Airfix Spitfire Vc

[Giorgio N]

11 minutes ago, Chuck1945 said:

FWIW, I measured the Tamiya and Airfix canopies, both width and length of what would be their sliding portion of the molded in closed position canopies at the bottom where it would fit on the sill

Airfix: 8.9mm W x  7.75mm L

Tamiya 7.55mm W x 7.45mm L

 

 

Thanks, these are interesting numbers ! That show how one canopy would struggle to fit on the other kit, reason why both Pavla and Rob Taurus offer different canopies for the Tamiya and Airfix kits.

 

 

[fishplanebeer]

Hopefully the hood from Rob Taurus canopy for the Airfix Mk1 should fit even if it will represent the earlier less blown style used on early V's. The Rob Taurus canopy arrives next Monday from Hannants so I should then be able to confirm either way, but if it doesn't then I suspect a new and bespoke Vc canopy will not be long in coming anyway, fingers crossed.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Kari Lumppio]

17 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

FWIW, I measured the Tamiya and Airfix canopies, both width and length of what would be their sliding portion of the molded in closed position canopies at the bottom where it would fit on the sill

Airfix: 8.9mm W x  7.75mm L

Tamiya 7.55mm W x 7.45mm L

 

 

Hi!

 

Thanks. Monfronton in his book (drawing 5.20) does not give the actual dimensions, but the drawing (1/8 scale) measured equates almost exactly to 24 inch width for the sliding part. At the parallel "skirt" level. That is 8,5 mm in 1/72.

Sliding part length from front (virtual) corner to rear (virtual corner) at the "skirt" height is about 7,45 mm in 1/72. Depends (~+/- 0,1 mm) which is taken as the "corner". Had to check twice that width really is larger than length, but it is.

 

Should get pair of Airfix Vc, but they are still in some ro-ro or row boat or something.

 

Cheers,

Kari

[72modeler]

Just got my two pre-ordered Airfix Spit Vc's today, and wanted to share my initial observations and thoughts to complement what others have said and posted sprue shots to illustrate:

• Very, very nice kit- haven't scaled out the airframe or compared to other kits, but I will do so.
• nicest panel lines and scribing compared to any previous Airfix release; rivals Hasegawa/Fujimi. Way to go, Airfix- may you continue this!
• panel lines appear to be accurate
• two sets of upper wings, both have the wide cannon fairings with rounded fronts; one for clipped and one for standard wingtips
• Rotol and DH props/spinners; Rotol spinner looks a  little too pointy to me, but fixable; props OK, but might be a hair thin in chord
• very nicely detailed cockpit, with the sidewalls being separate shells- will have to see how well this fits
• internally armored windscreen
• hub and spoke detail on the wheels is a bit soft- about the only really disappointing part- looks like the wheels on the old Airfix Mk 1/Vb kits
• one and two piece canopies, but the open canopy option looks too big and thick; vacform replacement  for the hood would be the way to go; the only other disappointing part
• two styles of exhausts, one with and one without the heat intensifier tubes- they do look like they will sit too proud of the cowling, as displayed in the builds already posted, but easy to fix
• tropical filter and slipper tank included
• two styles of oil coolers- one has an extended, flared outlet (tropical?)

Kinda wish the cannon blisters had been add-on parts so a two-cannon Vc and  Seafire II could be built, as well as  providing both styles of blisters, but those are available from the aftermarket. 

 

All in all, the best injected Vc in 1/72 scale, and I hope Airfix sells tons of them  so they can provide us with some more new-tool Spitfires- with the XII, XIV, and XVIII being my  personal choices!

Mike

Edited January 11, 2021 by 72modeler
added text

[Seahawk]

18 hours ago, 72modeler said:

Kinda wish the cannon blisters had been add-on parts so a two-cannon Vc and  Seafire II could be built, as well as  providing both styles of blisters, but those are available from the aftermarket. 

 

On the other hand, since Airfix have generously provided 2 sets of upper wing halves, there will be a set of broad blister cannon access panels spare to turn the Airfix Mk.IX into an earlier variant.  Disclaimer: haven't actually checked yet how well the panel dimensions match across the 2 kits, or whether the wing curvature is the same.  Ought to be doable though.

