Jump to content

Spitfire Fuselage length. Old and new Tamiya, Special Hobby, new Airfix, and new Eduard


Tail-Dragon

Recommended Posts

I was aware of the fact that the older Tamiya 1/48 Spitfire Mk 1'sand Mk V's were short, and had the wings to far aft, but I thought, just for fun, to compare all the 1/48 Spit's I had.  I was trying to decide how much of a splice to add to the older kits, in order to build them.

I was surprised to find that the new Tamiya Mk 1,new Airfix Mk V, and new Eduard's Mk V all had different fuselage lengths.  Now I'm really confused which is closest.

 

Image2

 

I was planning to add a splice on the older kits just aft of the refueling cap, and reprofiling the wing fairing and trailing edge, as was shown on this site. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the new kits, which also reveal the shortness of the older, superficial examination of your photo suggests that most or perhaps "all" (to a tolerance of...) of the length difference is in the engine area.  If so, this is perhaps understandable since that measurement seems to be less "public" than the "firewall to rudder post" measurement.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tail-Dragon said:

I was planning to add a splice on the older kits just aft of the refueling cap, and reprofiling the wing fairing and trailing edge, as was shown on this site. 

 

In my researches on this Colin,  it wasn't that simple. The SH kit needed a splice at the tail, and a splice in the fuel tank, moving the wing forward, the old Tamiya Mk.I needed a lot more doing, the splice was in the fuel tank, but it requires the width dealing with, and it's slab sided nature.    I did post photos of the basic moves for both. 

The shortness in both I think is at the IP/fuel tank,  but that's  just a nightmare to add length too,  it's feasible to add in the tank area and rescribe the rear tank line.

 

  I'll  go on a thread hunt in a mo. 

edit 

Tamiya fuselage fixes

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234968337-two-148-mkvb-spitfires-tamiya-and-airfix-new-spitfire-collection-expansion-project-finished-photos-now-in-the-rfi-section-080615/page/3/#elControls_1763506_menu

Special Hobby discussion

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234984144-seafire-mk-iii-question/

 

 

this is the drawing bob maybe referring too, which has actual measurements, note the firewall, frame 5, to rudder post measurement is a constant on all Spitfires.

51498152517_156a0738e3_o.jpgSpitfire- fuslege section length dwg-2 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

I'd suggest using the seat bulkhead  as a comparison starting point as well,  as IIRC this was the same on the kits I examined,  it was a few years ago and I don't  have the new tool Tamiya Mk.I  and not looked at the Eduard Mk.I in comparison.

 

One final point, it is now an "internet fact"  that Special Hobby copied the old tool Tamiya   kits, They didn't, they did copy the Hasegawa Vb though, which you will find is "1/50th" ...it's not.   

 

Hase top, SH lower, while the same length,  the trailing edge of the SH wing fillet and thus the wing is further back. 

50321504682_d18e921a0f_h.jpg50620151 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

HTH

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen a Supermarine/Vickers fuselage GA drawing for a Seafire mod (dwg no. 35727) that gives the dimension from the centre line of frame 5 to the rudder hinge axis as 20' 5" (1/48 129.6 mm). The dimension given on the same drawing from frame 5 to frame 11 (seat bulkhead) centre line is 73.5" (1/48 38.9 mm) so seat bulkhead centre line to rudder hinge axis in 1/48 90.7 mm. The Eduard does measure very close to this.

 

Ray

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dimension from Frame 5 to the rudder hinge line was the same for all Spitfire variants.  Although I'm not certain this means that the panel line at the rear of the engine cowling is actually marking the centre of Frame 5, any small error introduced by this is dwarfed by the difference between the kits.

 

The recent 1/72 Airfix Spitfire Mk.I/II kit is noticeable for having a longer engine cowling than all previous kits of single-stage Merlin Spitfires, so it seems that this is also true in 1/48.  I'm very interested to see the dimension quoted  (O-A 81.5in) and to know how this compares to that on various kits.  It is nagging at me that the Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk.IX also had a longer cowling than previously accepted, and this matched the detail drawings in Monforton's tome.  So if Airfix were right then, perhaps they are now.  It is noticeable that the latest three kits shown, although not identical, are all significantly longer than the older kits.

 

PS  I would also argue that a difference in overall length of 3.5mm in 1/48 scale is not visible, whereas the same difference on just the cowling is.  I have a personal 2% rule - it it's within that it's about as good as can be expected of a commercial product, and won't scream out at anyone.

 

PPS.   81.5in is the length of the nose of a Spitfire Mk.IX, as indeed the drawing os of a Spitfire Mk.IX, and it matches the Airfix 1/72 Mk.IX nose.  Sorry for muddying the water.  If anyone can come up with the correct length of a single-stage Merlin Spitfire cowling, please get in touch.  I have vague memories of it being maybe about 8 in shorter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tail-Dragon said:

to compare all the 1/48 Spit's I had.

one point,  apart from being short near the tail,  the top is canted forward slightly,  so the tail splice is worth doing, as it correct this.

