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

[TEMPESTMK5]

16 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

AZ also did the low back, the kit is moulded with the larger Mk.18 tail in place but the smaller type is included in the sprues. The kit is OOP but can still be found

Good morning Giorgio

Thank you for reminding me this kit .. I have this one in my stash https://www.scalemates.com/kits/freightdog-models-fdk72001-supermarine-spitfire-mkxive--147580

All the best

Patrice

 

[NPL]

Found this example of the Falcon 1/48 Mk.XVIII at Hyperscale:

 

http://hsgalleries.com/spitfire18bw_1.htm

 

I have this vacform somewhere upstairs. Always considered Falcon's renderings in the top class. But any comments on using it as a reference? 

 

By the way, it can't last long before some entrepreneurs have produced the highback conversion for the new Airfix. Freightdog, perhaps?

[Tomas Enerdal]

Agreed, Falcon has always been considered as top class, both in vacform model execution and with reference to accuracy.

But recent info about the "strengthened E-wing" (pics), as fitted to the Mk.18, has not been well described in earlier (modelling) references.

Whithout having seen the Falcon vac, I wonder if these aspects were known to Falcon then? See;

sptfire xviii wing again

Valiant wings has released Spitfire part 1 (Merlin-powered), no.12 in their Airframe and Miniature series. Part 2 is in preparation, scheduled to be released in 2019. I wonder what they may bring?  

When (not if) I'll do a highback, i expect that sections from the Airfix XIX fuselage can be grafted to the lowback XIV. Future will tell.

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Tomas Enerdal

[ABeck]

Q:  Which alterations apart from the bigger radiators will have to be undertaken  on the Eduard VIIIc wing to make a high back XIVc ?

Reagards

Andreas Beck

[Tomas Enerdal]

Not sure I understand your question correctly.

-If you want to turn the Eduard VIII into a higback XIVc, you could then take the deeper radiators, Griffon engine and larger fin/rudder from the new Airfix XIVe and graft them to the Eduard kit. Why not, sounds perfectly possible. But the results depends on fit (or lack thereoff) for the radiators, general fuselage dimensions and surgical skills by the modeller. Cannot tell before I have seen the new Airfix kit.

From pics of the Airfix sprues it seems like that the mounting surfaces for the radiators are similar to the Eduard VIII/IX/XVI wings. If both kits are accurate in dimensions the Griffon enginge should be mountable to the VIII fuselage. That's the way it was done on the real aircraft. The fitting of the larger XIV fin/fillet onto the VIII fuselage will need some surgery, though.

Detail differences should be minimal, IIRC the cockpits are almost identical. 

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, NPL said:

Found this example of the Falcon 1/48 Mk.XVIII at Hyperscale:

 

http://hsgalleries.com/spitfire18bw_1.htm

 

I have this vacform somewhere upstairs. Always considered Falcon's renderings in the top class. But any comments on using it as a reference? 

reference for what? 

A Mk.XVIII/18?  No need,  we have the details.  

2 hours ago, NPL said:

 

By the way, it can't last long before some entrepreneurs have produced the highback conversion for the new Airfix. Freightdog, perhaps?

 

how? Only a new spine?  Or a complete new fuselage?  And, the Airfix kit is an E wing.  

 

50 minutes ago, Tomas Enerdal said:

Agreed, Falcon has always been considered as top class, both in vacform model execution and with reference to accuracy.

But recent info about the "strengthened E-wing" (pics), as fitted to the Mk.18, has not been well described in earlier (modelling) references.

Whithout having seen the Falcon vac, I wonder if these aspects were known to Falcon then? See;

sptfire xviii wing again

Waliant wings has released Spitfire part 1 (Merlin-powered), no.12 in their Airframe and Miniature series. Part 2 is in preparation, scheduled to be released in 2019. I wonder what they may bring?  

When (not if) I'll do a highback, i expect that sections from the Airfix XIX fuselage can be grafted to the lowback XIV. Future will tell.

 

Probably not, AFAIK the different Mk.18 wing panels have only really been pinned down in the last few years.

