AZ/KP announced a new Spitfire MkX/XI from metal moulds, 1/72 scale

[Giorgio N]

24 minutes ago, John Thompson said:

Apart from the canopy, if this new kit is as good as AZ's 1/72 Mk.VIII from ten years ago (!!!), it will be a gem. I'm just starting the VIII (got the fuselage halves joined), and except for a bit of flash here and there, it reminds me of something by Arma Hobby - very fine panel lines, good shapes, and lots of fine detail! 

 

John

 

That is curious, as that Mk.VIII was a short run kit and not one made from metal moulds. I built the Spitfire V issued around the same time and while it was well detailed, it was not really comparable in mould quality to mainstream products.

[Max Headroom]

Being a pedant (I said pedant, not peasant!) you can make an XI with the conventional windscreen - if you do warbird PL965

 

http://www.hangar11.co.uk/spitfire.html

 

BTW - the entry hatch engraving need filling in for an XI (ok for a X though).
 

Trevor

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, Max Headroom said:

Being a pedant (I said pedant, not peasant!) you can make an XI with the conventional windscreen - if you do warbird PL965

 

http://www.hangar11.co.uk/spitfire.html

 

BTW - the entry hatch engraving need filling in for an XI (ok for a X though).
 

Trevor

 

And you have a choice of markings not just its current look, you can even paint it in UR Pink! ( that's UnRealistic pink 😉 ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fishplanebeer]

The following photo is of PA944 and the windscreen appears to be neither a wrap around/frameless or the conventional armoured type although it could just be the angle and shadow perhaps?

 

 

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. spinner seems to be an odd shape so perhaps the photo has been retouched?

Edited April 7, 2022 by fishplanebeer

[fishplanebeer]

Just to add that Rob Taurus do a replacement PR canopy for the Airfix PR.XIX so this might solve the problem of the kit's windscreen and Hannants have them in stock currently.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Bedders]

For me one of the key considerations for a new Spitfire kit is the overall shape. Many manufacturers still get the basic measurements wrong. The wingspan on this new kit should be 15.59 cm or thereabouts, and the fuselage - spinner, rudder and all - 13.4 cm or so. In my experience AZ wings have been around 4mm short (1 scale foot) and the fuselages between 2 and 3 mm short. Correcting those isn't easy. But I'll keep the faith and will still buy one!

 

Justin

[Tbolt]

12 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

The following photo is of PA944 and the windscreen appears to be neither a wrap around/frameless or the conventional armoured type although it could just be the angle and shadow perhaps?

 

 

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. spinner seems to be an odd shape so perhaps the photo has been retouched?

 

I think you've posted the wrong image as that's ones clearly a drawing, done from this photo at a guess. Looks to be like the curved, framless PR windscreen.

 

 

Here's a front view of 944.

 

 

 

[fishplanebeer]

Thanks for the other front view photo which clarifies things and the actual photo of the side as well. The latter (which I also have) still suggests a frame of sorts but the front view dispels this nicely.

 

Regards

Colin.

[John Thompson]

7 hours ago, Bedders said:

For me one of the key considerations for a new Spitfire kit is the overall shape. Many manufacturers still get the basic measurements wrong. The wingspan on this new kit should be 15.59 cm or thereabouts, and the fuselage - spinner, rudder and all - 13.4 cm or so. In my experience AZ wings have been around 4mm short (1 scale foot) and the fuselages between 2 and 3 mm short. Correcting those isn't easy. But I'll keep the faith and will still buy one!

 

Justin

I have a drawing (Robinson, 1985) of the Spitfire LF Mk.VIII, the data table of which gives the span as 36' - 10". That converts to 6.14", in 1/72 scale. The drawing itself, photocopied to reduce it to 1/72, measures 6.16". I don't have any AZ Spitfires except the LF Mk.VIII, so maybe some others are deficient by 4mm in span, but this one matches the drawing perfectly, to all intents and purposes. The kit's length is likewise correct. So, there's hope that your faith will be rewarded with an accurate Mk.X/XI!

 

John

[Homebee]

In box review in your favourite forum - ref. KPM0291 - Supermarine Spitfire PR.Mk.XI - USAAF

Source: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235110068-supermarine-spitfire-prmkxi-usaaf-kpm0291-172-kovozávody-prostějov/

 

V.P.

