Jump to content

Battle of the 1/72 Spifire Mk.Is.. which is the most accurate ?


Giorgio N

Recommended Posts

Yes, this will be another thread on the accuracy of Spitfire kits, in this case the early Mk.I (and II...) variants.

We have had similar discussions on the Mk.IXs in the past where fortunately the availability of the Monforton book has given modellers proper measurements taken from real aircraft to compare out kits to. No such book exists to my knowledge on the earlier variants but of course we all know that certain parts remained the same over the Spitfire developmental history so at least part of the information from the Mk.IX book can be used to assess most Spitfire kits.

 

My current interest in finding out more about the Mk.I came from the idea of building a PR.Ig, for which I have had pretty much all parts and relevant decals for smisdddome time.. then it was time to choose the kit ! What best to use ? The current Airfix kit ? The older Tamiya offering ? Or the very recent Kovozavody ones ?

Since an overall pink PR.Ig is one of the subjects I'd like to build well, I started wondering about the accuracy pros and cons of each of these kits and from there the whole idea snowballed til I decided to compare not only those 3 but also other kits of the Spitfire Mk.I/II in my stash. So let's enter the contestants:

 

20220624_090804

 

Tamiya:  well known for the incorrect shape of the wing and a bit too wide fuselage. Of course being Tamiya it builds very well, although when I built my Mk.Vb I had some issues with the canopy... The good detail and tons of aftermarket available have made this kit a very popular choice. Will the known problems be the only ones ?

Kovozavody Prostejov: based on the Mk.Vb from the same company, so much that the sprues include all parts for the Vb and extra sprues for the Mk.I, This is the box for the early 2-blade prop subvariant but the plastic is the same in all boxes.. with the exception of the canopy that is only the one relevant to the variant proposed. These kits have been described as lacking a bit in length and span, we'll see by how much they actually are.

Revell: a kit that disappointed many for the poor quality of the plastic and the inaccuracy of several details like radiators and canopy. How will the rest of the shapes compare ?

Airfix old tool: a kit from a different era that however has often been stated to be the most accurate around. Will the kit confirm this reputation or is this another case of a myth passed down from modeller to modeller without any proper basis ?

Airfix new tool: a kit that was hailed by many as here was Airfix bringing to the market a new modern tool of one of the most legendary aircraft ever. Many were however puzzled by how longer this kit was compared to the previous one. Was Airfix right this time? We'll see...

 

Of course now we need something to compare these with ! Yes, the measurements from Monforton that will sort the matter on everythin with the exception of the engine cowling. However the cowling is something quite important, what to do ? Well, maybe there is a kit that could be seen as more likely to be accurate than other kits and it is this:

 

20220624_091002

 

The very recent Airfix Mk.Vc. Yes, it is not a Mk.I but the cowling length was the same between these two variants. Now how do I know that this kit is accurate ? I do and I don't... I do because I have compared this kit to the Monforton measurements and the match is pretty good. Of course I don't know for sure about the engine cowling... however this kit is supposed to have been designed using LIDAR based information and this generally leads to good overall accuracy. Of course LIDAR can not avoid errors like the representation of the wrong detail for a specific airframe (see the Mosquito XVI story) but at least the basic shapes should be correct. Am I totally sure this is the case ? No, I am not, however since the kit matches known measurements I'm going to assume that the cowling is correct as well. For this reason, I will use the Airfix Vc as basis for my comparison.

 

In the next few days I'll post pictures showing how the various kits compare to the Airfix Vc. I may also post numbers to show how much each kit deviates from measurements on real aircraft but really I'd like to keep this kind of research less about the numbers and more about the visual impact. I will sure use pictures of real aircraft to show certain things if needed. Will I find my "most accurate" Mk.I ? Don't know yet, although I already have a feeling... can't promise anything yet however there may be surprises...

Tune in over the next few days for the episodes of the story !

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

..t but really I'd like to keep this kind of research less about the numbers and more about the visual impact.

 

A man after my own heart! 

 

Looking forward to the next thrilling installment.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Tune in over the next few days for the episodes of the story !

Cliffhanger time!

While you're at it, you could also assess the quality of I/II scale drawings versus Monforton's measurements. An early set (but drawn very well) was from the Aeromodeller range and printed in SM (I think it had not yet acquired the "I" and was still in the smaller format), possibly reprinted later (BoB series? Aircraft Archive?), the next one by Alf Granger from the Aerodata series (reprinted in Wingspan); AvNews had a set by Mark Rolfe ca. 1992 (of which I have reservations, as his drawing of the DB605-engined V had hardly a resemblance to the real thing), and then there are AeroDetail and Modellers' Datafile.

