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

[Richard502]

 

1 hour ago, Tbolt said:

Could have been worse...

Finally s/o got PRU pink just right! Good Job, Tbolt!

[Troy Smith]

14 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

I see there's a larger rudder included. Anybody know what else might be needed to do an FR.XVIII

Fill and rescribe outer gun bay panels,  upper and lower wings, add under fuselage camera ports,  identification lights in outer wing. 

as can be seen here, the upper gun panels are eliminated, and the rectangular panel in the lower wing is moved to the upper wing for survival equipment

compare with wing  panels above.

 

more pics here

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235014550-spitfire-mkxviii-mk18-photos-of-wing-panelling-differences-confirmed/

 

 

5 hours ago, Scimitar F1 said:

I take it that the different height rudder means that an FR18 can be made out of the box?

 

no.  It needs some tweaks.

[Denford]

7 hours ago, KevinK said:

Perhaps they're chanelling the ghost of Matchbox!

Not much delicacy in the panel lines either.

Totally, utterly disagree - panel lines that it.

It seems fairly clear that there will be a follow-on of an 18, to use post war terminology.

Now I think only visible differences will be the panel lines on the upper wings.  Anybody else would have re-issued with different decals etc: not Airfix.  One could say that they are almost flaunting their knowledge by re-issuing with but with 18 upper wings: they are after all on a separate sprue.  But the panel lines have to be visible, so if needs be a little over-emphasised.

I hope it makes them money, lots of money, and indeed so much money that they break their custom and scale down to ¹/₇₂.   I'd be quite happy to settle for only one type of tyre, and indistinct upper wing panel lines, so no need for them to be on different sprues.  Instead the fuselages, high and low back would be on separate sprues: the delicate internal details wouldn't be needed.

One can but dream.

 

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Denford said:

Totally, utterly disagree - panel lines that it.

It seems fairly clear that there will be a follow-on of an 18, to use post war terminology.

Now I think only visible differences will be the panel lines on the upper wings.  Anybody else would have re-issued with different decals etc: not Airfix.  One could say that they are almost flaunting their knowledge by re-issuing with but with 18 upper wings: they are after all on a separate sprue.  But the panel l

 

unfortunately a Mk.18 will require more than that

On 17/05/2019 at 10:03, David A Collins said:

Here are the three sprue photos.

 

IMG_20190517_165945 by hornet project, on Flickr

 

note the deleted gun bays underneath, in the sprue shot, look at the ammo door panel between the gun access doors

 

Quote

IMG_20190517_165927 by hornet project, on Flickr

 

IMG_20190517_165852 by hornet project, on Flickr

 

 

 

note how the spce in the outer wing where the ammo boxes are in the C wing, is now sealed at the bottom, but the space is now accessed from above.

A new lower wing wound be needed,  with the different panels and camera openings under the fuselage.

The parts trees have not been set up to do this, so I don't see a Mk.18 boxing being done.

Plus, the work involved in the conversion is not difficult.  

 

baby blue Airfix plastic, now that's a blast from the past!

 

PS why are there two canopies? 

[Col.]

32 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

PS why are there two canopies? 

One for open and one for closed position I'm guessing. Same as on their 72nd scale Mk.22 kit.

[Bedders]

On 5/18/2019 at 9:36 AM, XF442 said:

Can't wait for this one to arrive over here. I just dropped a line to DRAWdecal if they are probably going to re-publish the decals for Spencer Flack's G-FIRE (NH904). They seem to have taken over the decal catalogue from Red Pegasus Decals who also did Mk.XIVe TZ138 in #80 "City of Edmonton" race "colours" (bare metal actually).

That's v interesting as DrawDecal do their stuff in all the scales (slighly frustrating too as I've not long completed a Sword 1/72 XIVe  as an 18, and am not relishing a repeat experience...) So I'm not really a 1/48 man but on this occasion might have to make an exception....

 

And while I'm on, what's going on with all those exhaust stacks on the sprue: they look identical to me rather than the expected pipes vs fishtails.

 

Justin

Edited May 19, 2019 by Bedders

[Denford]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 5:16 PM, Troy Smith said:

unfortunately a Mk.18 will require more than that 

Could you be more specific?

