1/48 new tool Tamiya and Airfix Spitfire Mk.I comparison build

[Basilisk]

I finally received my new tool Tamiya Spitfire last week and this is one of the kits screaming "build me".

Examining the sprues, I thought what a great time it is to be a scale modeller with all these fantastic new kits available. Sure, some are better than other, but compared to kits from yesteryear, they all are fantastic.

The nature of scale are compromises and the smaller the scale, the bigger the compromise to produce a model. So I thought why not making a comparison build of the new tool Tamiya and Airfix Spitfire Mk.I and illustrate how both manufacturer handled the compromises to produce the 1/48 scale Spitfire.

 

My comparison is purely based on the differences of the two kits. I did not use any scale drawings, but provide pictures in assisting some of my findings.

Sorry, no sprue pictures to bore you with, but if you like to see some reviews, there are plenty listed on the relevant Scalemate pages for the Airfix and Tamiya Spitfires.

To get started, lets compare the major plastic parts of the two kits. The Airfix kit is regarded as accurate in outline and dimensions, so I checked how the Tamiya parts line up with the equivalent Airfix parts. Airfix plastic is in light blue and Tamiya in grey.

Here are the wings.


The wings are basically a perfect match, even the gun openings are at identical spots. I cant check the total wing span as the Tamiya kit has the wing tips as separate parts, so this has to wait, but I don't expect a difference between the two kits.

And the fuselage.

Can't see the Airfix kit behind, so either the Airfix part is smaller or they are a perfect match?

Here from the top.

Looking good. Even the panel lines are matching! The bended appearance is due to the Airfix fuselage not being straight!

And from the bottom.

Shows a perfect match as well.

There was a reason I show the other fuselage side last, because it revealed a difference in outline between  the Tamiya kit and the Airfix kit.

No, the Tamiya kit isn't larger and in most parts a very good match, but there is certainly a difference with the upper nose contour. So where is the problem. Having a closer look at the Tamiya fuselage explains the difference.

 

Looks to me more like the nose on a Spitfire Mk.IX on the Tamiya kit than the gentle curve on a Spitfire Mk.I.

This results in the nose at the front being higher than the Airfix kit.

Here some pictures of the nose contours on preserved Spitfire Mk.Is

Mk.I at the Science Museum London

Mk.I at the Imperial War Museum London

And Mk.I at the RAF Museum Hendon

And here is a comparison of the Mk.I from the Imperial War Museum London with a Mk.IX nose contour from the Technical Museum in Prague.

 

 

I wanted to have a closer look at the nose, so I butchered one of the Airfix tank inserts by cutting it in half so that I can compare the engine contour a bit better.

The Tamiya and Airfix kit are identical in the upper contour up to the end of the fuel tank. But as can be seen above, they then diverse a fair bit after that point. The length of the two marked positions are also identical between the two kits. So it can be assumed that the exhaust is at an identical location.

 

I then did some measurements around the tip of the upper nose. 

Let me explain from right to left.

 

- The Tamiya nose is 0.6 mm above the Airfix contour.

 

- Using the Tamiya fuselage at the tip of the nose as a reference point, the distance from the top of the Airfix nose to that reference point is 3.2 mm.

 

- Tamiya part measures 4.0 mm.

 

In other words, the upper nose contour is 0.8mm higher compared to the Airfix upper nose contour.

 

This does result in the propeller being located 0.8 mm higher on the Tamiya kit than on the Airfix kit. I forgot to take a picture, but when you place the spinner back plate at the tip of the nose and align it with the curvature of the Airfix kit, the Tamiya curvature sticks out at the top as it is higher up.

 

And both, the Tamiya and Airfix spinner size at the back plate are exactly the same with 13.1mm.

 

The question now which kit is correct (or better) in this regard. It is difficult to conclude this issue without having the two fuselages completed, so I will revisit when my build progressed to that stage.

 

And how about the panel below the engine?

They look similar and with a depth of 5.2 mm for the Airfix kit and 5.4 mm on the Tamiya kit aren't far apart. But it is a different story when it comes to the width as the Tamiya part is 1.1 mm wider than the Airfix part. That means that the Airfix kit has a more pronounced curvature from the exhaust to where the panel attaches on the fuselage than the Tamiya kit!

 

I have no idea which is correct. Fortunately the discrepancy is at a spot where it is very difficult to notice.

 

And two more pictures comparing the fuselage.

The fuselage inserts are already glued in place for this comparison. I am not a great fan of inserts like that but it allows Tamiya to cover more variants of the Spitfire that way and also assisting in providing an option with cockpit canopy in the open position.

