1/72 - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.Vc by Airfix - released

[Wez]

37 minutes ago, Denford said:

However, and I stand to be corrected, I think only Mks l and ll Seafires were based on the Vb, whereas Mk lll was based on the Vc.

Away from my references right now but I think both the Seafire II & III were based on the Vc airframe.

[Graham Boak]

Agreed.  Hence the Mk.IIc...

 

The very first Cunliffe Owen Seafire lacked strengtheners, but I understand it was the only one.  Being lighter, it was kept by the CO for personal use, but when he was on leave it was flown onto a carrier by an inexperienced pilot, and it broke.  The chance of randomly happening on that as a modelling subject appears slight.  It will be easily identifiable by serial, but I've not done it nor seen it done.

 

It would be a shame, after all, to possibly spoil such a good story.

 

When discussing hybrid b/c models, remember that Airfix do not currently do a Mk.Vb.  Their previous kit has flaws in the fuselage/wing interface that will prevent combination - and was responsible for the thickness of the previous Mk.Vc wing. This b wing has other flaws too, in aileron and tip shape.

[Work In Progress]

59 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Their previous kit has flaws in the fuselage/wing interface that will prevent combination - and was responsible for the thickness of the previous Mk.Vc wing. This b wing has other flaws too, in aileron and tip shape.

The 1975 one, yes, I would normally say it's best avoided these days. 

But the weird thing is that all the mainstream 1/72 Spitfire Vb kits have problems that they really shouldn't have - inexplicable for such a popular and often-kitted type and scale. From the major manufacturers the Hobby Boss may be the best basis with some looting of the spares box - surely everyone has a 1/72 Spitfire spares box. It can lead to a good result at modest cost. @rs2man has the proof and can probably remind me which parts came from which kits - I know it needed undercarriage doors and some other bits.

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Work In Progress

[G.E.SAUNDERS]

  hi all ,'

 

                  stand back 3 feet wot do you see ?

 

                                                                    Geoff

[AWFK10]

As well as lacking undercarriage doors, the Hobby Boss Vb needs a replacement prop as for some bizarre reason the blades are moulded in the feathered position. Another oddity is that the landing lights are lowered. Neither of these quirks is actually wrong, of course, it's just that the real aircraft wouldn't typically be seen in that condition. I seem to recall the canopy isn't great, either, but I too kind of like the kit.

[Ratch]

2 hours ago, G.E.SAUNDERS said:

  hi all ,'

 

                  stand back 3 feet wot do you see ?

 

                                                                    Geoff

Bushfires?

[Giorgio N]

5 hours ago, Denford said:

My italics in your post.

Airwaves, now owned by Hannants, made conversion sets and folding wings (using resin and PE) to convert the 70' Airfix Vb to the various Merlin Seafires variants.  Very comprehenive they were too especially for the Mk lll.

However, and I stand to be corrected, I think only Mks l and ll Seafires were based on the Vb, whereas Mk lll was based on the Vc.  How well they would fit only time will tell.

 

They did and will be interesting to see if any of their products will fit the new Airfix Vc.

Of course as this is now a Vc there will be no need for a new wing to build a Seafire IIc, as the wing stays the same of the Vc, Different story with the folding wing of the Seafire III... here it is possible to modify a Vc wing, not a huge job but requires a bit more than just scribing new lines for the wingfold as the wheel well was also modified in shape.

A IIC is simpler, just add reinforcement plates, arresting hook and catapult spools.

Later subvariants would also need the 4-blade propeller and 6-stack exhausts. These exhausts however were also used on a number of Spitfire V, so it would be nice to have them in the box. If not, there's plenty of aftermarket ones made for the Spit IX.

 

Said that, personally I'm happy enough to have a Vc, that a Seafire II can be built from it is a bonus and I may well convert one, but the bulk of my future Vc purchases will be finished as straight Vcs

[Work In Progress]

2 hours ago, AWFK10 said:

As well as lacking undercarriage doors, the Hobby Boss Vb needs a replacement prop as for some bizarre reason the blades are moulded in the feathered position. Another oddity is that the landing lights are lowered. Neither of these quirks is actually wrong, of course, it's just that the real aircraft wouldn't typically be seen in that condition. I seem to recall the canopy isn't great, either, but I too kind of like the kit.

