Spitfire Mk XII

[Graham Boak]

Clint's were considered first class when they came out, but I'd certainly not trust the MAP set.  I recall that they looked lovely when they first came out,  but somewhat fell from grace.  Possibly the wing is in the wrong place?  Basically just go with Monforton, as he provides enough dimensional data to allow the production of your own drawings at any scale you want to do the work for.  Excel removes most of the drudgery and will even draw the curves - although extracting them onto paper to scale may prove problematic.

 

Or speak to a professional printer and get copies of Monforton pages scaled down?

[NPL]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Clint's were considered first class when they came out, but I'd certainly not trust the MAP set.  I recall that they looked lovely when they first came out,  but somewhat fell from grace.  Possibly the wing is in the wrong place?  Basically just go with Monforton, as he provides enough dimensional data to allow the production of your own drawings at any scale you want to do the work for.  Excel removes most of the drudgery and will even draw the curves - although extracting them onto paper to scale may prove problematic.

 

Or speak to a professional printer and get copies of Monforton pages scaled down?

I of course have the book. The plates were sold out, but I can work with the plates in his book. 

 

Of course this discussion has been going on for years and years, and will probably never stop. 

[Troy Smith]

10 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I did try to get a measurement of a current top cowling from the warbird/enthusiast fraternity via Flypast's Historic forum, but nobody bit.

for a IX cowling, or a XII cowling?   Peter Arnold was eventually able to run  a tape measure over his Seafire XVII cowling parts for me, which should be the same as the XII.

The reason I asked was related to this

8 hours ago, NPL said:

As to plans, they are often as problematic as the kits. Thus I have the feeling that these books may explain some of the problems in the Tamiya 1990 series:

 

Sato, Osamu (ed.), Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire Mk. VI-XVI (Aero Detail, 27; Dai Nippon, 2000).

Sato, Osamu (ed.), Vickers-Supermarine Griffon Spitfire (Aero Detail, 30; Dai Nippon, 2001).

 

IIRC correctly,  there was a set of Japanese plans that matched the Hasegawa fuselage fine.  Can't remember which though, or where I read it.  ah, ok here  http://www.modelingmadness.com/spl/hk17.htm

Quote

Perhaps the most important thing the group accomplished was to discover that H-K had used the Aero Detail drawings for their initial design.  These drawings may look wonderful, but they are far from accurate; the only set of drawings that show the wildly-inaccurate Hasegawa 1/48 Spitfire IX to be “correct” are those found in the Aero Detail book on the Spitfire.  

 

I think John Adams aka @John Aero  said that the problems in the Airfix 1/48 XII kit could be traced to some plans in a Polish book,  boy, this took some finding, https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/63454-fuselage-dimensions/   

 

On 5/2/2011 at 19:00, John Aero said:

Well, I now know which plans Airfix used for the XII. The plans show all of the known faults perfectly. SAMI Datafile Griffon Spitfires, produced in Poland.

 as I was trying to cross reference the Cooke Spitfire XIV/XIX/XVIII/XII plans, with comments made by Edgar brooks that some of the panel lines were in the wrong place.  

 

There must be a set of plans about which explain the wrong wing chord which keeps cropping up in various kits, in the 1/48th the "Tamiya wing" (too broad at the centre) is a feature of these 1/48th kits,  Tamiya I/V,  Occidental(Italeri rebox) IX/XVI, Academy XIV, Airfix Spitfire XII/Seafire XVII.    

 

In 72nd I believe it affects some of the Airfix kits, the XIX and IX?  Not sure what else.

I got distracted researching this, and need to wrap up now, so apologies for anything disjointed. 

 

[Graham Boak]

There's a simple reason for the wrong planform - people are drawing elliptical wings that start from the wing root rather than starting from just outside of the aircraft centre-line. On the real thing the trailing edge is already curling forward when it appears from the side of the fuselage fairing, rather than going straight out as in the mistaken view.  Hence they end up too broad in the centre.  Although I dare say some plans do look like that, the model companies are probably not all working from the same one of them.

