Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Homebee

1/48 - Supermarine Spitfire F.R. Mk.XIVe by Airfix - released

Recommended Posts

Sorry I didn’t explain myself very well and I can’t do those photos with arrows and circles. I am not referring to the two small “ teardrop “ bulges on the wing fillet, I know what they are. If you look at this area from directly above, just outboard of the bulges  the fillet edge has a slight kink just where it angles out again from the fuselage. Hope this makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 3:49 PM, Denford said:

The only answer to 100% complete, fault free, kits is 100% inspection: not really practical.  Perhaps, with going too much off thread, someone with Industrial Experience of Quality Control and Selective Sampling could make a posting or perhaps start a new thread about this.

 

Meanwhile, despite all the grumbling and reports of faults, omissions and shortcomings you 1/48 modellers are lucky, very lucky, and should be grateful to Airfix for their choice of this subject.  Those of us who model in God's scale (1/72) must try and make what we can of the Fujimi, Academy or Sword though I must admit I've not tried the last named.

 

I had hoped that a runaway success of the kit, with perhaps a follow-on 18, might persuade Airfix to break their practice on not down-scaling and give us renderings in 1/72 .  I have much less hope now.

Take it from me, the Sword kit is NOT good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Built a first Airfix 1/72 Hurricane Mk I and had problems (parts breaking when carefully removed from the sprues, front of the fuselage warped). Then I bought a second one and it was a joy to build. Was it me and did I learn my lesson so things went better the second time, yes partlally for sure. Still I'll keep thinking Airfix is sub par concerning quality control.  But that won't keep me from buying and building their kits.

Edited by PattheCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 9:11 AM, Welkin said:

I have a feeling that Airfix are correct here - I can't find the exact reference but I think that it is part of the wheel folding mechanism?

Eduard's Spitfire IX kits also have a bulge in the same location.

I finally got down to inspect my two kits: Perfect in any aspect. Even the cover over the oil tank fitted perfectly.  It seems that during the rush to get the kit out, a series of imperfect molding slipped through. 

 

Control cannot be 100% but imperfect examples as shown here are so obviously not OK that even a casual kind of industrial control should have discovered the problems. As such Airfix got a lot of negative attention which had not been the case if the control of the sprues at the factory had been more effective.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 5:44 PM, GMK said:

You’re referring to @Paul Budzik, a member here, presumably? You’re all ‘online guys’ to me - and all worthy of equal respect. 

Nope I was referring to this one: 

I don't think I was disrespectful to him- just that he appeared to value good fit over accuracy - as he seemed to gloss over the woeful shape of the Trumpeter P-40F in another video and I pretty much quoted what his view was. I think his view is wrong.
Cheer

Jonners

Paul is a member here but hasn't posted since April 2018.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another clip, this time with a couple of fixes.

 

I see this time he hasn't fixed in the cockpit sides first 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tank152 said:

Another clip, this time with a couple of fixes.

 

I see this time he hasn't fixed in the cockpit sides first 

He's probably fished the instructions out of the bin

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that tank 152, very interesting. They say a picture paints a thousand words and his highlighted exactly what I meant about the shape of the fillet around the teardrop bulges. It’s interesting that his solution was to file a corresponding shape in the wing rather than try to straighten the fillet edges. My solution to the fit of the tank cover would have been something very similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to paraphrase the fixes video:  Apply a spacer. Use a bit of filler.

Jonners

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 3:49 PM, Denford said:

Meanwhile, despite all the grumbling and reports of faults, omissions and shortcomings you 1/48 modellers are lucky, very lucky, and should be grateful to Airfix for their choice of this subject.  Those of us who model in God's scale (1/72) must try and make what we can of the Fujimi, Academy or Sword though I must admit I've not tried the last named.

I've nearly finished two Fujimi low back Mk XIVs. I really didn't find the kit too bad, although I did buy the Quick Boost cowling and Barracuda wheels . I did initially buy two Sword kits, but I just didn't get on with it at all. So I used the Sword cockpit, canopy and radiators on the Fujimi kits and ended up with a couple of half decent looking Mk XIVs. I've heard people have problems with the fuselage spine, but mine seemed fine with a bit of test fitting. Of course, a new XIV in 1/72 would be nice of course, but I quite liked the Fujimi kit.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Andrew Jones said:

He's probably fished the instructions out of the bin

Exactly what I thought! 

The way he got the saddle tank to over hang towards the rear was useful. I've seen 4 built up now on forums and no one has got that correct up to now, they've all been fit flush along the full length.

7 hours ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

So to paraphrase the fixes video:  Apply a spacer. Use a bit of filler.

Jonners

 

So now you've got no excuse to build your 2nd kit with the saddle tank fit correctly! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the overhang at the rear of the saddle tank being though, that while it is "there" in 1/48th scale it's so minute as to make any attempt to meaningfully replicate it look like a pice of battleship armour has been bolted over the tank.  I'd say we are talking a few thou of an inch in scale, and creating that subtlety subtly will be hard.  If you look at photos of the real thing it's hard to spot sometimes at anything other than "walkaround" close up distance, or when the sun is at the correct angle.

I'm not saying modellers shouldn't try if they so wish, but that I have a feeling that if we start seeing saddle tanks with more lip than Hanging Rock then that too will look awful.

This might be a case where an aftermarket resin piece could be cast with the correct dimensions ( or would resin suffer from the risk of unpredictable shrinkage?)

Cheers

Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

The problem with the overhang at the rear of the saddle tank being though, that while it is "there" in 1/48th scale it's so minute as to make any attempt to meaningfully replicate it look like a pice of battleship armour has been bolted over the tank.  I'd say we are talking a few thou of an inch in scale, and creating that subtlety subtly will be hard.  If you look at photos of the real thing it's hard to spot sometimes at anything other than "walkaround" close up distance, or when the sun is at the correct angle.

Indeed - here's the RAF Museum's 14, currently at Pima:

 

spit14-pima-02

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks, to be honest, as if a couple of "erks"have failed to properly fit both the engine cowls and the fuel tank cover. 

In 48th scale it means the panel lines need to be obvious, and not hidden. 

Compare with the joints round the camera window, which is all but invisible, even though it is frequently removed, likewise the cockpit side door. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice update:

 

 

Plus a conversion to a high back. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 3:13 PM, 224 Peter said:

It looks, to be honest, as if a couple of "erks"have failed to properly fit both the engine cowls and the fuel tank cover. 

In 48th scale it means the panel lines need to be obvious, and not hidden. 

Compare with the joints round the camera window, which is all but invisible, even though it is frequently removed, likewise the cockpit side door. 

That's quite common for engine cowls and other large quick release panels and not just on the Spitfire. It's not surprising that a small hinged panel like the cockpit or camera door fits well in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/07/2019 at 15:13, 224 Peter said:

It looks, to be honest, as if a couple of "erks"have failed to properly fit both the engine cowls and the fuel tank cover. 

Some aircraft panels, doors and hatches have ‘in to wind, out of wind’ clearance tolerances. This means that a panel may need to be near flush, for example, on the edge facing into the airflow - in to wind - while the edge facing aft - out of wind - can sit proud to a certain degree within published AMM limits. Nimrod main landing gear D doors are an example of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...