Yes, canopy and prop ring a bell as well as the UC doors. 

[72modeler]

9 hours ago, Denford said:

Airwaves, now owned by Hannants, made conversion sets

I have one, and it's OK, but really pretty soft on detail; the wing fold lines on the Mk III are very easy to do, and making a new bay for the arrestor hook is also an easy fix- did one years ago for a Monogram F7F Tigercat and was surprised how easy it was and how much it added to the look of the model. (You can also deploy the tail hook to keep the F7F from tail sitting!) The Airwaves wings were also soft on detail, and scribing the wing fold lines on an injected kit with spread wings, or cutting them to make a folded wing model is easy with very careful cutting and the folded wings would also be lighter, I would think, than the resin ones.

 

@Giorgio N- try getting a KP Vc on this side of the pond! Nobody seems to have them, including Hannants and HLJ- in fact HLJ emailed me that they were unable to fill my order for two of them despite trying several times. (For the price and shipping on auction sites for a KP kit, I can get the bits I need from other kits and still be money ahead. ) I agree the likelihood of a new-tool Seafire 1b, II, and III is pretty slim, but all three are very easy conversions. Maybe an aftermarket outfit would consider a three-in-one conversion set with decals...yeah, I'm a dreamer! I'm sure all of us have a burning desire for a favorite airplane, but know full well kitmakers have to show a return on their research and tooling investment. (As the Rolling Stones used to sing- "You can't always get what you want!")

Mike

[72modeler]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:36 AM, Wez said:

I suspect this was the type fitted to tropicalised Mk.V's to increase the venturi effect

Wez,

 

Now that I have re-examined your posted photo and some others, I think you might be right on your comment- flaring the opening would certainly increase the venturi effect, I would think, almost like the increase in airflow through the radiator on a Hurricane, Spitfire, or Mustang when the outlet door was opened further.

Mike

[Graham Boak]

9 hours ago, G.E.SAUNDERS said:

        stand back 3 feet wot do you see ?

     

That would very much depend upon what I was looking at, wouldn't it?

[rob85]

I’m interested to se the options they do with this kit, the extra picture they have on their look good. I could only see one when their website nearly/did crash.

 

i will buy a number and lots of decal sheets to go with, Malta based aircraft, lots of Aussie subjects I want to do, North Africa and Italian based options.... I could be pretty busy

 

Rob

[MACALAIN]

I have a question for Spit specialist, about the futur Spitfire Vc in 1/72 from Airfix about the short spinner on the 3D picture.

For myself, it look too round !

[klr]

47 minutes ago, MACALAIN said:

I have a question for Spit specialist, about the futur Spitfire Vc in 1/72 from Airfix about the short spinner on the 3D picture.

For myself, it look too round !

Hello, and welcome to the forum.

 

I'm not an expert on this, but I know that there were several different types of spinner and propeller used on the Spitfire Vc. The 3D rendering by Airfix looks very similar to those in the picture below. I think this is one of the de Havilland spinner types. There have been some related discussions about this in the past:

 

 

It's possible that the Airfix kit will include more than one type of spinner, which has happened with other Spitfire kits.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by klr

[gioca]

the profiles on decals choises proposed by Airfix show two different spinners and of course consequently  two different propellers: DH metal prop and short" pointed" spinner ( configuration of the 3D render) , Rotol wooden prop and  "pointed " spinner. I admit these profiles have some strange design for the 20mm cannon, more similar to an MkVb cannon than that of a proper MkVc, anywa...time will tell ...

Edited January 16, 2020 by gioca

[fishplanebeer]

Lest get real here.

 

We have been crying out for years for a half decent Mk V from any manufacturer even if the Airfix Mk1/2A could be built as their re-packaged Va but not totally ideal. So why so may issues when the kit hasn't even been produced?

 

I don't work for Airfix but have bought their kits since the mid-60's as a very young lad and we are truly spoilt by the quality and variety of kits that are now available these days. Personally I can't wait to receive my pre-ordered examples as I'm sure it will be the best seen so far. OK, if you don't like the decals or wanted a Vb instead then fine as there will be plenty of aftermarket types who will meet your needs.

