Is The New Airfix 1/72 Mosquito B.Mk.XVI Under Scaled?

[John Thompson]

Humbug - as one who's built the Encore 1/72 Yak-9 twice, with seemingly unlimited improvements/corrections required, I'd be delighted if anyone launched a new one at the same level of accuracy as this Mosquito thingie. That said, I understand the inputs of those who feel a bit let down by the new Airfix kitset - we all have varying degrees of craving for accuracy, depending on love of the subject, but also a desire to see Airfix really shine. To me, any criticism is constructive - if I was inclined to build a Mosquito, I'd look carefully at threads like this for guidance.

 

"Oh yeah? Your nose is crooked, and you need a haircut."

 

Okay, thanks, I'll get right on that...

 

John

[andyrowe]

Hey everyone. Thanks to you all for your input on my initial query on the length of the possible under scaled fuselage. But I think from the first half dozen or so replies, the topic has gone off kilter a bit with the other errors being discussed but not much about the fuselage length. There are other threads on this site that are discussing in some detail the other issues.

To answer a couple of the questions asked, I have measured the actual kit parts and they do match the length dimensions stated by Airfix on the box. The Mossie length only equates to the fuselage with the clear nose part at 174mm. The Beaufort length is 186mm as stated on the box also. 

My initial question was that the Mossie in reality is longer than the Beaufort. The 2 stage Merlins do extend further than the nose of the Mossie but do they extend 12mm more as the real aircraft is 13.56m long which equates to 188mm in 1:72 scale. 

I don't have scale drawings but looking at the Airfix colour/decal drawings on the instructions, the prop spinners only extend a little way past the clear nose. 12mm equates to 864mm in reality and I just don't see the spinners extending that much. 

I guess the proof will be the building of the kit and then taking measurements, but from the time I looked at the parts, I was a little surprised at how small the fuselage looked. 

[alt-92]

Well, just for completeness then:

Measurements are listed for the major single and two stage versions here:

http://airvectors.net/avmoss_1.html

 

[JasonC]

2 hours ago, andyrowe said:

Hey everyone. Thanks to you all for your input on my initial query on the length of the possible under scaled fuselage. But I think from the first half dozen or so replies, the topic has gone off kilter a bit with the other errors being discussed but not much about the fuselage length. There are other threads on this site that are discussing in some detail the other issues.

To answer a couple of the questions asked, I have measured the actual kit parts and they do match the length dimensions stated by Airfix on the box. The Mossie length only equates to the fuselage with the clear nose part at 174mm. The Beaufort length is 186mm as stated on the box also. 

My initial question was that the Mossie in reality is longer than the Beaufort. The 2 stage Merlins do extend further than the nose of the Mossie but do they extend 12mm more as the real aircraft is 13.56m long which equates to 188mm in 1:72 scale. 

I don't have scale drawings but looking at the Airfix colour/decal drawings on the instructions, the prop spinners only extend a little way past the clear nose. 12mm equates to 864mm in reality and I just don't see the spinners extending that much. 

I guess the proof will be the building of the kit and then taking measurements, but from the time I looked at the parts, I was a little surprised at how small the fuselage looked. 

 

Where are you getting your value of 13.56m for the length? That seems much too high. A random reference I've pulled out (Aero Detail 23) gives the fuselage length as 12.34m for the B.XVI, which equates to 171mm in 1/72. Same reference gives 12.497m as the total length to spinner tips, giving 173.6mm in 1/72 - pretty much the value quoted by Airfix.

[gingerbob]

and from the link that alt-92 provided, I got 175.68(followed by 3s)* as overall (I presume) length in 1/72.  That's for the PR.34, according to the table I drew from.

 

* ha, it occurred to me that I had taken the "English" measurement, then converted to mm, when there was a Metric dimension given.  Going straight from that, I came up with an expected length of 175.69(followed by 4s).  Ah well, I guess something slightly more than a 100th of a millimeter is enough precision for me.

Edited August 24, 2021 by gingerbob

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, andyrowe said:

the real aircraft is 13.56m long

There's your problem, what is the actual length of the Mosquito?