Have fun 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Cliffhanger time!

While you're at it, you could also assess the quality of I/II scale drawings versus Monforton's measurements. An early set (but drawn very well) was from the Aeromodeller range and printed in SM (I think it had not yet acquired the "I" and was still in the smaller format), possibly reprinted later (BoB series? Aircraft Archive?), the next one by Alf Granger from the Aerodata series (reprinted in Wingspan); AvNews had a set by Mark Rolfe ca. 1992 (of which I have reservations, as his drawing of the DB605-engined V had hardly a resemblance to the real thing), and then there are AeroDetail and Modellers' Datafile.

Have fun 🙂

 

It would be a good thing to do, however I'm not sure I have any of those drawings. True that they should not be hard to find... something to think about !

 

 

2 hours ago, MACALAIN said:

I am sure that Eduard will produce in 1/72 a brand new Spitfire Mk I (II, Vb, Vc) in a nearest futur.

 

Alain

 

They sure will and it may be that their kits would blow the competution away as they did with the Mk.IX/VIII. The problem is when, may happen in a year or maybe 3 or maybe 5...

 

49 minutes ago, Planebuilder62 said:

The old AZH Airfix Spitfire builds very nicely, looks the part and does not need all of its panel lines filling in like the new Airfix one. I have built a few of both and prefere the AZH version.

 

regards Toby

 

I do not have a previous generation AZ Mk.I but I have a couple of Mk.Vb. I may add these to the comparison and see what they are like. Of course they are not produced anymore but I'm sure many of use have these kits in the stash

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

It would be a good thing to do, however I'm not sure I have any of those drawings. True that they should not be hard to find... something to think about !

 

 

 

They sure will and it may be that their kits would blow the competution away as they did with the Mk.IX/VIII. The problem is when, may happen in a year or maybe 3 or maybe 5...

 

 

I do not have a previous generation AZ Mk.I but I have a couple of Mk.Vb. I may add these to the comparison and see what they are like. Of course they are not produced anymore but I'm sure many of use have these kits in the stash

You are right, but hope is on our side.

 

Alain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MACALAIN said:

You are right, but hope is on our side.

 

Alain

 

Fortunately we have more than hope here: it is almost certain that Eduard will make 1/72 scale kits of these variants ! It's only the timing that is not known.

 

In the meantime, let's start this comparison... with a correction to one of my previous statements...

I said that the Airfix Vc matches the Monforton measurements. Well, actually it does but not everywhere, I should have more correctly said that it's the kit that seem to better match these measurements among those of the earlier variants.

To show this I printed the measurements for the distance between a number of sections on a paper sheet, already converted in 1/72 scale and expressed in mm. Here's the kit fuselage together with an Eduard Mk.IX, a kit that is known to be pretty accurate:

 

edu-air-ref

 

The Airfix kit is a bit longer than it should. Most of this extra length is in the rudder, that seems to have an excessive chord. The Eduard kis is also fractionally longer, but by an amount that doesn't worry me (maybe 0.2 mm). In any case for this reason I'll be adding the Eduard kit as a comparison, although the nature of this kit means that to understand certain shapes the Airfix kit will still be required (if only because has a one piece top wing part instead of separate wingtips and ailerons as the Eduard kit).

Notice how both kits also differ from the measurements in the position of the panel line behind the radio hatch, both having this farther to the rear (and by the same amount). The Airfix and Eduard kit also differ in the angle of the tail break panel line. Whos' right ? I'd have to check a few pictures to be sure.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

It would be a good thing to do, however I'm not sure I have any of those drawings. True that they should not be hard to find... something to think about !

 

I do not have a previous generation AZ Mk.I but I have a couple of Mk.Vb. I may add these to the comparison and see what they are like. Of course they are not produced anymore but I'm sure many of use have these kits in the stash

I have all of them except (I think) the AeroDetail, but IIRC those drawings were blamed for the Hase 1/48 Spits from the 90s having a short rear fuselage. But I be mixing things so will not blame anyone.

 

I think you mistook planebuilder62 - he meant Airfix 01065/01071, the 1978 Airfix kit with AZ*H "Dirty Dick" as the markings.

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

So let's start with the basic dimensions of the Tamiya kit ! Now this has been around for several years and I'm sure most will have built one at some point. It's a well engineered kit with good fit. Detail is pretty good although not on a part with Eduard's IX (but then not many kits are), panel lines are nicely recessed and all parts are sharply moulded. I mean, it's Tamiya !