 

For me it's a very big 'thank you' to Airfix as I've been banging on about a new MkV for years in this scale and now we have it at long last brilliant!

 

Regards

Colin.

[Graham Boak]

Perhaps the best time to raise issues is before the kit has been produced?  (If that is indeed the position, or any need)?  If only someone had raised the issue of the over-thick wing  of Airfix's previous Mk.Vc in time to make changes.  Assuming they would have done, of course.

 

Even so, however, it hasn't been difficult to make a Mk.Vc from the kits on the market  since then.  It was always possible to thin down the Airfix Mk.Vc wing from the inside, and correct its other shortcomings.  Not a lot of fun, but possible.  Or cross-kit details with the Airfix Mk.Vb or (perhaps better) their superior Mk.I?  I'll step quickly over the SMER Mk.Vc retooling of the Heller Mk.Vb and point to the Airwaves c wing in their Seafire III conversion set.   This is without the options of sticking a single stage Merlin nose on a two stage Merlin Spitfire Mk.IXc, and changing the cooling arrangements.  You could even cross-kit the Italeri marks - though you'd still need a new nose and a fair amount of work.   But recently there's been no such difficulties.  There is a Sword Mk.Vc, and even a Seafire III with a spare Mk.Vc fuselage,  There is, I believe, a similar AZ kit (but I don't have it).  If you've been calling out for a decent Mk.V, try one of those.   I'm looking forward to this Airfix kit (even buying both of them, perhaps, if only out of curiosity) but judging from those of Airfix's recent kits which I have bought I don't expect it to be easier or greatly superior to these Czech offerings.  Though it should have a slightly larger span.

 

Incidentally, what's disappointing about the Mk.Va?  Other than what was disappointing about the Mk.I/II (not exactly a lot).

 

More generally, if Airfix didn't want comments then they wouldn't publicise kits so far in advance nor run a social media page.  I recall not just the 60s but the late 50s, and never knowing what the new kits would be before entering a model shop.  I don't recall it spoiling my hobby, rather heightening my sense of anticipation.  If only in frequency - visits to model shops in those days coming round more frequently than trade show/advance publicity announcements do nowadays.  Nowadays such shop visits, fine though they are, do lack the same sense of wonder.  Partly the jading effect of familiarity, of course.

[Ratch]

24 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Perhaps the best time to raise issues is before the kit has been produced?  (If that is indeed the position, or any need)?  If only someone had raised the issue of the over-thick wing  of Airfix's previous Mk.Vc in time to make changes.

How are you going to do that Graham when Airfix are well down the development road before they announce the subject. The Toy Trade has always been shrouded in secrecy for fear of the opposition getting in first - and that won't change.

[MarkoZG]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:30 AM, Graham Boak said:

Agreed.  Hence the Mk.IIc...

 

The very first Cunliffe Owen Seafire lacked strengtheners, but I understand it was the only one.  Being lighter, it was kept by the CO for personal use, but when he was on leave it was flown onto a carrier by an inexperienced pilot, and it broke.  The chance of randomly happening on that as a modelling subject appears slight.  It will be easily identifiable by serial, but I've not done it nor seen it done.

 

It would be a shame, after all, to possibly spoil such a good story.

 

When discussing hybrid b/c models, remember that Airfix do not currently do a Mk.Vb.  Their previous kit has flaws in the fuselage/wing interface that will prevent combination - and was responsible for the thickness of the previous Mk.Vc wing. This b wing has other flaws too, in aileron and tip shape.

Hi Graham,

could you please explain this flaw in the fuselage/wing interface of previous generation Airfix Mk.V kits and other flaws you mentioned in Mk.Vb kit?

Thanks.

[MarkoZG]

On 1/10/2020 at 1:47 PM, AWFK10 said:

As well as lacking undercarriage doors, the Hobby Boss Vb needs a replacement prop as for some bizarre reason the blades are moulded in the feathered position. Another oddity is that the landing lights are lowered. Neither of these quirks is actually wrong, of course, it's just that the real aircraft wouldn't typically be seen in that condition. I seem to recall the canopy isn't great, either, but I too kind of like the kit.