I have mentioned the following before,  given the Falcon vac has RAISED panel lines, and minimal detail parts,  once you factor in all the work on doing that, in the case of an Mk.18,  just modify the new Airfix,  it looks to be a fairly simple task if you can fill and rescribe some panel lines

 

38 minutes ago, ABeck said:

Q:  Which alterations apart from the bigger radiators will have to be undertaken  on the Eduard VIIIc wing to make a high back XIVc ?

Reagards

Andreas Beck

as in high back XIVc wing? 

Don't really see the point,  if you are prepared to do some kit bashing, adding or swapping around the cannon bulge position for the C vs E wing is hardly going to be difficult. 

 

As @Tomas Enerdal  has just pointed out, what are your plans. 

The problem with kit bashing is in the case of the eduard, all those recessed rivets, and then making good joins.    If this is what you want to do, i suspect just adding a high back spine to the new Airfix will be as much work as adding the nose and tail to an Eduard VIII and then making it all match, by this I mean the fine detail.

Do-able, but fine work, especially redoing the nose /fuselage joint and the cowl fasteners.

 

and I now need to do some grocery shopping,  much less fun than this...

[jaw]

From what I remember of seeing the sprues at Telford last November, I think that they contained the normal Spit wingtips as well as the clipped version. And I think that there was a Mark 18 fin as well. For a high back Mark 14 can you use the Spit 19 fuselage with Mark 14 wings?

 

John

[Tomas Enerdal]

The wings come with normal wingtips. These are cut away to be replaced by clipped, clear inserts. The fin is the "same" for both, two different, separate rudders are enclosed in the kit, however. (the fin tip is to be cut down somwhat for the XVIII type rudder

Earlier (Nov 27) Annti_K said here at BM

Quote

"looking at the CAD pictures I think that this new kit looks very good. To my eye the nose looks much better than that of Airfix 1/48 scale PR.XIX. I'm certainly going to use both to build a "better" PR.XIX."

 

Without having seen anything but pics of the new kit/model, I have no oppinion yet.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Tomas Enerdal

[Tomas Enerdal]

Thinking more about this;

The possibility of making a high-back Mk.XIV (either c or e wing) using a cross-kitting of the Airfix PR.XIX and the new FR.XIVe sounds plauisible and do-able. The critical issue will then be how well the FR.XIVe wing will fit the PR.XIX fuselage. From the top of my head, the breakdown of the kits are similar. The mounting of the carb intake against the lower nose looks identical. But again, the fit cannot be determined until the parts can be held against each other.

Depending on the individual taste for accuracy, the engine can be swapped, or not. The rest is smaller details and a new fighter canopy (Falcon?)     

[Biggles87]

I think that I will wait a while until some enterprising person comes up with a new fuselage, perhaps John Adams will come out of retirement for us.

[NPL]

On 4/25/2019 at 11:35 AM, Troy Smith said:

reference for what? 

A Mk.XVIII/18?  No need,  we have the details.  

 

how? Only a new spine?  Or a complete new fuselage?  And, the Airfix kit is an E wing.  

 

Probably not, AFAIK the different Mk.18 wing panels have only really been pinned down in the last few years.

I have mentioned the following before,  given the Falcon vac has RAISED panel lines, and minimal detail parts,  once you factor in all the work on doing that, in the case of an Mk.18,  just modify the new Airfix,  it looks to be a fairly simple task if you can fill and rescribe some panel lines

 

as in high back XIVc wing? 

Don't really see the point,  if you are prepared to do some kit bashing, adding or swapping around the cannon bulge position for the C vs E wing is hardly going to be difficult. 

 

As @Tomas Enerdal  has just pointed out, what are your plans. 

The problem with kit bashing is in the case of the eduard, all those recessed rivets, and then making good joins.    If this is what you want to do, i suspect just adding a high back spine to the new Airfix will be as much work as adding the nose and tail to an Eduard VIII and then making it all match, by this I mean the fine detail.

Do-able, but fine work, especially redoing the nose /fuselage joint and the cowl fasteners.

 

and I now need to do some grocery shopping,  much less fun than this...

 

Guys, have you ever heard the word "conversion"? Or did it disappear with the late Alan Hall?

 

Nobody said that it would be a shake and bake issue. 