[Julien]

Also the Mk.X

 

 

[Hardtarget]

Ive just received my 4 boxings, and im in construction at present. one thing that the kit has an issue with and that the cockpit floor, its too short. if you mate up the rear bulkhead/armor plate and then affix the control panel, go to locate it on the side wall of one of the fuselage halves snags the detail on the wall and the CP is approx 5-8mm too far back and is not located under the cockpit coaming. As first i thought this was user error so i separated the CP and bulkhead with seat from the floor and located them in the slots they should go into and its confirmed the floor is too short.  How they allowed this oversight is anyone's guess.

 

Thought people should know, and see if their boxings/builds have the same issue.

 

[VMA131Marine]

3 hours ago, Hardtarget said:

Ive just received my 4 boxings, and im in construction at present. one thing that the kit has an issue with and that the cockpit floor, its too short. if you mate up the rear bulkhead/armor plate and then affix the control panel, go to locate it on the side wall of one of the fuselage halves snags the detail on the wall and the CP is approx 5-8mm too far back and is not located under the cockpit coaming. As first i thought this was user error so i separated the CP and bulkhead with seat from the floor and located them in the slots they should go into and its confirmed the floor is too short.  How they allowed this oversight is anyone's guess.

 

Thought people should know, and see if their boxings/builds have the same issue.

 

Weird! That part is the same cockpit floor they use in all their Spitfire kits. I did not notice a problem when I built other Spitfire versions from AZ.

[Hardtarget]

9 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

Weird! That part is the same cockpit floor they use in all their Spitfire kits. I did not notice a problem when I built other Spitfire versions from AZ.

 

Its not the same. There seems to be a large chunk missing from the Mk.XI moulding. When compared to the Mk IX or the Mk V NEW TOOLINGS, there is the rear section missing and therefore missing at least 5mm which is enough to needing to cement the parts separately to the fuselage and NOT construct the cockpit section as a separate build. When you get it in your hands measure the part no 11 to other kits and you will see what i mean.

[mike romeo]

On 5/21/2022 at 9:00 PM, Hardtarget said:

 

Its not the same. There seems to be a large chunk missing from the Mk.XI moulding. When compared to the Mk IX or the Mk V NEW TOOLINGS, there is the rear section missing and therefore missing at least 5mm which is enough to needing to cement the parts separately to the fuselage and NOT construct the cockpit section as a separate build. When you get it in your hands measure the part no 11 to other kits and you will see what i mean.

Thanks for the warning!

 

I've added the rear bulkhead / armour plate to a fuse half, and will extend the floor at the rear appropriately so the ip will fit.  A slice of card glued underneath the existing floor should do.  It'll be hidden by the seat in any case.

[Bedders]

I'm working on the USAAF boxing of this and enjoying it. The shapes are good (wings pretty much correct span, fuselage much better length than previous AZ/KP Spitfires), the detail is nice and it's going together easily. And as far as I can see from photos, the flat area on the frameless windscreen is not incorrect for XIs in the PA- and MB- serial ranges at least. One question for the experts: should the PR XI have the three additional oxygen bottles installed behind the pilot, as the PR X, HF VII and pressurised PR XIXs did? I'm thinking not, but would welcome any wisdom others can provide before I close it up.

 

Justin

[Tbolt]

On 6/26/2022 at 9:23 AM, Bedders said:

I'm working on the USAAF boxing of this and enjoying it. The shapes are good (wings pretty much correct span, fuselage much better length than previous AZ/KP Spitfires), the detail is nice and it's going together easily. And as far as I can see from photos, the flat area on the frameless windscreen is not incorrect for XIs in the PA- and MB- serial ranges at least. One question for the experts: should the PR XI have the three additional oxygen bottles installed behind the pilot, as the PR X, HF VII and pressurised PR XIXs did? I'm thinking not, but would welcome any wisdom others can provide before I close it up.

 

Justin

 

So 944, pictured above has a flat windscreen? It looks curved to me. Do you have any better pictures showing this flat windscreen?

[Meatbox8]

On 4/6/2022 at 5:10 PM, Max Headroom said:

Being a pedant (I said pedant, not peasant!) you can make an XI with the conventional windscreen - if you do warbird PL965

 

http://www.hangar11.co.uk/spitfire.html

 

BTW - the entry hatch engraving need filling in for an XI (ok for a X though).
 

Trevor

Shouldn't that be the other way round?  The X was pressurised but the XI wasn't.

[Bedders]

 

 

6 hours ago, Tbolt said:

 

So 944, pictured above has a flat windscreen? It looks curved to me. Do you have any better pictures showing this flat windscreen?

