Spitfire Mk XII

[Seahawk]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 4:01 PM, 72modeler said:

… as the Hasegawa fuselage from the transport joint back is identical to the Eduard fuselages. BTW, for any who have the Paragon XII conversion and are interested, the cross section of the Hasegawa and Eduard kits at the firewall where the cut needs to be made is identical, so the conversion will fit either kit. 

Two very useful facts there: thank you.  But how compatible is the surface detail of the Paragon part with the very fine detail on the Eduard fuselage?

[Dave Fleming]

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

Two very useful facts there: thank you.  But how compatible is the surface detail of the Paragon part with the very fine detail on the Eduard fuselage?

 

IMO Mr Surfacer makes it compatible! I think the detail on the Eduard kit is a little too much, especially the rivetting! But that's just my view!

 

I think if I was doing a mk 12 conversion these days, especially  an early one with fixed tailwheel, I might start with the AZ models mk Vc (albeit it's a bit expensive)

[Graham Boak]

2 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

One thing I've never been sure about the mk XII is if the oil cooler and radiator are the same size as the ones on the mk V or larger

Neither was I, so I asked and was told yes they were.  Presumably the tropical radiator on the MkV made up for the increased power of the Griffon.

2 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Graham Boak
Nexus a bit slow this morning.

[72modeler]

4 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

This means different panel lines (with of course the wingfold lines but IIRC also a few others) and also a different shape of the wheel wells.

This is also a detail to keep in mind if converting a XV to a XII

No sweat on the wing fold lines, as they can easily be scribed, but I wasn't aware that the shape of the wheel bays was different- guess I will have to do some research on that little detail. Thanks for the heads-up, Giorgio!

Mike

[72modeler]

3 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Two very useful facts there: thank you.  But how compatible is the surface detail of the Paragon part with the very fine detail on the Eduard fuselage?

Puff, pant, wheeze....just got back downstairs from the hobby workroom! Re-checked my Paragon XII cowling with my Eduard and Hasegawa IX fuselage halves. The detailing on the Paragon cowling is very restrained, just like the corresponding details on the other two kits; Paragon gives the panel line that runs along the bottom of the exhausts as well as the lower cowling section as a finely scribed line with the fasteners being very, very petite. Comparing what's there to the drawings I have, the only major visible detail that's missing is the circular panel that covers the coolant filler location on the LH fwd cylinder head fairing. (There isn't much in the way of panel lines or detail features on a Griffon-engined Spitfire cowling.) The small cooling scoop on the upper RH side is very, very small and could use a replacement that has an opening, but it's VERY tiny! I will probably drill out the fasteners very slightly to make them more visible, (No, I didn't count them to see if the correct number were there!)  but I don't think there will be any major visible differences between the resin cowling and the injected fuselage. I think I will also replace the exhaust stacks with some that are opened out from my Quickboost/SBS inventory, as they are an improvement over the ones molded on the resin cowling. Wish I could post photos, as it would be a lot more useful for you and the others. (That's one of my New Year's resolutions!) Hope this helps!

Mike

 

While I was fiddling with the kit parts, I compared the Eduard and Hasegawa Mk IX fuselage halves....VERY interesting- but I'm not going there right now! (As Fagin said in Oliver! "I think I need to think this out again!")

[Bedders]

 

 

Justin

Edited December 17, 2018 by Bedders

[Welkin]

On 12/15/2018 at 9:57 AM, Denford said:

- Removing and re-using the blower intake from the redundant nose section; long and patient abrasion till it's free.

 

Any ICM 1:48 Spitfire IX comes with the blower intake - part E16 

[Graham Boak]

2 hours ago, 72modeler said:

While I was fiddling with the kit parts, I compared the Eduard and Hasegawa Mk IX fuselage halves....VERY interesting- but I'm not going there right now! (As Fagin said in Oliver! "I think I need to think this out again!")