 

Besides: I believe there were also highbacked Mk.XIVe's around.

 

Another start would be to butcher one of thos Hasegawa Mk.IX kits you have stored away in your attic (I have several) and which is of no use as the are. I understand that the wing is OK, while the fuselage is impossible.

Edited April 26, 2019 by NPL

[Giorgio N]

Converting the wing from E to C is relatively easy, replace the bulges above the cannon panel and cut new case ejector slots on the wing undersurface (this being probably the most difficult part, at least for me).

The high back converions may be a bit more difficult, personally I'd try to see if chopping the relevant parts from the ICM Mk.IX would work, this is a kit that is available for ery little money and includes a lot of spare parts, it's IMHO ideal for those who want to experiment with Spit related surgery in 1/48. The gun bulges may also come from this kit, although ICM moulded these together with the panels while Airfix seems to have moulded them integral with the wings.

Using a PR.XIX fuselage can be done but keep in mind that the canopy of the XIX is different, resulting in a different depts of the canopy sills on the fuselage.

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, NPL said:

 

Guys, have you ever heard the word "conversion"? Or did it disappear with the late Alan Hall?

 

Nobody said that it would be a shake and bake issue. 

 

Besides: I believe there were also highbacked Mk.XIVe's around.

 

Another start would be to butcher one of thos Hasegawa Mk.IX kits you have stored away in your attic (I have several) and which is of no use as the are. I understand that the wing is OK, while the fuselage is impossible.

I like that you said ever heard of the word conversion, then went on to use the word impossible 😃

[NPL]

5 hours ago, Tbolt said:

I like that you said ever heard of the word conversion, then went on to use the word impossible 😃

The fuselage is impossible because the problems begin at one end and end at the other. The solution is the use the fuselage produced by Loon Models LO48209 Spitfire VIII Fuselage Correction. Of course I have seen solutions with insertions, plug-ins, but they only help as far as the outer size is achieved.

 

But I> understand the irony... 

[Tbolt]

58 minutes ago, NPL said:

The fuselage is impossible because the problems begin at one end and end at the other. The solution is the use the fuselage produced by Loon Models LO48209 Spitfire VIII Fuselage Correction. Of course I have seen solutions with insertions, plug-ins, but they only help as far as the outer size is achieved.

 

But I> understand the irony... 

I understand the problem just that it not impossible it can be built OOB or it can be fixed, it's just a lot of work, and I'm not sure the Loon Models or Aeroclub fuselage are perfect fixes.

 

Anyway I just built it as it was, sure the Spitfire experts will probably hate it but sometimes you just have to realize life is too short.

 

With some kit fault I feel that the more people talk about the problems, the worse the perception of the fault becomes...

 

 

[Biggles87]

The Aeroclub fuselage is a pretty good fit ( building one at the moment ), just a little work neede on the tailplane/ fuselage joints.

I have a Loon models fuselage but havn't used it yet.

[NPL]

9 hours ago, Tbolt said:

I understand the problem just that it not impossible it can be built OOB or it can be fixed, it's just a lot of work, and I'm not sure the Loon Models or Aeroclub fuselage are perfect fixes.

 

Anyway I just built it as it was, sure the Spitfire experts will probably hate it but sometimes you just have to realize life is too short.

 

With some kit fault I feel that the more people talk about the problems, the worse the perception of the fault becomes...

 

 

That's a matter of personal preferences. 

 

But to some among us the knowledge that a kit is simply essentially wrong is enough to leave it. This goes for the Hasegawa late Merlins, as well as for Academy's Mk.XIVs. 

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, Biggles87 said:

The Aeroclub fuselage is a pretty good fit ( building one at the moment ), just a little work neede on the tailplane/ fuselage joints.

I have a Loon models fuselage but havn't used it yet.

Any chance you could put the Loon Models fuselage half next to the Eduard, if you have one, and take some pictures?

[Biggles87]

I can certainly do that Tbolt, possibly this afternoon.