The fit of the inserts are perfect and follows panel lines, but care still has to be taken when cluing it into place to avoid glue oozing into the panel line and making a mess of it in the process.

What else is there to say about the fuselage. Like Airfix, Tamiya has the protruding engine panel fasteners. Not as massive as the Airfix representation, but still not flush as on the 1/1 model as can be seen on the various pictures above.

 

More to come.

Cheers, Peter

Edited March 31, 2019 by Basilisk

[Basilisk]

Now back to the wings. The lower parts look very similar, but there are differences.

Here a closer look at the Airfix centre section.

Airfix has the maintenance hatches the same on both sides, but the three along the red line shouldn't be there as can be seen on the picture below.

Tamiya got this right.

On the outer wing, Airfix represents the two little blisters behind the gun opening too shallow.

They are a bit more voluminous on the 1/1 model.

 

Tamiya got them right.

Tamiya also shows the hinges on the maintenance panes (maybe a bit over scale) and has some other detail Airfix has not.

A big plus on the Tamiya kit is the inclusion of the pipes in the radiator for the gun heating which was apparently introduced after the 60th Spitfire in production. So only very early examples don't have them. The gun heat extraction vents are included as additional parts. The Airfix kit doesn't contain parts for the gun heating in the radiator and the gun heat extraction vents.

But both kits have this little pipe inside the radiator entry missing.

Not much to say about the other side which wasn't already mentioned.

 

What I just noticed is that Airfix has 10 of the circular panels along the wing leading edge and Tamiya has only 8 and spaced differently.

 

Here a picture of the underside from the Mk.I wing of the aircraft on display at the Imperial War Museum London which has 8 circular panels along the wing leading edge.

I assume the Mk.I wing would be identical. If not, please let me know.

The wheel well details are similar between the two whereby Tamiya shows finer detail. But the two bulges do look different.

 

This is reflected on the top of the wing as well. Two other differences are the small opening for the flap mechanism. This hatch opens when the flaps are lowered. Airfix shows it raised and Tamiya shows it engraved with some hinges.

Another difference is the wing to fuselage panel line. Airfix has them as two lines joining where the red arrow is. Tamiya on the other hand has a short flat middle section between the two lines.

And here how this stuff is on the 1/1 model.

Credits to Tamiya. the bulges and the hatch for the flaps are much better captured in my oppinion. In addition, Tamiya has the small bulge next to the hatch for the flaps on the wing where Airfix has them missing.

And here a picture of the wing to fuselage panel line.

Looks there is a straight section in the line.

 

Interesting to see that the wheel well bulges are slightly different in shape on the preserved Mk.V above as well as on the period picture of the Mk.I!

 

I fitted the wing tips to the Tamiya wing to allow a comparison.

Are the same in shape, but there is more detail on theTamiya part. Specially the navigation light.

 

And the top.

Of note is the difference in the reproduction of the panel line where the wing tip joins the wing. Airfix has a rather large recess and Tamiya has a raised strip with rivets on it.

 

And that how it looks an the 1/1 model.

 

Still more to come.

Cheers, Peter

Edited March 31, 2019 by Basilisk

[Basilisk]

Next are the tail and control surfaces.

The vertical stabilizers are identical in size but differ substantially in the look of the elevators.

Airfix is giving us the "classical" look with slight depressions in the fabric. Tamiya on the other hand is representing the stitching of the fabric to the metal structure which then is covered by tape.

 

And here how it looks on the 1/1 scale model.

 

The same with the rudder.

In addition, Tamiya added some other details missing on the Airfix kit.

 

And again a picture of the 1/1 scale model for comparison.

Strangely, with the ailerons, Airfix shows the stitching minus the tape.

I have no clue what the circle on the underside represent on the Tamiya ailerons? I have to investigate that a bit further.

One noticeable difference is the thickness of the control surfaces trailing edges.

Airfix represents them with a rather thick edge whereby Tamiya has them thinner.

 

The same picture as shown earlier shows nicely how sharp they are on the Spitfire.

It also shows nicely the stitching on the aileron without any depressions at all on the surface.

Talking about sharp trailing edges on wings, Tamiya has the trailing edge incorporated in the upper wing part, ensuring the edge is nicely sharp. Airfix on the other hand has a more traditional joint along the trailing edge, resulting in a rather thick edge.

 

Hang in there, the end is close.

Cheers, Peter

Edited March 12, 2019 by Basilisk

[Basilisk]

To compare the cockpit is difficult just with parts, but I will compare some of the major components as there are some differences between the two kits.