 

That's a terrible tease.  I presumed that were were talking 1/72 or have we switched entirely to 1/48?  Everyone knows, I thought, that the 1/72 Hasegawa Spitfire is beautiful but too short and slender in the rear fuselage, whereas the Eduard is perfect.  Laying them side by side (which has its difficulties as my Hasegawa fuselage is assembled whereas my Eduard is not) the only difference standing out is that the Hasegawa nose is too short.  This is understandable, because before Paul Fontenay's masterwork all such Spitfire noses were too short, and it was Airfix that first got it right.  (Only to be criticised as being too long, but I spent quite a bit of time with the plans and the kit, and it is right.  Shame about the excess chord on the wing.)  So out came my assembled. making comparisons even more difficult, Airfix Mk.IX and sure enough Hasegawa is a bit short but Eduard is the same length as the Airfix.  As, interestingly enough, is the Sword, though there's something I haven't worked out yet about the wing on the Sword kit.

 

So is that your conclusions too?

[Bedders]

Oops my earlier post seems to have disappeared. There I said that the new KP Vc was nice-looking at first glance but once compared to plans is too short in the fuselage (as are KP IXs) and much too short in the wingspan (as are their IXs), which was a disappointment for me. The Swords are also slightly short in both dimensions, but not as much as the KP Vc. The KP Vb wing seems about the same size as the Sword wings, i.e. slightly better than the Vc wings, which are no doubt based on the old IX tool, whereas the Vb wing is a new tool. Eduard wings look excellent and the Airfix I/II/Va is also pretty good (though their I/II/Va fuselage is slightly short) while the Airfix IX/XIX wings are a bit on the broad side chord-wise. So with all this in mind I'm still thinking Sword XV + mods = XII.

 

Justin

[Dave Fleming]

Jamie Haggo did a Seafire XVII by adding the nose, rudder and other bits from a Sword kit to the Eduard XVI kit

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 

That's a terrible tease.  I presumed that were were talking 1/72 or have we switched entirely to 1/48?  Everyone knows, I thought, that the 1/72 Hasegawa Spitfire is beautiful but too short and slender in the rear fuselage, whereas the Eduard is perfect.  Laying them side by side (which has its difficulties as my Hasegawa fuselage is assembled whereas my Eduard is not) the only difference standing out is that the Hasegawa nose is too short.  This is understandable, because before Paul Fontenay's masterwork all such Spitfire noses were too short, and it was Airfix that first got it right.  (Only to be criticised as being too long, but I spent quite a bit of time with the plans and the kit, and it is right.  Shame about the excess chord on the wing.)  So out came my assembled. making comparisons even more difficult, Airfix Mk.IX and sure enough Hasegawa is a bit short but Eduard is the same length as the Airfix.  As, interestingly enough, is the Sword, though there's something I haven't worked out yet about the wing on the Sword kit.

 

So is that your conclusions too?

Pretty much the same conlusion, Graham. If you put one 1/72 Hasegawa Mk IX fuselage half against the opposite Eduard Mk IX fuselage half, and align them so that the cockpit openings match, what I see is the Hasegawa fuselage is about 3" short at the nose and 3" short at the rear in profile- if you slide the fuselage of the Hasegawa kit aft 3", then the fin and position of the horizontal stabilizers matches the Eduard kit. In addition, aligning the Eduard and Hasegawa fuselage halves so they match along the spine, the lower fuselage of the Hasegawa kit is not quite 3" too shallow across its length from the trailing edge of the wing to the trailing edge of the fin. Also, in plan view, the  wing root fillet at the trailing edge of the Hasegawa kit doesn't look right, as  it appears to me that it  flares out too soon to meet the trailing edge of the wing and is about 2" too wide in chord, compared to the fillet on the Eduard kit. None of these corrections are beyond most model-builder's abilities, but are tedious to be sure, and would be unnecessary if the kit were more accurate. Since the Eduard Mk IX's are relatively cheap and I have several, then I will most likely mate my Paragon conversion to it, as the fuselage is bang-on, and the nose and redundant radiator would have to be removed in any case, from either the Hasegawa or Eduard wings. That being said, the Eduard IXc kit does not have the molded-in bay for the retractable tail wheel I need to do MB882, which is the one I like best, so it's either trash an Eduard VIII kit for the fuselage, or make life easier and do one of the batch that were made from Mk Vc's which had the same fixed tail wheel as the IXc....decisions, decisions! Or, I could trash the rear fuselage of one of my Hasegawa VII/VIII's for the retractable tail wheel bay. strut, and doors, as they have so many issues. So many models- so little time! BTW, Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Mike