[gingerbob]

Since there was some mention, and I've recently been investigating, there were only about three squadrons' worth of "c-wing" XIVs (initially 610, 91, and 322 in order of equipping).  After a small amount of "offensive operations", they were pulled into the anti-Diver campaign in mid-June.  No. 91 Squadron began to receive XIVes in mid July, and in August some juggling went on that resulted in only two squadrons on XIVcs, but also two on XIVes.  (91 and 322 were now on LF.IXs.)  Another XIVe squadron was added in September, and a direct swap late in the month between 130 and 350, with the result of:

XIVc: 610 and 350 (both at Lympne)

XIVe: 41 (also at Lympne)

XIVe: 130, 402 (RCAF) (more or less together in 2TAF on the Continent)

 

These five squadrons continued to be the XIV (fighter) users to VE day, with the exception of 610, which was disbanded in early March in order to feed the others.  All were on the Continent by the end of 1944.  Note that I have not yet figured out whether (or how) 610 and 350 eventually replaced cs with es- the ORBs and individual records get frustratingly vague at times, and more work is needed.  (I suspect that some XIVcs were fitted with 'e' armament, for example if needing enough repair to be sent away from the Squadron.)  Edit: subsequent work and a lucky photo find (see later post) suggest that others continued merrily along as built, being joined by some newer aircraft (including some low-backs) in 1945.

 

In November 1944, two other squadrons began to fly Spitfire XIVs: 2 (or No.II(AC)) and 430 (RCAF).  These were in the Army Co-operation / Fighter Reconnaissance role, and were equipped with specially modified high-back XIVes, fitted with an oblique camera.  These were new aircraft, with only one or two exceptions.

 

Total production of all high-back Spitfire XIVs was 500, not counting the VIIIG testbeds.  Of those, I'm guessing [and be aware of that choice of words!] that only about 100-150 were delivered with 'c' armament.

 

As for the low-back XIVs, all were built with 'e' armament, and only 27 were pure fighters.  My information on those is extremely limited!  The FR.XIV [as in the subject of our anxiously awaited kit, 430 built] began to come to 268 Squadron in February '45, and to 414 (RCAF), as well as a few to II(AC), in April '45.  Some may also have found their way to fighter squadron VIPs.

 

On 4/24/2019 at 8:23 AM, Truro Model Builder said:

Putting my tongue firmly in my cheek, I have to ask of those who are desperate to have this kit in their hands, are you intending to sweep everything else off the worktop and crack on with it, or is that Spitfire XIV-shaped hole in your stash collecting too much dust?

 

 

I'm planning on ordering two to start (I'm in the USA, so by the time US Airfix have them to send me, Tony wil have built two or three, and it will have been discussed thoroughly).  I know one scheme I will do, and if ever there was a kit that would make me sweep off the desk it is this one.  Notice that I haven't strictly answered the question, though...

 

I will, of course, compare it to various other kits, etc.  Included in this will be consideration of how I might make one into a high-back.  Don't get me wrong- the FR.XIV is my "ultimate" Spitfire, so I'm thrilled that this one is on its way.  But I also like to think about what else I can do with things- and let's face it, we're still waiting for a really good 1/48 high-back Spit XIV (not to mention certain other things I personally would be thinking about).  Besides, I'll have two!

 

On 4/26/2019 at 4:10 PM, Tbolt said:

I understand the problem just that it not impossible it can be built OOB or it can be fixed, it's just a lot of work, and I'm not sure the Loon Models or Aeroclub fuselage are perfect fixes.

 

Anyway I just built it as it was, sure the Spitfire experts will probably hate it but sometimes you just have to realize life is too short.

 

With some kit fault I feel that the more people talk about the problems, the worse the perception of the fault becomes...

 

Starting with the last statement, you're absolutely right.  There are two sub-sets, though: 1) the "perception" of a fault because you're conditioned to expect it (in other words, we see what we expect to see), and 2) the actual perception of a fault that you might not have seen had someone not tipped you off on what to look for.  If you put your Hasegawa Spit IX on a table in front of me, I might well think, "Oh, that's a nicely built Spitfire IX."  If you put it on a table alongside an Eduard or ICM Spitfire IX, on the other hand, I might think, "Hmm, there's something funny going on there..." 