This is the best one I can find. You can see that the bottom of the windscreen, where it meets the fuel tank cover, is flat rather than bowed. It's the same all the way up, and then the perspex turns into a curved profile in order to accommodate the windscreen frame at the top, hence that slight bend just before the top of the screen where it meets the frame. This is John Blyth, pilot of PA944 when it bellied in at Mount Farm, though I think this is a different airframe.

 

From what I can ascertain, the unpressurised Type 389 PR XIXs had this kind of windscreen too, while the later pressurised Type 390s had the curved screen that worked with the Lobelle canopy.

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Bedders

[Tbolt]

8 hours ago, Bedders said:

 

 

This is the best one I can find. You can see that the bottom of the windscreen, where it meets the fuel tank cover, is flat rather than bowed. It's the same all the way up, and then the perspex turns into a curved profile in order to accommodate the windscreen frame at the top, hence that slight bend just before the top of the screen where it meets the frame. This is John Blyth, pilot of PA944 when it bellied in at Mount Farm, though I think this is a different airframe.

 

From what I can ascertain, the unpressurised Type 389 PR XIXs had this kind of windscreen too, while the later pressurised Type 390s had the curved screen that worked with the Lobelle canopy.

 

 

Thanks, that's a good shot which like you say clearly shows the flat area from the bottom frame. How well have they captured this shape in the kit canopy?

[Tbolt]

13 hours ago, Bedders said:

 

 

This is the best one I can find. You can see that the bottom of the windscreen, where it meets the fuel tank cover, is flat rather than bowed. It's the same all the way up, and then the perspex turns into a curved profile in order to accommodate the windscreen frame at the top, hence that slight bend just before the top of the screen where it meets the frame. This is John Blyth, pilot of PA944 when it bellied in at Mount Farm, though I think this is a different airframe.

 

From what I can ascertain, the unpressurised Type 389 PR XIXs had this kind of windscreen too, while the later pressurised Type 390s had the curved screen that worked with the Lobelle canopy.

 

 

It's interesting, I never closely looked at the warbird, PL983's windscreen, I just assume it was the fully curved type, but going through my photos I've realized it's the flat fronted type!

 

 

[Tbolt]

On 5/21/2022 at 4:57 PM, Hardtarget said:

Ive just received my 4 boxings, and im in construction at present. one thing that the kit has an issue with and that the cockpit floor, its too short. if you mate up the rear bulkhead/armor plate and then affix the control panel, go to locate it on the side wall of one of the fuselage halves snags the detail on the wall and the CP is approx 5-8mm too far back and is not located under the cockpit coaming. As first i thought this was user error so i separated the CP and bulkhead with seat from the floor and located them in the slots they should go into and its confirmed the floor is too short.  How they allowed this oversight is anyone's guess.

 

Thought people should know, and see if their boxings/builds have the same issue.

 

 

Since you've bought a few of these kits, could you tell me if they have got the correct deeper rear canopy section on the Mk.X canopy? I've downloaded the instructions but there's nothing to indicate that it's any different from the XI canopy here. It look like ther canopy rails will have to be scratch build.

[Dave Fleming]

On 04/07/2022 at 11:58, Tbolt said:

 

Since you've bought a few of these kits, could you tell me if they have got the correct deeper rear canopy section on the Mk.X canopy? I've downloaded the instructions but there's nothing to indicate that it's any different from the XI canopy here. It look like ther canopy rails will have to be scratch build.

 

They've got that right, the instructions are actually a bit misleading as both they and the colour drawings show 'normal' Spitfire rear canopy, but on the kit parts the fuselage is straight and the rear canopy goes all the way down as on the mk VII. (In fact I might copy it for my mk VII conversion!) not sure the armoured windscreen shuld be so prominent - it's more like the external armour on the earlier marks, but that shouldn't be too hard to deal with.

[Tbolt]

5 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

They've got that right, the instructions are actually a bit misleading as both they and the colour drawings show 'normal' Spitfire rear canopy, but on the kit parts the fuselage is straight and the rear canopy goes all the way down as on the mk VII. (In fact I might copy it for my mk VII conversion!) not sure the armoured windscreen shuld be so prominent - it's more like the external armour on the earlier marks, but that shouldn't be too hard to deal with.

 

Great thanks for that Dave.

[Homebee]

New Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) boxings expected in late October 2022

 

- ref. KPM0293 - Supermarine Spitfire PR.Mk.XI - International

Source: https://www.kovozavody.cz/produkt/spitfire-pr-mk-xi-international/

 

 

- ref. KPM296 - Supermarine Spitfire PR.Mk.XI - D-Day Markings

Source: https://www.kovozavody.cz/produkt/spitfire-pr-mk-xi-d-day-markings/

 

 

V.P.