The figure you quote can be found on that fount of all internet knowledge, Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that it's wrong for the reasons you've stated - the B.IV was 40'9" long, that's the fuselage length as the spinners are slightly behind the nose cone, the 2 stage versions had spinners that projected slightly forward of the nose cone, but only by a few inches, not more than 3 feet as implied by the wikipedia entry.

The Aeroguide on the mosquito quotes the length of B.IX, B.XVI, PR.XVI, PR34, B.35 is 41 ft - 12.497m = 173.6mm in 1/72 scale

The sources are stated as various DH and RAF drawings. There are discrepancies in the tabulated data and drawn dimensions, but I think the figure quoted here is closer to the truth than that from wikipedia

[alt-92]

So, no phone call needed then?

 

[gingerbob]

I think the Wikipedia length is for the Dart engined one. 😉

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

So in conclusion it's dimensionally perfect, as you'd expect from a kit designed against a LIDAR scan and this was all a storm in a teacup caused by a typo in Wikipedia?

 

As it's designed around a LIDAR point cloud, the only way they could screw it up this much in length would be to underscale the whole 3D model rather than distort the point cloud, so if it were short in length it'll be short in span too. All Mosquitos except the the square tipped original prototype configuration and Mk.XV high altitude ones with pointy tips were the same span at 54ft 2in or 16.51m.

[Graham Boak]

A LIDAR point cloud does not automatically resolve itself into a CAD shape nor from there to a sprue layout.  I think that (irrelevant to this particular case) you may be underestimating the human (and software) capabilities for fouling up.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

A LIDAR point cloud does not automatically resolve itself into a CAD shape nor from there to a sprue layout.  I think that (irrelevant to this particular case) you may be underestimating the human (and software) capabilities for fouling up.

 

We use the technology regularly in my day job industry so I'm very familiar with it in fact. I've seen the Airfix process via screenshots which they've released in various PR stuff whereby the native 3D solid model is modelled just like we do in the energy industry brownfield engineering sector with the point cloud imported into the modelling software, and the solid model i.e. the external shape of the aircraft is modelled in accordance with the point cloud. That then becomes the master model which is copied/pasted and reworked to create the "objects" which are the kit parts. The fact that the LIDAR scan data remains as-is and not part of the model kit design means it's always available for verification. I don't think Airfix have messed a kit up yet since they've been using the technology. Yes people will complain about detail errors, but they haven't yet produced a misshapen pig yet that I'm aware of.

[John Thompson]

2 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 they haven't yet produced a misshapen pig yet that I'm aware of.

 

Judging by comments posted here and elsewhere, the 1/72 MiG-17 has been heard making faint oinking noises, but perhaps it was pre-LIDAR.

 

John

[Fukuryu]

4 hours ago, John Thompson said:

 

Judging by comments posted here and elsewhere, the 1/72 MiG-17 has been heard making faint oinking noises, but perhaps it was pre-LIDAR.

 

John

 

"The Airfix team had the benefit of MiG 17 scan data for this project, which allows them to accurately replicate the iconic shape of this Cold War jet in 1/72nd scale"

 

So, I'd say... no.

[John Thompson]

13 minutes ago, Fukuryu said:

 

"The Airfix team had the benefit of MiG 17 scan data for this project, which allows them to accurately replicate the iconic shape of this Cold War jet in 1/72nd scale"

 

So, I'd say... no.

 

Two strikes on them, then - one for failure to apply the LIDAR scan data accurately and the second for use of the nauseatingly-overworked adjective "ic - ic - icon - " arrrgh - I can hardly even say it myself without my tongue curdling in my mouth and my innards starting to heave...

 

John

[Tom R]

This thread really needs the title changed. The OP @andyrowe seems to have taken Wikipedia as gospel which is a bit naive and it looks like an unwarranted slur on the kit.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Tom R

[Selwyn]

12 minutes ago, John Thompson said:

 

Two strikes on them, then - one for failure to apply the LIDAR scan data accurately and the second for use of the nauseatingly-overworked adjective "ic - ic - icon - " arrrgh - I can hardly even say it myself without my tongue curdling in my mouth and my innards starting to heave...

 

John

Or the Airfix MIG 17 is accurate as it comes from a modern state of the art LIDAR scan  and the published data that was probably obtained by nefarious means during the cold war period and republished again and again since then may be in error?