 

[ I have tried cut down what was becoming an unwieldy thread.  To 'extract' it was my contention that Airfix would reissue the kit, with new upper wings as an Mk 18]

 

Various sources such as 'Spitfire the History' speak of the differences between low back 14 and 18 as 'virtually indistinguishable', 'minor internal changes', 'strengthening'.  Somewhere there's a mention of 'increased length': and I have a feeling that this is the comparison of the 14 with original rudder as fitted to the high back versions with the 18 all of which I imagine had enlarged rudders.  An earlier post on this thread elicited that the only visible differences were minor changes on the upper wing panels.  I also think that some\most 18's had underwing rocket points (perhaps retro-fitted) where as few if any 14's were so fitted.

 

 

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Denford said:

Could you be more specific?t

 

I thought posts 127 and 129 above were quite specific, 129 has the kit parts next to Mk.18 wings. This clearly shows the different panel layouts.

2 hours ago, Denford said:

 

[ I have tried cut down what was becoming an unwieldy thread.  To 'extract' it was my contention that Airfix would reissue the kit, with new upper wings as an Mk 18]

 

Various sources such as 'Spitfire the History' speak of the differences between low back 14 and 18 as 'virtually indistinguishable', 'minor internal changes', 'strengthening'.  Somewhere there's a mention of 'increased length': and I have a feeling that this is the comparison of the 14 with original rudder as fitted to the high back versions with the 18 all of which I imagine had enlarged rudders.  An earlier post on this thread elicited that the only visible differences were minor changes on the upper wing panels. 

As the post above shows, the under wing panels were also eliminated.  From a modellers perspective the changes are noticeable. There are also the under fuselage camera pair.  This requires new upper AND lower wings.

The broader rudder will account for the longer length.

The Spitfire books are notoriously vague on the specific external differences, the photos I posted kindly supplied by Peter Arnold clearly show the changes,  these are all in the post I made in Jan 2017 

Note the annotated drawing from the manual, as well as the photos. This also has info on the rudders.  

 

2 hours ago, Denford said:

 

 

I also think that some\most 18's had underwing rocket points (perhaps retro-fitted) where as few if any 14's were so fitted.

 

 

I don't have info on the rocket fittings.

[Tomas Enerdal]

The pics in the tread "Spitfire Mk.XVIII [Mk.18] photos of wing panelling, differences" show the wing underside layout clearly. Although the wing uppersides are also shown, the panelling of the outer wing is difficult to see. The panel lines can be seen in this walkaround , however, especially pics 6 and 29. Please note that the gun bulge has been removed during restoration. I sincererly hope that other panel layout has not been changed as well! Clear pics showing wing panel layout of operational Mk.18 aircraft are as rare as hens teeth!

On the last post (#10) in this tread I show what I believe the wing should look like.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Tomas Enerdal

[franky boy]

Anyone else got one yet?

[Denford]

Troy: thanks for the link and corrections so tactfully put.  I recall the fin from 'times past', but not the wing plans now saved for future use.

 

The under-fuselage camera ports, not that I would now doubt you, seem a little strange.  The cut down fuselage would not have the full depth of the Xl and 19 and so smaller /less effective cameras?  I have a vague feeling there might have been a rear fuselage tank....

 

I presume the ports would have been in the same place as on the above two variants.

 

Now all that is needed is a quality  ¹/₇₂ kit...

[Troy Smith]

3 minutes ago, Denford said:

The under-fuselage camera ports, not that I would now doubt you, seem a little strange.  The cut down fuselage would not have the full depth of the Xl and 19 and so smaller /less effective cameras?  I have a vague feeling there might have been a rear fuselage tank....

 

I presume the ports would have been in the same place as on the above two variants.

Good questions,  point on the camera size vs fuselage depth, though this maybe not such an issue as this was a FR,  so more likely to be used at lower altitudes,   and I don't know how much difference the depth would make,  given the spine is pretty small, 

 

Hmm... is google my friend? 

not sciemtfic

better

 

PR XI cutaway,  note the camera installation detail. 

also from the Spitfire site

Quote

Contrary to the common misconception, the Spitfire could carry only two cameras on each mission – either the two verticals or the oblique one, but not all three simultaneously.