IMG_0330_zps116f3778.jpg

 

cheers

T

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much Troy, your articles show exactly what I have to do to accurize the older kits.  It is clear that the easiest course of action would be to purchase the new Eduard's kits - the problem is I'm cheap and I have a pile of Tamiya and Special Hobby kits (plus, I never seem to do things the easy way!)

I find it's actually more fun to modify and correct kits than to build straight from the box, so these should be fun (if time consuming!)

 

I think I'll be using the excellent drawings from Jumpei Temma as a starting point. I believe they are quite accurate.

Mk Vb side view - sized for 48 scale at 100%

 

As an example of doing things the hard way, my Spit XIVe from the Airfix Spit XIX - like I said, never do things the easy way!

Image2

 

Thanks again, everybody

Edited by Tail-Dragon
more details
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tail-Dragon said:

the problem is I'm cheap and I have a pile of Tamiya and Special Hobby kits (plus, I never seem to do things the easy way!)

I find it's actually more fun to modify and correct kits than to build straight from the box, so these should be fun (if time consuming!)

The SH stretches are pretty easy, not sure how this may affect things further down the line of construction,  but shouldn't be that hard to fix.

 

The Tamiya is more involved, the hardest part was working out what to do,  I also used the Airfix Mk.I as a 3D guide, which really helped.   Good thing is that the Tamiya panel lines are in the right place, and petite.   

 

Do get some Evergreen strip though, make the whole process much easier.

 

the rightly maligned Academy XIV can also be accurised by 'some modelling skill'  most of it's faults are over an oversize nature,  though it does need a new spinner.  I did post some pic of this, again, amazingly, most of the panel lines are in the right place, and are petite.  

 

There is a sense of satisfaction, I enjoyed working out the fixes,  just never got any further as I was waiting for the day when all the stars aligned and I'd have area set up with and airbrush...  which never happened.  All of these are ticked away in various boxes waiting though.

 

Always enjoy seeing your WIP and RFI models as well Colin, so glad it's of use.

cheers

T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Massimo Tessitori said:

I remember to have read, in an old Russian review, that the rear fuselage of the Mk-9 of ICM is 5 mm too long, while the same part of the Mk IX Hasegawa is 5 mm too short. I've never checked the thing, but eventually I have a still unbuilt ICM to look at.

I spent many a demented hour with a box of multiple 1/48 Spitfire and Seafire fuselages and wings, rulers and plans, the ICM is excellent in dimensions and shape, the fuselage nose is slightly too narrow in plan.   The Hasegawa is not  short, but too slim at the rear. It looks fine on its own,  but odd next to a correctly dimensioned model.   

The ICM is ok, but given that an Eduard weekend kit can be got cheap, and OOB it's basically all correct with no need of replacement bits, it's a bit obsolete.  That said,  it can be helped by use of many of the Eduard leftovers!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thumbing through some papers and came across a letter from the late Edgar Brooks published in SAM of unknown date. This info may well be in one of the linked threads above but here it is anyway.

Edgar's measurements of Spitfire Mk IX ML417:

 

Cowling 43.1mm

Fuel tank 19.22mm

Cockpit 20mm

Radio comp 33.6mm

Rear fuselage 56.9mm

Total 172.8mm

 

Figures are reduced to 1/48 scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2021 at 1:20 PM, Graham Boak said:

The recent 1/72 Airfix Spitfire Mk.I/II kit is noticeable for having a longer engine cowling than all previous kits of single-stage Merlin Spitfires, so it seems that this is also true in 1/48.  I'm very interested to see the dimension quoted  (O-A 81.5in) and to know how this compares to that on various kits.  It is nagging at me that the Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk.IX also had a longer cowling than previously accepted, and this matched the detail drawings in Monforton's tome.  So if Airfix were right then, perhaps they are now.  It is noticeable that the latest three kits shown, although not identical, are all significantly longer than the older kits.

 

OK then, your post made me look up the net for Mr Monforton's tome again, and guess what - it's on sale from him right now, at a very good price (even accepting the not inconsiderable s&h), and I just ordered it. As I have no intention to blame myself for buying a good book, I have noone else to blame but you, @Graham Boak 😜 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2021 at 9:32 AM, Troy Smith said:

 

The ICM is ok, but given that an Eduard weekend kit can be got cheap, and OOB it's basically all correct with no need of replacement bits, it's a bit obsolete.  That said,  it can be helped by use of many of the Eduard leftovers!

I think it's an excellent base for conversions. The kits are usually just as cheap to get, and there's less of a mental block in hacking away an ICM into a PR than an already pretty nice Eduard. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the start of my Special Hobby Spit Vc with the cuts suggested by Troy Smith (thanks again, Troy!)

Fuel tank cut cemented to .060" card and spacer carved to shape after (reinforced with sprue), aft cut to be filled with card or sprue (haven't decided) and the trailing edge fairing to be reprofiled after wings attached.

 

Taped to new Airfix Spit Vb fuselage ...

Special Hobby and new Airfix

 

Special Hobby and new Airfix 2

 

Image2

 

This will be a double build of Malta birds ...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...