I have seen modelers again and again laying  fuselages on "scale" plans and shouting out its wrong. What is wrong is  laying  fuselages on "scale" plans! Because of course the person who drew  the plans is assured to be correct in every aspect in the drawing, and of course the actual printing of the drawing is never distorted by the printing process!

What you need, and almost never see is a correctly dimensioned scale drawing of a subject, from that you take a proven stated measurement, and measure the kit to compare. 

Selwyn

[John Thompson]

49 minutes ago, Selwyn said:

Or the Airfix MIG 17 is accurate as it comes from a modern state of the art LIDAR scan  and the published data that was probably obtained by nefarious means during the cold war period and republished again and again since then may be in error?

I have seen modelers again and again laying  fuselages on "scale" plans and shouting out its wrong. What is wrong is  laying  fuselages on "scale" plans! Because of course the person who drew  the plans is assured to be correct in every aspect in the drawing, and of course the actual printing of the drawing is never distorted by the printing process!

What you need, and almost never see is a correctly dimensioned scale drawing of a subject, from that you take a proven stated measurement, and measure the kit to compare. 

Selwyn

I don't think it's that simple in this case, but here's the relevant BM thread - all 15 pages of it. Once again, it seems to be a debate between those who love the subject and want minute accuracy, versus those who think close enough is close enough:

John

[72modeler]

I tend to agree with the comments made by Selwyn and John T. I have always liked the Mig-17 and I think I have purchased every injected kit and one one Aeroclub vacform conversion on the airplane, and I think the Airfix kit, despite the faults described and illustrated by others on the forum, is the best of the lot. Fix it or forget it, that's always our option.

Mike

 

I have the same opinion of the new-tool Airfix Mosquito- as disappointing and as preventable as the errors seem to be, it's the best one out there by far in 1/72 scale,  and the fixes are within the skillset of most of us, I bet, or Colin will provide the hamfisted among us, myself included, with the corrections for all of the versions that can be built from the kit. Or, we can wait to see what Special Hobby does, but that being said, I'm still waiting to see the A-26 Invader they announced eons ago as well as the Bv-141 they announced but evidently canceled...now, there's one for Airfix to retool!

Mike

[alt-92]

Perhaps we should take a cue from newspaper headlines.

If you have to ask the question, the answer is usually No.

[Bedders]

Deleted. Others made my point further upstream.

 

Justin

Edited August 26, 2021 by Bedders

[Nigel Bunker]

On 8/23/2021 at 6:54 PM, andyrowe said:

Just received the new Airfix 1:72 DeHavilland Mosquito B Mk.XVI and was wondering if anyone else thinks the fuselage is too short in length?

I am building the new kit and on reading this thread I got an Airfix Mosquito NFII/FB.VI/FB.XVIII out from the loft and built that at the same time. The wingspan is identical and measuring from the wing root to the end of the tail (no matter which type of Mosquito, bomber or fighter, this should be unchanged) the measurement is the same. So my comment is no, the fuselage on the new kit is not too small.

[Alan P]

9 hours ago, Tom R said:

This thread really needs the title changed. The OP seems to have taken Wikipedia as gospel which is a bit naive and it looks like an unwarranted slur on the kit.

This is correct. Rather than debating the minutiae of LIDAR, the point here is some chump on Wikipedia fed the OP duff gen which he accepted in good faith.

 

8 hours ago, 72modeler said:

Fix it or forget it, that's always our option.

Mike

Amen. Here endeth the lesson

[Hutch]

(Didn't mean to post)

Edited August 26, 2021 by Hutch
Wrong post, sorry.....

[Wm Blecky]

On 8/24/2021 at 1:52 AM, IanC said:

 

I daresay Airfix are a bit cheesed off with the mistake, but as has been said it won't affect sales to any great extent. The Blenheim got some flak for having features from the Bristol Bolingbroke, including the engine nacelles.

That's the first time I read of this, could you elaborate more on that please? 

[dov]

Actully I understand after reading all this posts simple nothing.

Why: Explecit call out the measures.

What are they in real? Take the original. DH drawings. 

And if one asks a question, as summary answrtes are yes, or no. 

Happy modelling