 

It is also important to be aware that there are many changes introduced into early Spitfire production as the early Mk.Is where constantly updated.

The information for this constant changes are well documented in two sources:  An extensive article by Ted Hooton on early Spitfire camouflage and markings plus airframe modifications published in Scale Aircraft Modelling Volume 5 Number 2 November 1982 and various forum posts by the late Edgar Brooks here at Britmodeller. Unfortunately the two sources are not always agreeing. If this is the case I will mention both.

One of this update is the fuel tank armor addition in front of the cockpit. According to Ted, it was introduced into production after September 1939 together with the external bullet proof windscreen. According to Edgar, it wasn't seen before early July 1940.

Airfix offers both, with or without fuel tank armor, but Tamiya has the fuel tank armor as part of the fuselage casting.

Strangely, Tamiya has the crash bar moulded on the inside of the cockpit entry hatch in the closed version.

But not on the part for the open version. Airfix got this right as the crash bar was introduced much later.

The Tamiya cockpit bulkheads look a bit more detailed than Airfix, but have the head armor mounting points casted in place, even though no head or seat armor is provided.

Airfix has head or seat armor as an option.

Tamiya's front bulkhead has no pluming in place which is a very noticeable feature. Also the Ruder pedal mechanism is tampered towards the rear. Airfix has the pluming in place and the Ruder pedal mechanism is parallel.

Here a picture of the restored cockpit from P9374.

Also note the copper pluming mentioned above.

Airfix's provides the Watts type propeller do give you more choices to make an early Spitfire Mk.I.

I built the Airfix kit a while back and know of the challenges in fitting the tank in front of the cockpit and the undercarriage and it does need a fair bit of work to make a nice looking Spitfire.

I expect the Tamiya kit to be an easier build with some intuitive engineering so I better get started.

If you still reading, you are definitely a Spitfire nut.
Cheers, Peter

Edited March 12, 2019 by Basilisk

[Nachtwulf]

Very good information! Thank you for the time and effort. You've given Spitfire nuts much to contemplate.

Oh, and your Airfix Spit looks outstanding!

Looking forward to more !

 

 

[Sturmovik]

Nice comparison, I like this type of review. Could Tamiya be planning to release a Mk.IX?

[Tim T]

That is really helpful and a very detailed examination of the two kits.  Thank you.

[Josip]

I sincerely applaud you for you effort. 

[Olmec Head]

Excellent comparison of both kits, the nose issue for the new Tamiya kit is a major shame.  Do yo think that can the 'upper bulge' be sanded away do you think - is the plastic thick enough please? 

 

I am looking forward to the next instalment and the build.  I have both in the stash.

 

Oh and Airfix, please re-release your 1/48th Mk1!

[Retired Bob]

Excellent review of these two kits, I much appreciate the time and effort you put into this detailed comparison, and your model of LOG the "flying outhouse" is superb. 

[Basilisk]

Thank you all for the positive feedback. Much appreciated.

 

On 3/10/2019 at 6:50 AM, Sturmovik said:

Nice comparison, I like this type of review. Could Tamiya be planning to release a Mk.IX?

You never know, but it will be rather unlikely and I don't think that the out of shape nose has something to do with this.

 

On 3/11/2019 at 8:28 AM, Olmec Head said:

Do yo think that can the 'upper bulge' be sanded away do you think - is the plastic thick enough please?

Good point. It will get rather thin when it is done.

 

So the new tool Tamiya Spitfire may not be the definitive Spitfire Mk.1 in 1/48. But when it comes to details, it is miles ahead on the Airfix offering.

 

Compromise is not only how a kit manufacturer deals with it, but also how we, the scale modeller, deal with it! For many  the differences are not an issue. for me it is as it can effect the look of a Spitfire Mk.I.

 

Off to put glue to plastic.

Cheers, Peter

 

PS, I updated post #2 with some additional information and moved the nose measurements from here into post #1 as I like to keep the comparison of the kits together in the first four posts.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Basilisk

[Giorgio N]

A very interesting comparison, thanks for sharing these thoughts with us !

[dragonlanceHR]

Thank you Peter for the confirmation. Check out

http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit8/spit8.html#last

 

Cheers,

 

Vedran

 

 

[gingerbob]

Nice comparison.  Airfix omits the gun heat extraction vents near the (underside) wingtips.  I didn't see them on the Tamiya wing, either, but could they be separate parts?

[Tail-Dragon]

This is model kit reviewing at it's finest!  I have both kits, and you clearly show where corrections are needed (or possible) 

Thanks very much for the fine work!