[Greenshirt]

23 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Looks like time to haul out Monforton and a good ruler.

 

On 7/11/2016 at 10:02 AM, Greenshirt said:

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:

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:

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

[gingerbob]

Ah yes, now I remember!  I'm trying very hard not to get seduced into 1/72nd Spitfires- 48th is hard enough to keep up with.  I have an Airfix I and 22 (in 72, I mean), but lately I've been hearing these devious whispers in my mind...

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Ah yes, now I remember!  I'm trying very hard not to get seduced into 1/72nd Spitfires- 48th is hard enough to keep up with.  I have an Airfix I and 22 (in 72, I mean), but lately I've been hearing these devious whispers in my mind...

 

A collection of Spitfires in 1/72 scale makes perfect sense: 1/72 is IMHO a scale quintessentially British and fits perfectly what is afterall THE British fighter. 😁

 

[NPL]

3 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Ah yes, now I remember!  I'm trying very hard not to get seduced into 1/72nd Spitfires- 48th is hard enough to keep up with.  I have an Airfix I and 22 (in 72, I mean), but lately I've been hearing these devious whispers in my mind...

You cannot be serious. We have had nothing for at least two years. Now the future seems much brighter. Of course the world would be perfect if Airfix in 2020 issued a Mk.XIVc and Tamiya a Mk.Vc. 

[gingerbob]

Ah, but Airfix is already giving me the Spitfire of my dreams in a few months!  Except, never satisfied, I also want a 1/32 FR.XIV.  I would even "accept" a 1/24th one, but...

 

(p.s. Santa, if you're reading this, I'll happily take a 1:1, also.)

[malpaso]

1 hour ago, gingerbob said:

 

(p.s. Santa, if you're reading this, I'll happily take a 1:1, also.)

I struggle to store 8-9 1/72 Spitfires; no idea where to put a full-size one!  I suppose as a gate guardian which would save gardening as there’d be no room left for plants...

[Seahawk]

5 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Ah yes, now I remember!  I'm trying very hard not to get seduced into 1/72nd Spitfires- 48th is hard enough to keep up with.  I have an Airfix I and 22 (in 72, I mean), but lately I've been hearing these devious whispers in my mind...

Remember, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents... etc.

[gingerbob]

Yeah, but that would involve repentance!

 

I think if I suddenly came in possession of a 1:1 Spitfire I'd find somewhere to keep it.

Edited December 19, 2018 by gingerbob

[NPL]

4 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Ah, but Airfix is already giving me the Spitfire of my dreams in a few months!  Except, never satisfied, I also want a 1/32 FR.XIV.  I would even "accept" a 1/24th one, but...

 

(p.s. Santa, if you're reading this, I'll happily take a 1:1, also.)

Just remember that Pacific Coast's Mk.XIVc in 1:32 is not bad at all. If you can find it.

[NPL]

7 minutes ago, NPL said:

Just remember that Pacific Coast's Mk.XIVc in 1:32 is not bad at all. If you can find it.

and it can be found on ebay for around 60-70USD 

[Graham Boak]

I see one glaring error in that table.  The Airfix Mk.IX kit is known to be wider in chord than others, and certainly wider than any other in my collection, whereas the Hasegawa one is about the same as the others.  I was looking that just that comparison last night, thinking that maybe it isn't as obvious to the eye as I'd thought, now that the  kit is assembled.   So I've just gone and remeasured the pair by putting a ruler on the wing roots.  The Airfix one did come out at 1.4 inches, as in the table, but the Hasegawa should be 1.35 not 1.45.  (Ruler not micrometer, so no digit after the third decimal point, or absolute value for the second, to be honest.  If you want to measure it properly and come up with 1.34 or 1.36, I wouldn't argue.)

[gingerbob]

21 minutes ago, NPL said:

Just remember that Pacific Coast's Mk.XIVc in 1:32 is not bad at all. If you can find it.

https://vlipsy.com/vlip/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-hes-already-got-one-vVsWH3lb

 

Only trouble is, it ain't a low-back.