[Graham Boak]

The Airfix Mk.IX wing has too wide a chord, so I do hope that the new wing doesn't fit.  I don't suppose it will do for the Eduard Mk.VIII, but it might.

 

I also think it a very nice kit, but not the DH spinner which appears too fat.  plenty of replacements around if you need that option.  Nor the extra support on the undercarriage, which is at least easy to remove.  Not sure that the thick walls of the inner cockpit "bath" are really necessary.  I think this is the designer being "clever" rather than following previous examples.  It is perhaps worth adding that early production aircraft should have a small bulge on the upper wing just ahead of and inboard of the ailerons, but I'm not blaming Airfix for not including that - most production aircraft didn't have this.

 

 

[Seahawk]

43 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The Airfix Mk.IX wing has too wide a chord, so I do hope that the new wing doesn't fit.  I don't suppose it will do for the Eduard Mk.VIII, but it might.

 

Like you, I hope the wing doesn't fit.  But the gun access panel might.

[72modeler]

19 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

It is perhaps worth adding that early production aircraft should have a small bulge on the upper wing just ahead of and inboard of the ailerons

What is the purpose of this bulge, Graham? I will admit to my ignorance that I don't recall reading/seeing this.

Mike

[Graham Boak]

The original suggestion was that there was a pipe taking hot air to the outer guns, which had to be routed over some structure and so the bulge was required.  IIRC Edgar Brooks disagreed and offered some other explanation.  I don't remember it, which may or may not imply I wasn't convinced.  It doesn't appear in the manuals, AFAIK.  The bulge can be seen in a few photos: I think the most common one is of Barnham's in the publicity shots but this isn't a good guide to the shape - it is also seen on photos of Spitfires on the deck of HMS Furious, which suggests it was on quite a lot of aircraft.  I must admit not looking for it on aircraft in the Western Desert, but I don't have a lot of photos from the appropriate dates.

 

A separate point about the hot air: Hank's PPH does not have the pipe but does have the hole where it would have entered the cowling.  So how common was that?  Easy to drill if you know it was there on your's...

[steh2o]

On 1/9/2021 at 12:53 PM, Kari Lumppio said:

 

Hi!

 

Thanks. Monfronton in his book (drawing 5.20) does not give the actual dimensions, but the drawing (1/8 scale) measured equates almost exactly to 24 inch width for the sliding part. At the parallel "skirt" level. That is 8,5 mm in 1/72.

Sliding part length from front (virtual) corner to rear (virtual corner) at the "skirt" height is about 7,45 mm in 1/72. Depends (~+/- 0,1 mm) which is taken as the "corner". Had to check twice that width really is larger than length, but it is.

 

Should get pair of Airfix Vc, but they are still in some ro-ro or row boat or something.

 

Cheers,

Kari

Hello,

Monforton's table 2.30-2 gives 22" as the distance between C/L canopy rails, so it seems that 24inch is quite good measurement for the canopy width

Cheers

Stefano

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

PPH does not have the pipe but does have the hole where it would have entered the cowling.

Yep- after I first read about the heating tubes, I began noticing in many photos that the tubes had been removed from the exhausts, but the holes were visible where the tubes entered the cowling. I thought it was a nice touch for Airfix to include them on one set of the exhausts provided in the kit. That being said, regarding  those extra struts  on the kit undercart,  you can see evidence of them in the linked photo of the Vc on display at the AFM, as well as in the third link with excerpts from the Monforton book that shows photos of the struts on the Mk VIII/IX- the linked oleos on the struts would not be appropriate for a Vc, but the upper the shape and fittings on the strut would be the same, I think. The second link shows details of the AFM Vc, especially the shape of the DH spinner and prop, which I'm pretty sure are original units.  The last link is to the Vc preserved at the SA Aviation Museum in Oz- you can see the extra strut. Hope these will be useful! 