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Not quite what I found.  I aligned the rudder posts of the Eduard and Hasegawa.   The cockpit aligned, the fuselage was not too shallow, the nose was short.  The kit does have a short fuel tank.  I didn't notice whether the wings aligned, but I thought that they did  (open to re-assessment in five or so minutes...).   I now have a considerably higher opinion of the Hasegawa, though there is I think an argument that the fuselage is too thin.  If so, this doesn't show where the wing extension meets the fuselage.  Perhaps time to get the micrometer out.  The fillet is easy to adjust, as you say.  If I was going to modify it at all, it would be to lengthen the nose.

 

All Mk.XIIs had Mk.Vc wings, a dedicated new fuselage, and the tail from the Mk.VIII line or either the end of the Mk.Vc or a Mk.IX.  I strongly suspect that the Mk.XII fuselage was also that of the Mk.VIII, Griffon mods aside.  Given that the identity goes with the fuselage, I'd say there's a stronger case that they were based on the Mk.VIII rather than the Mk.V.   But definitely not "made from" unless you add "bits".  There are beasts with a pedigree of their own.

 

So many Spitfire models...  Well, it saves arguing about Bf109s.

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I aligned the rudder posts of the Eduard and Hasegawa. 

Gosh, Graham- I don't know what to say! I just went back up to the workbench and laid my Eduard Mk VIII LH fuselage half against  my Hasegawa Mk VIII RH fuselage half, and aligned them so the rudder posts were even. Looking down on the fuselage halves, I measured the Hasegawa cockpit openings were 3 scale inches aft of the Eduard kit; the firewall panel line was 3 scale inches aft of the same panel line on the Eduard kit, and the front edge of the Hasegawa kit nose was 5 scale inches short of the Eduard kit. In addition, the slots for the exhaust on the Hasegawa kit do not align with the slot on the Eduard kit. I think maybe the next time I am in the UK, I can come to your place, or the next time you're in Texas, you can come to mine and together we can thrash this out and get it right! Since there seems to be no issue with the dimensions of the Eduard IXc kit, I'll use an Eduard Mk VIII fuselage  or graft the rear fuselage/fin/tail wheel well from one of my Hasegawa Mk VIII's to the Eduard IXc and the Paragon nose, spinner, and oil cooler. Of course, by the time I get around to the build, somebody will release a new-tool kit. Or, I could just say to h---- with it and build my CMR resin Mk XII out of the box. ( I think I need a stiff drink!)

Mike

[Welkin]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

So many Spitfire models...  Well, it saves arguing about Bf109s.

Of course - the Spitfire is without doubt the most interesting aircraft ever!

[Graham Boak]

Looks like time to haul out Monforton and a good ruler.  Or perhaps just let it ride.  Having put them all away in the interests of getting at least a little modelling done (and it was very little) I'm not getting them out again tonight, however good the cause.

 

I entirely agree that the nose is short (it was, after all, pre-Monforton), and the firewall in the wrong place - I did say that the fuel tank was not long enough, which would lead to that.  In which case of course the exhausts won't align.  However I didn't see the cockpit enclosures (allowing for them not being identical anyway)  as being wildly out   Admittedly I was placing a fuselage half against an assembled fuselage, so there's room for some error there.   However 3 scale inches is 1mm in real distances.  That appears excessive.  To be honest, I don't think the wings quite align either.  However when you place the rudder posts together, then the Hasegawa rear fuselage does not appear shallow and short, which was the usual criticism made against it.

