1:48 Spitfire Mk I

[nheather]

Fancy making a 1:48 Spitfire Mk I and can’t decide between the Tamiya and the Eduard offerings.

 

Is there anything to recommend one over the other.

 

I’m reasonably experienced with modelling but mostly armour, not so much with aircraft.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[fishplanebeer]

To be honest both are excellent, especially if you are looking at the latest Tamiya one, so it comes down to cost and availability I suppose.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Seawinder]

I don't own an Eduard Mk. I, but have built a good number of Mk. IXs. Based on that ...

 

Eduard: more options, many more pieces (358 compared to 133 for Tamiya), more fiddly to assemble, rivets, photo-etch.

 

Tamiya: very well engineered for trouble-free assembly, fewer options, no rivets, all plastic.

 

I just found this review by Brett Green at Hyperscale. It's ostensibly about the new Eduard kit, but it concludes with a very useful three-way comparison/contrast of the Eduard, the new Tamiya and the recent Airfix kits. It may help you decide which way you want to go:

https://www.hyperscale.com/2020/reviews/kits/eduard11143reviewbg_1.htm

 

If it were my choice, given your greater experience with armor kits, I'd go with the Tamiya kit first and plan on doing an Eduard kit later. FWIW, the Eduard Mk. VIII/IX/XVI series are terrific if you wanted a late Merlin variant to go with the BoB bird.

[nheather]

6 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

To be honest both are excellent, especially if you are looking at the latest Tamiya one, so it comes down to cost and availability I suppose.

 

Regards

Colin.

Yes the latest Tamiya one and looking at that an the new Eduard profi pack, both the same price.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[nheather]

3 hours ago, Seawinder said:

I just found this review by Brett Green at Hyperscale. It's ostensibly about the new Eduard kit, but it concludes with a very useful three-way comparison/contrast of the Eduard, the new Tamiya and the recent Airfix kits. It may help you decide which way you want to go:

https://www.hyperscale.com/2020/reviews/kits/eduard11143reviewbg_1.htm

Thanks for the link, that is very useful.

 

From what I picked up

 

Tamiya - fewer options only the early Mk Is, but does cover a pre-war variant, has a pilot figure, and simpler construction.

Eduard - more detail, many more scheme options, early and later Mk I variants, more complex construction, more masks and they are pre-cut

 

Question - one of the two later options is from Feb 1941 and has half black, half sky underside - do you think that is accurate.  Thought the half-black scheme was well gone by then.

 

But think I am leaning towards the Eduard.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[Hornet133]

The half black, half sky undersides returned in October/Nov 1940 for the winter of 1940/41 to aid the Observer Corp in identifying high flying fighters.  After that they were dropped.

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, nheather said:

Question - one of the two later options is from Feb 1941 and has half black, half sky underside - do you think that is accurate.  Thought the half-black scheme was well gone by then.

@Hornet133  gives the brief answer...

 

I really recommend reading this, as it  explains the above, and much more.   

it's scanned here

https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Camouflage-Markings/Supermarine-Spitfire

 

 

[Olmec Head]

I have built the new Tamiya Spitfire Mk I and it is a generally nice kit.  It did not fall together as the old 1990s? kit did and there was a little bit of fiddlyness at times.   The undercart fit caused me problems - but that may have been down to me.  It has a slight nose 'error' explained at http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit1/spit1e-1.html.

 

I have also built the Airfix kit and the build issues around needing precise fit and careful putting together are well recorded on this site.  Again there is an excellent build at the above Japanese website which again explains some detail errors.  It might have the overall best shape.

 

I have the Eduard version which looks very good and is probably the best to build, but lacks the hydraulic undercart selector for later built Spitfire Mk Is.   

[ilj]

Do you like to have your spitfire model propeller spin freely (on a secure bearing)?  If so, get the Tamiya kit - it has a propellor shaft that slides into a poly cap bearing in the nose spinner.  The Eduard kit has no such thing, and without scratch building your own bearing, you are left pretty much to gluing the spinner-propellor on in a fixed position.

 

ilj

 

 

[Seawinder]

On 1/16/2022 at 3:02 PM, Olmec Head said:

I have built the new Tamiya Spitfire Mk I and it is a generally nice kit.  It did not fall together as the old 1990s? kit did and there was a little bit of fiddlyness at times.   The undercart fit caused me problems - but that may have been down to me.  It has a slight nose 'error' explained at http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit1/spit1e-1.html.

 

I have also built the Airfix kit and the build issues around needing precise fit and careful putting together are well recorded on this site.  Again there is an excellent build at the above Japanese website which again explains some detail errors.  It might have the overall best shape.