Mike

 

https://trmreviewconnect.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/scale-aircraft-conversion-new-products-april-2015/48282-spitfire-mk-i-v-landing-gear-4-750x491/

 

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196284/supermarine-spitfire-mk-vc/\

 

http://www.hyperscale.com/2008/reviews/books/spitfireengineeredbookreviewbg_1.htm

 

http://simmsydos.blogspot.com/2013/07/spitfire-mkvc-open-day-sa-aviation_7.html

 

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by 72modeler
added text, added link

[gingerbob]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

A separate point about the hot air: Hank's PPH does not have the pipe but does have the hole where it would have entered the cowling.  So how common was that?  Easy to drill if you know it was there on your's...

 

Quite common, I think.  I've also seen a small plate put there to fill the hole.  If it is the exhausts with that tube to supply heated air, once disconnected it should (I think) simply be a straight-through tube.  But don't worry, I won't be sighting down the bore to see if you've drilled it out on your 72nd Spits!  (or if I do, I won't bring it up)

[72modeler]

9 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

I won't be sighting down the bore to see if you've drilled it out on your 72nd Spits!  (or if I do, I won't bring it up)

Put down the flashlight and magnifying glass, back slowly away from the model on the judging table, and nobody will get hurt! 

Mike

[alt-92]

On 1/10/2021 at 1:48 AM, 72modeler said:

two styles of exhausts, [....] they do look like they will sit too proud of the cowling, as displayed in the builds already posted, but easy to fix

I see this remark made every now and then, and then I look at this:

 

Granted, it's a Mk.I, but the Mk.V is marginally different:

 

[Graham Boak]

The extra "strut" shown is the actuator arm that rotates the undercarriage when acted on, presumably by a piston.  

[Beard]

22 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't suppose it will do for the Eduard Mk.VIII, but it might.

If I get the chance, I'll pop up in the loft and check.

 

Edit: Just popped up to the loft, while tea is cooking, and dug out an Eduard VIII.

Fits pretty well. Except...

 

 

It ain't entirely clear from the second photo but Airfix have moulded the flaps as part of the upper wing so that bit will need to be removed.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Beard

[Graham Boak]

Might it be easier to remove Eduard's?

[Ray_W]

6 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't remember it, which may or may not imply I wasn't convinced. 

 

The purpose of the bulge is still not clear to me. An attempt to answer was made here: 

 

 

Gun heating piping clearance and aileron actuator clearance arguments were put forward - although neither had compelling evidence.

 

The bulge is between the MG's at the ammo box locations. Too far forward for actuator clearance (as Graham @Graham Boaknoted in the thread) even though the actuator had been significantly beefed up from the Mk. I. There is nothing for actuator operation at play at the ammo boxes.  With regard to gun heating, the drawing for the Mk. I gun heating piping shows it taken from the radiator and stopping at wing rib 8, essentially just past the wheel well or into the first cannon bay on later Marks. It then uses baffles, fitted to the sides of the wing ribs, to direct the warm air flow to the guns before exhausting. This type of installation is still shown on the C-Wing. There is no extra piping involved at the gun bays so a clearance bulge would not be necessary.

 

As an aside, how would they ever, easily, retrofit this type of system to early Mark's? Real evidence of this is worthy of another thread.

This is an image of the starboard wing Mk.Vc  Browning installation. Note the inboard MG has been moved outboard to the Universal Wing (C-Wing) positions between ribs 13 and 14.  The gun heating tubes, from the exhaust manifold, coming in ahead of the main spar then splitting to service each gun feed. Seems like there was no exhaust port after the guns other than through the existing gun mechanisms. I have not seen a side view at this location to see if the lifting of the gun heating piping necessitated a upper wing bulge in early installations although the bulge seems too far back for this. 

 

 

 

 

Did the early Vc have special gun heating piping coming off the radiators? I think unlikely.

Did the new exhaust manifold gun heater piping have some interference that required clearance and was subsequently corrected? Maybe. 

Or, possibly, revised ammo boxes (larger/standardised)? I cannot see fitment being an issue as they are in the same position. The feed trough just being shortened on the inboard gun. 

 

So, for me still no clear answer and I was hunting for my Mk. Vc build last year .