If only this would be all that is odd on Hobby Boss. Unless we are talking about different kits, the Hobby Boss Mk.Vs I am aware of look very funny overall and I wouldn't consider them for anything serious.

[Graham Boak]

OK Marko.  The aileron is engraved to the same wide chord on upper and lower surfaces.  The actual one was a Frise design, with less chord on the upper surface, so you have to fill the line and engrave a new one.  The tip shape is  a little odd and there is no washout as so well represented on the Airfix Mk.I of much the same vintage.  The inner wing has a kink, making a slight rise to the join with the fuselage.  Thus the point of the V made at the join is too high.  The Mk.Vc appears to have taken this point as a reference for the wing thickness, so is excessively thick.

 

The aileron I'd noticed when the Mk. VB came out.   Later, trying to cross kit with the Mk.I to create a Mk.Va, I found it odd that the two were not identical in construction, although It was only trying to fix the later c wing that I realised why.  The tip shape oddity was pointed out by a Scandinavian modeller many years ago.  Memory does not provide details but tweaks rather than anything gross.

 

In regards to wing shape, the older Mk.I is still the best representation, although the new one has a longer engine cowling which may be more correct: I've yet to see this properly defined as with the Mk.IX.

[Graham Boak]

9 hours ago, Ratch said:

How are you going to do that Graham when Airfix are well down the development road before they announce the subject. The Toy Trade has always been shrouded in secrecy for fear of the opposition getting in first - and that won't change.

That may depend upon just how far.  However it isn't totally unheard of for companies to correct major errors even after initial release.  The Tamiya Meteor and the Trumpeter(?) Wildcat come to mind.  Any delays in production due to late changes will probably remain unknown lacking some highly detailed autobiography by an insider.  Not, I suspect, a profitable venture for any publisher.

 

After making all reasonable allowances, I still think it is an important part of the hobby for those with good knowledge of any type to be able to pass comment on any areas requiring some work to produce a more accurate replica.  Or at least potentially so.  However I hadn't noticed any great storm of controversy around this release, just a few queries here and there by no means all critical.  It looks very promising.

 

So however did the previous Mk.Vc.   Yes, a different time, a different company, but a good lesson in restraining enthusiasm until we get it into our hands.

 

[Ratch]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

After making all reasonable allowances, I still think it is an important part of the hobby for those with good knowledge of any type to be able to pass comment on any areas requiring some work to produce a more accurate replica.

No argument there Graham. Once highlighted it is then the customer's choice whether to buy or not.

I do think that the number of times a fault is highlighted is much higher than the times a mould is corrected, regardless of manufacturer. They must make a conscious decision "can we live with it - will it affect sales to a degree too much to bear". The highlighting of errors seems to be a point-scoring exercise among some modellers. A case of I know more than everyone else - I was first to highlight it.

[AWFK10]

9 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

If only this would be all that is odd on Hobby Boss. Unless we are talking about different kits, the Hobby Boss Mk.Vs I am aware of look very funny overall and I wouldn't consider them for anything serious.

Well, that depends on how serious one thinks plastic modelling is. I do it purely for enjoyment and apart from the points I mentioned the Hobby Boss Mk V meets my criteria.

[fishplanebeer]

I totally agree with AWFK10.

 

We are now getting seriously anal here and losing sight of the fact that an aircraft at 72nd scale is close to seeing it in real life from what, perhaps 80-100 yards away (sorry, metres in new parlance) so how much detail can you actually see and can you really see minor imperfections in dihedral or cockpit harnesses etc...…..? - I think not.

 

My advice is to just get on doing modelling and not expect it to be perfect straight from the box (which seems to be the expectation these days) as  surely that's part and parcel of modelling in the first place?  And give Airfix some credit by tackling this thorny subject as we have all been waiting for decades for a half decent Spitfire V in this scale so lets not judge until it is actually released into the public domain. I fully expect it to be the best on the market to date so happy days ahead!

 

Regards

Colin.