 

I have the Eduard version which looks very good and is probably the best to build, but lacks the hydraulic undercart selector for later built Spitfire Mk Is.   

I have the Tamiya kit, but haven't started it yet. I was under the impression that the main landing gear was pretty much foolproof (no intention of calling you a fool) because the two struts are joined with a hidden connecting segment that ensures proper alignment.

[Crimea River]

I built the Tamiya kit and it's a real beauty. I can't vouch for the Eduard one but my experience with their Mk IX would suggest that the Mk I would be excellent as well.

 

If you go with the Tamiya kit, follow the instructions very carefully with regard to work needed for the open or closed canopies. You need to decide at the beginning which way you will pose the sliding canopy and the access door as there is cutting involved. 

[Ray_W]

I have built both the recent Tamiya and the Eduard (a couple of times). The Tamiya was a faultless and easy build other than that weird glue on windscreen armour (I used Future). My preference is the Eduard. It does not have that sublime undercarriage fixing method used by Tamiya (some have challenged whether Tamiya got the angle right) and you need to take a little more care and yet it builds into a robust solution. Tamiya is Tamiya so if you want an easy build it is a good option.

 

Tamiya - no complaints - not finished in this image but only one I have with me. Sorry for the smoke trails - let's say artistic licence.

 

 

 I have come to prefer the Eduard as I have been building their range Mk. I, V, IX, VIII and have my techniques reasonably well sorted and hence my preference. 

 

Eduard - no complaints - a mix of decals. 

 

 

 

A few additional points:

 

Eduard provide an appropriate mix of recessed and raised rivets where needed which adds another dimension. Love them or hate them - personal preference.  They also avoid raised rivets where seams fall. Whether the prototype has recessed/flush rivets in these locations I do not know. The benefit is that you do not sand them off. I have come to prefer the raised rivet solution they provide. 

 

Kit decals in both cases may be problematic. Tamiya are their usual thicker fare although I have my technique sorted for them now so they do not worry me as much. Eduard has that weird covering over the decals that can be removed if need be and you're brave enough. Alternative is to leave them in place to blend and paint as normal. 

 

Small point is that Eduard only provide the early hand-pump undercarriage lever in their Mk. I cockpit rendition. As the Mk. I examples I have built so far have been post June 1940 Battle of Britain subjects I decided to fabricate the hydraulic pump solution. Not difficult. I tend to do a fair amount of work in the cockpit anyway.  You can have a lot of fun with both cockpits - Eduard here.

 

 

Choose either make.

 

Ray

 

 

 

[bigfoot]

Although both kits are lovely and great builds, for me the selling point of the Tamiya over the Eduard is the undercarriage legs. Both legs are all one piece that just drops into place with the legs set at the right angles and much more robust than the individual legs with delicate attachment points.

[Olmec Head]

14 hours ago, Seawinder said:

I have the Tamiya kit, but haven't started it yet. I was under the impression that the main landing gear was pretty much foolproof (no intention of calling you a fool) because the two struts are joined with a hidden connecting segment that ensures proper alignment.

Its a good solution but for some reason, I had to do so sanding and altering to get the thing to fit.

[NPL]

Tamiya or Eduard? A simple build, Tamiya, Eduard's early Merlin series is outstanding. 

The figure included is of Douglas Bader. 

The whole series of Merlin Spitfires from Eduard is in its own class. That is probably also the reason that Tamiya never gave out a new version of the Mk.V. They cannot compete with Eduard.. If only M. Sulc could be persuaded to also serve the Griffon versions.  ...

 

Its is not necessary to buy the Dual Combo version. There are other versions, Weekend, ProfiPack with only one plane and not so costly.

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by NPL
missing info

[Curt B]

Nigel,

 

I think you've gotten great advice/information from everyone who has posted thus far, and I wouldn't take issue with any of it.  I have built both of the kits under your consideration, the Tamiya and Eduard.  They are both really nice models.  I think the biggest aspect that leans toward the Tamiya kit is the simple and fool-proof landing gear installation, which has already been mentioned.  Other than that, I liked the Eduard just the tiniest bit better.  No real specific reasons for my opinion, and you may wish to be aware that I have become, over the last several years, something of an Eduard 'fan boy'.  You cannot possibly go wrong with either choice, but there is just the smallest sort of intangible feel about the surface textures and panel lines that seem the smallest bit better on the Eduard model. I am not an expert on the Spitfire, so I cannot cite one being more accurate than the other, it's just a 'feel'.  Others can probably better articulate the differences in this area, but if you've not yet made your choice, if forced to pick one over the other, I'd go with the Eduard.