 

Ray

[Graham Boak]

Thanks Ray - that shows the bulge in a different position from what I remember and said above, but I do remember having to use Microsol/set to get the roundel to fit over it.  Still, I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice it, I was beginning to feel a little lonely.  However rereading the old thread, it was Edgar who said it couldn't possibly be the actuator: I was a little more cautious if still doubtful.  Once again there is this problem with the Supermarine mod book either quoting very odd dates, or possibly referring to something other than we think it does.

[Ray_W]

8 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Still, I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice it, I was beginning to feel a little lonely.

 

It did exist. On a few aircraft. In the roundel, teardrop and slightly back from centre line - possibly further back than the Supermarine drawing:

 

 

I'll check for any new information over the next few days.

 

Ray

[Giorgio N]

Hope the OP doesn't mind me resurrecting this thread, I thought it would be the right place to post this...

I finally laid my hands on one of these kits ! I know, it's been out for a year or so, so I'm very late to the party. Thing is with Covid and Brexit, Airfix local distribution has been affected somewhat and the sharp increase in postage from the UK meant I could not find what I felt was a good offer if buying online, Finally last weekend I visited the local hobby trade show and bought one from a large shop, so I can make my own assessment..

Well, for a starter it's a Spitfire Vc, a very widely used variant that has until now been poorly represented. This alone is a good thing,

The plastic... Airfix seem to have taken notice of the Eduard Spitfire IX and a few design choices are quite "Eduardish" (or should it be Eduardian ?), particularly the way the fuselage sides are moulded. Nothing wrong with in, afterall the Eduard Spitfires are great kits. Of course the use of separate sidewalls results in quite thick fuselage walls, making this less than ideally realistic but it's a tradeoff to achieve better detail

 

One thing I really like is the inclusion of an instrument panel with moulded instruments. Most recent Airfix kits featured flat instrument panels, a solution that IMHO is not acceptable in a 21st Century kit, and this new course is welcome. Cockpit detail in general is nice, not as sharply moulded as Eduard's but sure acceptable.

 

Other details are not as sharply moulded as I'd like: wheels and tailwheel are quite soft, that apart from being a potential issue when painting are something that always leave me a feeling of sloppyness. Sure replacement wheels are easy to find, but I'd like the have them nicely moulded in the box.

 

Panel lines... very mixed feelings ! Mixed because they are not of the same quality on all parts. Fuselage is pretty good, maybe not ultrasharp but on par with most manufacturers.

Upper wing surfaces are not as sharp as on the fuselage, still good but they look slightly wider and less defined. Even more unusual as two of these parts are on the same sprue as the fuselage...

Lower wing parts are much worse than the rest ! There is a definite difference between the panel lines on the upper and lower surfaces, the latter are even wider and less sharp. Why this ? No idea, it is very odd. One thing that I don't like in general about the panel lines is that there is no attempt to differentiate between panel lines proper and moving surfaces, like flaps and ailerons. Of course it is easy for the modeller to scribe the moving surfaces deeper, but again others do it from the box...

 

The clear parts have already been mentioned by others, personally I feel they are a letdown compared to the overall much higher quality of the rest of the parts. One weird choice: why offer an opened canopy when there's no option to open the port side door ?

 

I haven't checked any accuracy issue yet, the spinners have already been mentioned by others and the flat wheel well covers are a well known detail (Eduard spare parts to the rescue for these), at first glance I don't see any major problem but I'll investigate further. I feel that in the end I'll be happy with the kit.

 

So overall what do I think ? Nice kit, with some quirks that I struggle to explain. Feels like Airfix was trying to do something really good but for some reason at some point rushed the product. No doubt it's a good basis for a great model (as many modellers here have shown) but I've often had one of those "could have been so much better" feeling.

 

Last but not least, something that adds to my mixed feelings about the kit... the price: I paid € 15 for this kit. Is it a fair price for a kit of this quality ? Price is always a hard thing to assess as depend on too many external factors. Today single engined WW2 fighters from mainstream manufacturers tend to be somewhere between 10 and 20, so maybe this is a price in line with the market. The kit also features quite a high parts count.