 

from the overview of the camera equipment

http://spitfiresite.com/2011/07/guided-tour-of-the-spitfire-mk-xix-camera-equipment.html

 

There was a rear fuselage tank on the low back IX/XVI, but where the cameras are IIRC, so probably not an issue?    Good, thought provoking points though.

 

I'm surprised that @gingerbob  has not pitched in.

 

HTH

HTH

[Scooby]

On 5/18/2019 at 2:36 AM, XF442 said:

Can't wait for this one to arrive over here. I just dropped a line to DRAWdecal if they are probably going to re-publish the decals for Spencer Flack's G-FIRE (NH904). They seem to have taken over the decal catalogue from Red Pegasus Decals who also did Mk.XIVe TZ138 in #80 "City of Edmonton" race "colours" (bare metal actually).

I would like those decals too, being I am from Edmonton.

 

[Tomas Enerdal]

The test sprues/runners shown at Telford were made in a medium gray, slightly tranclucent styrene. Pics of those indicated rather delicate castings with thin edges of flying surfaces, thin roof of wheel wells, etc.  Also very delicate surface detail similar to the Spit Vb (05125). Can anyone who has recieved the kit comment on this? The baby blue plastic does not help with showing this. 

[Dave Fleming]

The photos seem to indicate that the later fin has the correctly enlarged horn balance (and shorter rudder post) but also looks taller than the early one - is that correct? I thought the horn was enlarged, but the overall height remained the same?

[ththtttu7]

1 minute ago, Dave Fleming said:

The photos seem to indicate that the later fin has the correctly enlarged horn balance (and shorter rudder post) but also looks taller than the early one - is that correct? I thought the horn was enlarged, but the overall height remained the same?

Hi Dave Fleming,

 

I can confirm that the instructions actually show you need to trim the top off the fin to fit the broad chord rudder. This means that the overall rudder/fin options remain the same height.

[Dave Fleming]

1 hour ago, David A Collins said:

Hi Dave Fleming,

 

I can confirm that the instructions actually show you need to trim the top off the fin to fit the broad chord rudder. This means that the overall rudder/fin options remain the same height.

 

Yeah, but even allowing for that (which accounts for the shorter rudder post) the part looks longer from tip to bottom

[Tomas Enerdal]

In here  (forth row, to the right) you'll find a close-up pic

Edited May 21, 2019 by Tomas Enerdal

[Dave Fleming]

41 minutes ago, Tomas Enerdal said:

In here  (forth row, to the right) you'll find a close-up pic

 

Still looks bigger - BTW, I'm not saying Airfix is wrong, it may be conventional wisdom is wrontg, this change in rudder sized confused a lot of people over the years. The pic below shows a very slight difference, but the kit part looks taller

[Tomas Enerdal]

I will make an FR.18 of it. I was curious about the fin shape too; I looked at the pic of the two rudders in the forthcoming kit, tried to understand what the model will look like when built and compared the (imaginary) result with pics of real aircraft. I ended up with the feeling that Airfix have done a just great job of capturing the shape of the tail. This feeling was confirmed when I looked at the built up model in the Airfix modelworld magazine where it was reviewed, it still looks just great to me. I guess I will look again when the kit arrives but I'm not worried at all right now. I tend to be a nitpicker when it comes to accuracy, however, if that counts.  

[Tbolt]

 

37 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

Still looks bigger - BTW, I'm not saying Airfix is wrong, it may be conventional wisdom is wrontg, this change in rudder sized confused a lot of people over the years. The pic below shows a very slight difference, but the kit part looks taller
 

Measuring the first picture it is taller but those pictures from Teflord measure exactly the same, so either Airfix have changed it and made it incorrect since the Telford molding or it's one the photos.

[ricardoo]

For those who don’t have this kit yet any chance of a quick review please ? ??

[Gwart]

[Tomas Enerdal]

Dear Gwart,

Thanks for the installation drawing! Confirming the installation, but also helping with the controlboxes in the cockpit. Do you know from which publication it is taken, Technical Manual?

Ricardoo,

The only proper review I've seen so far is in the magazine Airfix Modelworld, March '19 issue. 

[593jones]

The next question, of course, relates to the plywood bulkheads - how were they finished, varnished or painted?