 

I must admit to (accuracy aside) liking the Hasegawa kit as a model and not feeling anything like as attached to the horribly over-engineered Eduard.  Why make something in two, three or four parts when it can be done with less?  I feel it was downright mean to produce so many variations of canopies on the one sprue but carefully arrange it so that only one could be made and all the rest just waste.  Produce all the variations except the Mk.VIII with the broad blister which at least one of their options requires?  And is the nose ahead of the wings really a bit short? (Heresy, heresy - but I'm only saying maybe.)  Is the flatter dihedral really right?  Maybe I will haul things out tomorrow after all.....

 

I did manage to find a spare fuselage from an AZ Seafire 45 - a bit if carving here and there will give a Mk.XII....but that way madness lies.

[FinnAndersen]

To add to Graham's post, I've always liked the Hasegawa kit, short or not. It's very easy to assemble and produces a model that anyone will identify as a Spitfire. 

 

I also agree that Eduard has pushed engineering a but (too?) far on their IX family, however I consider the result worth the effort.

 

Coming back to the starting topic, if I had a Paragon nose, I'd use an Eduard IXc early as the basis kit to produce an XII.

 

/Finn

[NPL]

I wonder why this concentratioon on the Paragon nose when you have other conversion possibilities:

 

Airwaves SC40048                       Spitfire Mk.XII (Airfix Mk.VIII)

ARBA 2000                                  Spitfire MK.XII Conversion

Bringuier RC-003                         Spitfire Mk.XII Conversion (Tamiya Mk.Vb)

 

They may be difficult to find but not more difficult than the Paragon conversion. Bringuier's nose is still available in 1:72

[gingerbob]

15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I presumed that were were talking 1/72 or have we switched entirely to 1/48?  Everyone knows, I thought, that the 1/72 Hasegawa Spitfire is beautiful but too short and slender in the rear fuselage, whereas the Eduard is perfect. 

 

...the Hasegawa nose is too short.  This is understandable, because before Paul Fontenay's masterwork all such Spitfire noses were too short, and it was Airfix that first got it right.

 

First of all, I suspect that it is much the same between Hase's 1/48 and 1/72 Mk.IXs.  Or perhaps they are both short, but in different ways!  (And no, dear readers, I'm not wishing to turn this toward a 1/48 Hase Spit discussion!)

 

Anyway, I'm confused about your "before Fontenoy" comments.  I thought (second hand, and questionable memory?) that the accepted knowledge had been that the IX cowling was about 9" longer than the original Spitfire (single-speed Merlin) cowling, but that Fontenoy says the engine (really, supercharger case) is about 9" longer, but in fact the cowl is only 8" longer?  If that's an accurate summation, then pre-Fontenoy should be longer, shouldn't it?  You talk about the fuel tank bay, but that never changed length (not counting the angled-top firewall), so should have been consistent knowledge.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, do we really KNOW the Eduard is perfect, or do we just assume that it is?

 

bob

[Giorgio N]

On the best 1/72 Eduard kit to choose for a conversion, personally I'd probably just stick with the Mk.IXc late for a number of reaons.

For a starter the wing is the closest, being a C wing with narrow bulges, identical to the one used by the XII, apart of course from the radiators. No need to tamper with the extra panel lines of the VIII or removing the wide bulge of the IXc early kit.

Then there's the tailwheel... yes, half of the Mk.XII production had a retractable tailwheel and the Eduard IX fuselage does not have the cut out for the wheel well, however all the parts are on the sprues, including tailwheel itself and the doors. Building one of these 50 aircraft would involve cutting away the bay, that is not IMHO a big job and saves getting another kit just for this part.

All Eduard kits also include the early elevators, and here comes another detail I can't remember about... a number of Mk.XII sure used the elevators with the smaller compensation horn, IIRC others used the later elevators with the larger compensation horn but I'm not sure about this. In any case MB882 had the earlier elevators. This is another detail that must be kept in mind when using the Hasegawa kit, of course it's not a difficult modification (just fill, rescribe and sand).