What however adds to my doubts is that on the same day I bought a couple of Arma Hobby Hurricanes from the same shop (a Mk.I and a IIc), èaying them € 12.70 each for the basic box (plastic only, no PE or resin). Now it is true that the Hurricanes feature less parts and less options, but the quality of the plastic is much higher, with much sharper detail in all areas. Now I'm a true Spitfire fan and I'd generally build a Spitfire over a Hurricane any time but I have to admit that the Arma kits shout "build me now!" any time I look at them, the Airfix Vc much less so. Yes it's a Vc, one of the variants I really want to add to my collection in good numbers.. I like many things in this kit but I'm left with the though of what an Arma Vc would have been like....

[72modeler]

3 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

I like many things in this kit but I'm left with the though of what an Arma Vc would have been like....

Roger that, Giorgio! Hadn't really noticed the difference in the scribing on the upper and lower wings, as I only gave the kit a cursory going over when I got mine, but will certainly go back and check things out. Thanks so much for sharing your observations, and we can only dream about what an Arma Spit Vb/Vc would look like! Sadly, we are still waiting for the definitive Vc and XII, after all these years. Maybe if/when Eduard gets around to early Merlin Spitfires...

Mike

[Denford]

5 hours ago, 72modeler said:

....Sadly, we are still waiting for the definitive Vc and XII, after all these years.

And XlV !

[fishplanebeer]

I think price wise Airfix are always at the cheap end of things in the UK although if the postage wasn't so high then Eduard would be pretty cheap as well if buying direct, and even from Hannants they are still pretty good value for money given their finesse and accuracy.

 

What seems odd given the popularity of the Spitfire in 72nd scale is that there is yet to be what most would regard as a definitive model apart from the later marque merlin versions from Eduard. All the others are pretty good, such as the Airfix Vc along with the KP the AZ range of earlier variants so we are well catered for but until Arma and Eduard (and possibly Special Hobby) buy into the early marques I suspect the wait will continue. To be fair KP, after their recent and welcome Seafire 1b release, will be releasing a new-ish Mk1 soon which may fill the void left by the Tamiya and Airfix offerings so we'll have to wait and see. I suspect it will be to their usual standard which is no bad thing but I doubt it will be the bee's knees.

 

Of course we then have the ongoing issue in this scale of no MkXII at all or an accurate XIV, even though the Sword kits are pretty good, so there will always be room for yet more Spitfire kits for the more discerning modeller. The trouble is outside of our circle how many people are really crying out for a XII or a top notch XIV, and would they sell in sufficient volume? I don't have the answer but the fact that these voids have been around for quite some time would suggest that the mainstream manufacturers have still to be convinced. So yet again my letter to Father Christmas this year will look very much like the one I sent him last year, and the year before, and the year before that!

 

Regards

Colin.

[Seahawk]

10 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

I think price wise Airfix are always at the cheap end of things in the UK ....

 

That has been historically the case: I think that for years we have been prepared to tolerate a slightly lower level of finesse and even accuracy because Airfix were cheaper.  But over recent years that price advantage has eroded sharply.  It's been possible to buy in the UK the superb Eduard Bf 110s and Spitfire IXs for less than their lacklustre Airfix counterparts.  The superlative Tamiya Mosquito IV  is cheaper than the Airfix Mosquito XVI.  On the AFV front the mediocre Airfix 1/72 Sherman is more expensive than the superb Heller one (okay, not a Firefly but still a Sherman).  So I think that Airfix are playing a dangerous game if they raise their prices to match those of premium counterparts when not offering comparable standards of accuracy, finesse and delicacy.  I don't mind paying premium prices for premium products but baulk at paying premium prices for average products with silly mistakes which should have been picked up much earlier.  And there isn't much room at the bottom of the market nowadays with small players like Arma and Zvezda raising their game to show what can be done, and sometimes at budget prices.

 

Like your balanced assessment of the Spitfire Vc, BTW.  A good product marred by a few silly errors - correctable, certainly, but unnecessary.  Once again the Airfix team has charged up the field, with the crowd roaring them on, only to shoot wide of the open goalmouth.