 

Colin

[Ralph]

Always very interesting to see kits compared with their pros and cons. However, is 0.8mm really a deal breaker, particularly as this is a maximum difference at one point? Am not sure that I could spot the difference side by side? Thanks anyway for taking the time to have a look!

Best, R

[Retired Bob]

Thanks again Peter for all the effort and research, Ah well there is always Eduard. 

[Sturmovik]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

However, is 0.8mm really a deal breaker, particularly as this is a maximum difference at one point?

Not really, in fact I wouldn't even worry about such minimal difference between the two, since it wouldn't be noticed by the naked eye.

[Plasto]

9 hours ago, Ralph said:

Always very interesting to see kits compared with their pros and cons. However, is 0.8mm really a deal breaker, particularly as this is a maximum difference at one point...

Spitfire kits evoke highly detailed comparisons. It’s just part of modelling in the internet age. 109’s are the same P-51’s to a lesser degree depending on the forum..

 

I appreciate the effort in the comparison. 

I personally would prefer the Tamiya over the Airfix as it will build up with minimal effort fit extremely well, has IMHO better surface detail. Isn’t made from ‘soapy’ plastic and I can absolutely be sure that Tamiya won’t sell me a kit with short shot or missing bits..

 

Also do I understand correctly the 0.8mm is based on comparison of the Tamiya Plastic to the Airfix Plastic? What determines the Airfix Plastic as correct?

[Sleepwalker]

Very interesting comparison and kit analysis. I wish I knew it a couple of weeks back... In my Tamiya's Spitfire build, I mentioned that division of the nose part of the cowling suggests future Mk. IX version. Bulgy nose has to stay in my case.

[John_W]

When I saw the photo of the underside panels I was curious and had a look at my "old tool" 1/48 Airfix 1a.

They got the panels right on that one...

 

[Basilisk]

Glad to hear that some of you see it as a useful resource to have.

 

21 hours ago, dragonlanceHR said:

Thank you Peter for the confirmation. Check out

http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit8/spit8.html#last

 

Cheers,

 

Vedran

Thank you Vedran for making me aware of Jumpei Temma's findings which I didn't know about.

 

19 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Nice comparison.  Airfix omits the gun heat extraction vents near the (underside) wingtips.  I didn't see them on the Tamiya wing, either, but could they be separate parts?

Yes they are separate parts. I updated second post and mentioned it.

 

14 hours ago, Ralph said:

Always very interesting to see kits compared with their pros and cons. However, is 0.8mm really a deal breaker, particularly as this is a maximum difference at one point? Am not sure that I could spot the difference side by side? Thanks anyway for taking the time to have a look!

Best, R

It is certainly no deal breaker and you are right, most won't spot the difference. Lets wait and see until I completed the fuselages how the difference will present itself.

 

13 hours ago, Sturmovik said:

Not really, in fact I wouldn't even worry about such minimal difference between the two, since it wouldn't be noticed by the naked eye.

0.8 mm doesn't sound like much, but I am sure it will be noticeable by naked eye.

 

4 hours ago, Plasto said:

Spitfire kits evoke highly detailed comparisons. It’s just part of modelling in the internet age. 109’s are the same P-51’s to a lesser degree depending on the forum..

 

I appreciate the effort in the comparison. 

I personally would prefer the Tamiya over the Airfix as it will build up with minimal effort fit extremely well, has IMHO better surface detail. Isn’t made from ‘soapy’ plastic and I can absolutely be sure that Tamiya won’t sell me a kit with short shot or missing bits..

 

Also do I understand correctly the 0.8mm is based on comparison of the Tamiya Plastic to the Airfix Plastic? What determines the Airfix Plastic as correct?

Maybe because there is a large choice of the more popular types. I did update the comparison by removing some statements creating hopefully a less biassed comparison.

 

You are right, my comments inclined that Tamiya got it wrong compared to Airfix and I corrected this. I feel it is true with the Mk.IX look of the upper contour, but the other differences still need to be further investigated and it could well be that the problem is with the Airfix kit.

 

Cheers for now.

Peter

[NPL]

Wasn't Edgar engaged in the Airfix Mk.V, and therefore also in the Mk.I? He normally knew more about this plane than any other person I have heard of. My guess is that Airfix is correct -- but it is my guess. I suppose that both kits are based on CAD scanning. 

 

On the other hand, according to Mr. Sulc, we will have another early Merlin to compare with in a year ... from Eduard.

[Peter Roberts]

Great job! Excellent comparisons, kit to kit to 1:1 version. Thanks for posting,

 

PR

[CJP]

Very interesting comparison - you have an amazing eye for detail Peter

CJP