Now here we're focusing on MK.IXs and the like, but ideally the best starting point would be a Vc... Justin's comment on the accuracy of the few available kits are very useful here and sounds like starting from a Sword kit would be the best option. Unfortunately I'd say, since the Sword Vc is not exactly easily available today. I have not managed to lay my hands on the KP Vc yet, sounds like KP missed the chance of giving us the definitive kit of the variant though.

Starting from a Seafire XV of course remains a feasible solution: wing panels and wheel wells must be modified, all Seafire reinforcing plates removed, the carburetor intake replaced (that may mean reworking the nose area). Starting from an early "A frame" hook aircraft would be better, as this means not having to replace the rudder. Radiators and elevators would need the usual correction work.

[Graham Boak]

1 hour ago, gingerbob said:

 

Anyway, I'm confused about your "before Fontenoy" comments.  I thought (second hand, and questionable memory?) that the accepted knowledge had been that the IX cowling was about 9" longer than the original Spitfire (single-speed Merlin) cowling, but that Fontenoy says the engine (really, supercharger case) is about 9" longer, but in fact the cowl is only 8" longer?  If that's an accurate summation, then pre-Fontenoy should be longer, shouldn't it?  You talk about the fuel tank bay, but that never changed length (not counting the angled-top firewall), so should have been consistent knowledge.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, do we really KNOW the Eduard is perfect, or do we just assume that it is?

 

bob

 

You're probably confused because I said Fontenay instead of Monforton: I was going to go back and correct it but too late now.  I don't know what we thought before Monforton, but the old Airfix, the Ventura, and as far as I know now the Frog and Matchbox and Lotnia and and, were shorter  in the nose than the new Airfix Mk.IX.  Which matches Monforton, which has not been faulted on this point.

 

As to Eduard, I presume others have checked and been satisfied.  Until now I had no doubts either, and they aren't exactly major.  It is still georgous to look at and a most impressive piece of tooling.

[Dave Fleming]

24 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

 

You're probably confused because I said Fontenay instead of Monforton: I was going to go back and correct it but too late now.  I don't know what we thought before Monforton, but the old Airfix, the Ventura, and as far as I know now the Frog and Matchbox and Lotnia and and, were shorter  in the nose than the new Airfix Mk.IX.  Which matches Monforton, which has not been faulted on this point.

 

 

Add the Heller mk XVI to that list as well. The CMR resin one I measured was correct however

[gingerbob]

Ha, I actually slid right over the Fontenoy/Monforton part (my brain did stop for a nano-second, but then shrugged nearly imperceptibly).

 

Were all those "pre" IXs consistent in their not-long-enough-ness?  I'd have thought a IX's length a pretty simple matter to get right!

[NPL]

when quoting Monforton, never forget his warning: Of all the Spitfires IX he measured for his book, not two of them were absolutely identical (although the differences would probably be difficult to spot on scale models),

[Graham Boak]

Yes, but he overegged it, because a Spitfire was built of a few major pieces built on production jigs with tolerances measured in tens of thou, so there just isn't a possibility of inches of difference when they roll off the line.  It might be possible to argue otherwise when dealing with warbirds after heaven-knows-what hacking around in 50+ years.  However, much of the detail was taken from Supermarine drawings.

 

I'd have thought that the length would have been well known (assuming here that what was published and readily available at the time was right).  There are known errors in (for example) the Aeromodeller plans which came out after the original Airfix Mk.IX.  Even recent manufacturers have confused the length with the round rudder with the length appropriate for the "Mk.XII" one.  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.

[NPL]

He didn't write inches. His point was perhaps -- but I am too lacy to go upstairs to find the book (too cold today) -- that different producers (outsourcing of various items) were to blame. 

 

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).

 

I would probably go first for the MAP Plan Pack, but these drawings are certainly not without problems. I remember Edgar saying that A.L. Bentley's upcoming drawings might be 'definitive', and something can be found on the net, but the scale is not very helpful. But what about Clint's (in Bracken), if scaled up from 1:96?