions!). But something that has always bothered me more than a couple of thou out on a span is the different 'appearance' of different marks of the same model from different manufacturers. For instance, Airfix's new Gladiator doesn't sit well alongside older resin Gauntlets. From sit to surface detail, the Airfix kit is visulally so much better, that it'd probably be better to convert the Airfix Gladiator to a Gauntlet for matching purposes. Has anyone else encountered this with other model types?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while I'm on, another thing I'd like to learn more about is the dihedral on the Spitfire wing. I often concentrate so much on getting the wing-fuselage join nice and tidythat by the time I've finished I notice that the dihedral may either be too much (Sword gives you quite a pronounced dihedral, as do the Airfix XIX/IX), or too little (e.g. new Airfix MkI if you're not careful), and you look at the thing from the front and start thinking: Oh - I've built a Hurricane"...

Justin

I'm now off to Southern Expo - Hoooray!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic, thorough work. I have to confess that I can find myself being overwhelmed by the data when I read things like this, and get into a flat spin "Ah, that one's more accurate in length/span - get it. But wait! The chord's off - right, buy that one instead. No wait! The curve of the nose isn't right! Arghh! Help!"

I'll happily be called a phillistine, but to be honest if you put two real Spitfires side by side in a field and for whatever reason one of them was a fraction under three inches (1mm in 1/72 scale) longer/shorter/wider/thinner than the other, I couldn't tell. Not by eye, not in a hundred years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't tell a 1mm difference by eye on a 1/72 model either, if you are only looking at the overall length/span. However, it does look odd on a chord, if not immediately obviously why. It does look wrong on a nose, and it does on the depth of the rear fuselage, which are much smaller distances. It's a matter of percentages and how familiar you are with the shapes concerned. As a rule of thumb, anything less than 2% will look OK and anything more than 5% will look wrong. That's what works for me. You can get a bit too familiar with the shape of the models and doubt when one company actually gets it right - the current Airfix Spitfire Mk.IX fuselage is spot on but drew early comment that it was "too long in the nose."

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I can zoom in on your side view of the Spit fuselage but I'm puzzled why the different Marks on the left have different dimensions quoted between frame A5 to Frame 19?

Those are different Airfix kits, unless noted at the AZ or Sword kits. Actual measurements of the 1/72 scale kits.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic, thorough work. I have to confess that I can find myself being overwhelmed by the data when I read things like this, and get into a flat spin "Ah, that one's more accurate in length/span - get it. But wait! The chord's off - right, buy that one instead. No wait! The curve of the nose isn't right! Arghh! Help!"

Me too! I usually go for a compromise when every kit is a bit wrong (in this case: the Sword kits are very expensive -- I have a lot of them -- therefore it must be the best). I'm hoping Eduard will be a game changer -- has anyone done this with their 1/48 kits?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't tell a 1mm difference by eye on a 1/72 model either, if you are only looking at the overall length/span. However, it does look odd on a chord, if not immediately obviously why. It does look wrong on a nose, and it does on the depth of the rear fuselage, which are much smaller distances. It's a matter of percentages and how familiar you are with the shapes concerned. As a rule of thumb, anything less than 2% will look OK and anything more than 5% will look wrong. That's what works for me. You can get a bit too familiar with the shape of the models and doubt when one company actually gets it right - the current Airfix Spitfire Mk.IX fuselage is spot on but drew early comment that it was "too long in the nose."

Even on the chord or the depth the fuselage, I struggle. If it's a 1mm cube on top of the nose, I'm good to spot it. Otherwise....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while I'm on, another thing I'd like to learn more about is the dihedral on the Spitfire wing. I often concentrate so much on getting the wing-fuselage join nice and tidythat by the time I've finished I notice that the dihedral may either be too much (Sword gives you quite a pronounced dihedral, as do the Airfix XIX/IX), or too little (e.g. new Airfix MkI if you're not careful), and you look at the thing from the front and start thinking: Oh - I've built a Hurricane"...

It's pretty simple - each wing tilted up 6 degrees, measured at the wing datum line, which for all practical modelling purposes can be regarded as synonymous with the line where the top and bottom halves of a kit wing meet at the leading edge.

Because the wing tapers in thickness, it's less than 6 degrees on the top surface, more than 6 degrees on the bottom surface.

Easiest practical way to get it right is to compare with a photo taken from exactly head on at a fair distance, like this one of ML407.

ml407_banner.jpg

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you mentioned Mr. Monforton's book, I will note that I bought a copy last year, and I have to say it is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen! 400+ full-color, over-sized pages that will quite literally allow you to accurately locate every rivet on a Spitfire Mk IX or XVI.

It is still available, and if expensive, believe me that it is VERY reasonably priced for what you get. I would encourage any Spitfire fan to look into it. Google "Monforton Press" and it will pop his site right up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fabulous book, and everyone who wants to express an opinion about Spitfire sizes and shapes should compare their comments to this book before proceeding. It belongs on every Spitfire enthusiast's shelf. Oh for some other dedicated person to produce supplements for the single-stage Merlin and the Griffon variants. Dream on.

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really all we need are supplements to Montforton. Nose for the early single stage Merlin (Mk I-VI), another for nose and tail of the Griffon series, and lastly for the revised wing for the 20 series, the final supplement being the Seafire variations.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This is an update. I've measured the new Eduard 1/72 late Mk IXc kit. I also added the Hasegawa kit for comparison since lots of folks like to comment on its shortcomings. Lastly, I cleaned up the photo a bit so that it is an easier read.

First the Fuselage:

Spitfire%2BFuselage%2BComparisons%2BLate

Tim's assessment of Eduard: Overall only .017" short (less than half a mm). Individual sections are a bit off, but no more/less than any other kit.

At some point I'll start measuring the verticals for the above stations.

Wings:

Spitfire%2BWing%2BComparisons%2BLate%2BM

Tim's assessment of Eduard: both chord and wingspan are short, but less than half a mm for chord, and only about a mm for span. Since it appears consistent along the length, the chord is likely not noticeable.

Overall: If the Eduard kit builds well then I'd have to say the slight errors I can live with. In terms of Value for Money, Eduard certainly is. As I keep saying, no kit is perfect.

Tim

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Tim!

I really appreciate your careful analysis. They are all very close, but I think the Airfix and Sword are probably under appreciated for their accuracy. The most glaring discrepancy for me is the AZ span (0.184" short overall). Fractions of a mm are not noticeable to my eye, but 3/16 of an inch definitely is - hence my post #2 above. Building the Airfix and AZ together caused me to wonder what was going on.

Once again, the AZ kit is wonderful: inexpensive, fine detail, lots of options and spares - I've built four of them and enjoyed every one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will you also add the wing span comparison as that is where the largest discrepancies occur?

Take the C/L - A measurement and multiply by 2. There is too much variation possible due to the various tips involved, and whether they are molded on or require cutting/gluing. If the error exists between C/L - A then it's really not fixable (kit design flaw), but if outside the A-A rib then either sanding or shimming will fix the error (basic modeling skills).

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
35 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

"a" would be very interesting to find for certain, as the new Airfix Spitfire has a longer nose than in its previous incarnation.

 

So does the AZ Spit compared to its Sword counterpart.

Precisely the reason why I posted this question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...