 

As for life being too short, fair enough, but it won't take me much longer to build an Eduard IX than it will a Hasegawa IX, so why not go for the one that is more accurate?  (Please be aware that I have one or two Hasegawa IXs, Aeroclub correction fuselages, ICM IXs, even an Occidental.  I drew the line at the "middle-aged" Airfix IX, which I could immediately tell was not up to my standards- life's too short to waste my time on THAT one.  Now, if the Hasegawa, or even the Airfix or Occidental, were the only IX in 1/48 (ah, but there's the truly ancient Monogram!) then I might be willing to consider trying to do something about it.  More likely, though, I'd focus on the various other exciting kits I've "always wanted", and pray for the day that a "decent" IX came along.  [If, after all that, you wonder why I bothered to buy all that other stuff, I'm a Spitfire-obsessive, so I like to have things for archaeological purposes, plus I didn't know at the time that Eduard was going to knock one out of the park.  And who knows, maybe I'll actually build them all and realize that I can't tell the difference!]

 

But then there's also the fact that I get enjoyment out of learning about the subject matter, comparing different kits (because, let's face it, models are cool!), talking about it in a civilized manner with fellow-travelers, etc.  I also enjoy thinking about (and sometimes even attempting) "improvements".  But that's not to say I wouldn't be happy with a kit so good there was utterly no room for improvement.  And for some applications, that Hasegawa IX wing is pretty darn nice...

Edited May 6, 2019 by gingerbob

[Biggles87]

For Tbolt

Hope these help.

The Loon Models fuselage is slightly shorter and more shallow, than Eduard and you can see that the cockpit opening is smaller. I think the Aeroclub fuselage might be a better match if you can find one, I can't show you the same comparison I'm afraid as I only had the one which I've used.

 

John  

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, Biggles87 said:

For Tbolt

 

Hope these help.

The Loon Models fuselage is slightly shorter and more shallow, than Eduard and you can see that the cockpit opening is smaller. I think the Aeroclub fuselage might be a better match if you can find one, I can't show you the same comparison I'm afraid as I only had the one which I've used.

 

John  

Thanks a lot for doing that. 

 

That confirms what I suspected that they have over lengthed the tail and nose to make up for the shortness in the cockpit area.

 

I guess this is the only way to go ( I think the Aeroclub fuselage is the same ) if you want to attempt a correction and use the kit transparency, but the problem with the Hasegawa kit is it's short all the way along the fuselage.

[Tbolt]

2 hours ago, gingerbob said:

As for life being too short, fair enough, but it won't take me much longer to build an Eduard IX than it will a Hasegawa IX, so why not go for the one that is more accurate?  (Please be aware that I have one or two Hasegawa IXs, Aeroclub correction fuselages, ICM IXs, even an Occidental.  I drew the line at the "middle-aged" Airfix IX, which I could immediately tell was not up to my standards- life's too short to waste my time on THAT one.  Now, if the Hasegawa, or even the Airfix or Occidental, were the only IX in 1/48 (ah, but there's the truly ancient Monogram!) then I might be willing to consider trying to do something about it.  More likely, though, I'd focus on the various other exciting kits I've "always wanted", and pray for the day that a "decent" IX came along.  

 

Going for the more accurate kit is easy, but that doesn't mean if people have a Hasegawa kit in the stash they should just bin it, but it's not worth the expensive of buying the Aeroclub or Loon Models fuselage for, ( also since they aren't a perfect fix ) which cost the more than the whole Eduard kit.

 

I'll always buy the most accurate kit available but I'll build my Hasegawa and Tamiya Spits as they are because I have them in the stash, they just won't be on the same shelf as my as my Eduard Spits. I've even built a Hasewaga P-47 after the Tamiya kit came out 😉

[mike romeo]

3 hours ago, Tbolt said:

I've even built a Hasewaga P-47 after the Tamiya kit came out 😉

Good Lord!  How could you?!

[Olmec Head]

Just to say thanks to Gingerbob for the short history of XIVs, it was an excellent summation around lowback/ highback and c and e wing armament  rollout and usage.  I haven't seen such a useful synopsis before.  As an aside I have several Aeroclub 1/48 Spitfire spine inserts, but to convert highback to lowback!  Perhaps in a parallel universe...