[NPL]

10 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

 

 

Only trouble is, it ain't a low-back.

How many Mk.XIVc lowbacks can you find?

[Greenshirt]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

but the Hasegawa should be 1.35 not 1.45. 

You are correct. I must say I measured thrice before putting values to paper but must have fat-fingered when I typed it. Verified just now that it is indeed 1.35 inches, measured using calipers. 

 

Tim

[Bedders]

Must say I'm slightly bamboozled over how the AZ (of which I have a couple of boxings - T.9 and Russian F.IX) and Hasegawa (of which I have none and have never actually seen one in the flesh), managed to be so short in both fuselage and wingspan. What's so frustrating is that the detail on the AZs is really top-notch, so I'm starting to think about surgical procedures that might do the needful. On the AZ the main shrinkage on the wing seems to be at the ammo tanks for the 20mm, which is short by a country mile. So I'm toying with the idea of 'chop & plug' and it might look OK, but then again I might just have another glass of wine...

 

Justin

[Graham Boak]

The Hasegawa is not short in the wing.  It is short in the fuselage because it was based on poor plans - the nose to wing is correct, and the canopy to tail is correct, but it is as if they were from two different Spitfires, because the length of the fuel tank in front of the cockpit is too short.    It therefore looks odd.  The fix is to add a section behind the wing fillet and move the cockpit backwards - about 60thou/1.5mm

 

The previous AZ kit was fractionally too short because they took the length of a round-top rudder Mk.IX and fitted it to the shape of a Mk.XII rudder.  I don't have the HQT Mk.IX to compare, but the quoted span of the AZ is short by .07in, or less than 2mm.   I defy anyone to detect this by eye - although if it is entirely due to an error over a small distance then the dimensions of a panel could look wrong.  (So rescribe the panel?)

 

Dimensions according to Monforton/Greenshirt.

 

I must admit to being more surprised that the Sword wing is the correct size, for the other ones I have seen are short.  I'll dig out my Sword Mk.XVI, but tomorrow...

[Graham Boak]

On 12/19/2018 at 11:49 PM, Graham Boak said:

 

I must admit to being more surprised that the Sword wing is the correct size, for the other ones I have seen are short.  I'll dig out my Sword Mk.XVI, but tomorrow...

 

OK, checked.  The Sword Mk.XVI wing is not the same size as Airfix, Eduard, Hasegawa but some 2mm short.  Ditto the Seafire III.  That's simply by laying the two wings together, tip to not-quite tip.  I suppose I should have checked the new KP early Spitfires... this Spitfire business is never ending.

 

I'll' also add that my Eduard wing has less dihedral than any of the others.  So not quite perfect, then.

[FinnAndersen]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

...

I'll' also add that my Eduard wing has less dihedral than any of the others.  So not quite perfect, then.

Is that fully assembled?

 

/Finn

[Graham Boak]

Finn: No, unassembled lower wings.  I haven't started either.

[72modeler]

Bedders, Finn, and Graham,

 

For what it's worth, I also found the AZ and Sword wings to be short in span- especially frustrating as I bought the joypack with three IX kits a while back! Not horribly so, but certainly noticeable.

I have learned there are two RAF airplanes you had better get right when making a new-tool 1/72 or 1/48 kit- a Spitfire and a Hurricane!

 

P.S. I had NO idea that my post about the Spitfire Mk XII would have so many views! Just goes to show the enormous interest in that marque held by so many modelers- I hope the kitmakers seize the opportunity and make us all happy- I don't even care if it's in 1/48; those guys deserve better than they've gotten!

Mike

 

BTW Graham- in view of our previous conversation, when I re-examined my AZ IX's for span, I found they have exactly the  same fuselage issues as the Hasegawa IX/VII/VIII kits...hmmm?

Edited December 21, 2018 by 72modeler
added additional text

[FinnAndersen]

On 21/12/2018 at 18:31, Graham Boak said:

Finn: No, unassembled lower wings.  I haven't started either.

This is the assembled dihedral on Sword, Tamiya V and Eduard VIII

 

 

/Finn