Let's see the shapes starting from the fuselage, here compared with both Eduard and Airfix. Eduard is the darker grey, Airfix the lighter and Tamiya in between.

 

edu-air-tami-1

 

All kits are aligned at the firewall panel line and while the fact that the Tamiya kit has the rudder moulded as part of the fuselage makes the comparison a bit more difficult, it can be seen how the fuselage is shorter overall compared to the other two kits. Where is it shorter ?

 

edu-tami-2

 

air-tami-3

 

Part of the length is missing in the cockpit area, the rest in the rear fuselage. The cowling length is very close to the Airfix kit and the fuel tank area is not bad.

What can be also noticed is that tha the chord of the wing at the root may be different... is it ? Let's see:

 

air-tami-2

 

Yes, a bit wider than the Airfix kit. That is not a surprise, the Tamiya kit wing has been criticised in the past for its wrong planform.

The picture also seem to indicate differences in the aileron span, let's compare with Eduard's:

 

edu-tami-3

 

The Tamiya kit does indeed have shorter ailerons compared to the other two kits.

Let's see another couple of pics:

 

edu-tami-1

 

air-tami-1

 

Again the slightly wider chord can be noticed, the wingtips are also shorter in span than in the Airfix kit and IMHO don't look great. Maybe it's just my eyes but I don't like the look of the Tamiya wing, compare for example with the pictures at this link:

 

https://www.classic-wings.co.uk/wing-to-wing-with-a-spitfire/

 

There should be no need to mention that the Eduard wing is again the one in the darker plastic, the Airfix the lighter and the Tamiya in the middle grey... of course the Tamiya wing can be identified easily because it's an A wing. Actually an early A wing, as shown by the MGs protruding from the leading edge.

There's one other difference that is intriguing... I'll discuss this later but I'm sure most will have noticed this already... I still have to investigate a couple of things before  giving a properly informed opinion.

That's it for today ! Next stop, the Kovozavody kit. Again I'll focus on the main structural parts, all other parts (props, tailplanes, radiators) will follow at the end

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tempestfan said:

I have all of them except (I think) the AeroDetail, but IIRC those drawings were blamed for the Hase 1/48 Spits from the 90s having a short rear fuselage. But I be mixing things so will not blame anyone.

 

I think you mistook planebuilder62 - he meant Airfix 01065/01071, the 1978 Airfix kit with AZ*H "Dirty Dick" as the markings.

 

Ah sorry, my mistake ! I read AZH and understood AZ as in the company... my apologies to @Planebuilder62, I will review the old tool Airfix Mk.I of course.

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

19 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Fortunately we have more than hope here: it is almost certain that Eduard will make 1/72 scale kits of these variants ! It's only the timing that is not known.

 

In the meantime, let's start this comparison... with a correction to one of my previous statements...

I said that the Airfix Vc matches the Monforton measurements. Well, actually it does but not everywhere, I should have more correctly said that it's the kit that seem to better match these measurements among those of the earlier variants.

To show this I printed the measurements for the distance between a number of sections on a paper sheet, already converted in 1/72 scale and expressed in mm. Here's the kit fuselage together with an Eduard Mk.IX, a kit that is known to be pretty accurate:

 

edu-air-ref

 

The Airfix kit is a bit longer than it should. Most of this extra length is in the rudder, that seems to have an excessive chord. The Eduard kis is also fractionally longer, but by an amount that doesn't worry me (maybe 0.2 mm). In any case for this reason I'll be adding the Eduard kit as a comparison, although the nature of this kit means that to understand certain shapes the Airfix kit will still be required (if only because has a one piece top wing part instead of separate wingtips and ailerons as the Eduard kit).

Notice how both kits also differ from the measurements in the position of the panel line behind the radio hatch, both having this farther to the rear (and by the same amount). The Airfix and Eduard kit also differ in the angle of the tail break panel line. Whos' right ? I'd have to check a few pictures to be sure.

The Airfix looks to be fractionally longer in the fin, in other words having the rudder post further aft. What I find more interesting is the - from the pic - rather massive difference in cowling length. Not sure about actual measurements but this looks like 2 scale feet. Was it really that much? Standing to be taught things right, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

There's one other difference that is intriguing...

 

I assume you mean the G-5/6/14 style wheel "donuts" Tamiya blesses us with? I'd stick my neck out and claim the Airfix 1/24 kit has an excellent representation of this area - a very slight bulge hardly noticeable if I'm not mistaken. TBH, I don't like Tamiya's representation of the fabric ailerons much. They look a bit like from a Lindberg late 50s kit. But the Airfix  ailerons don't convince me either - the panel line depicted exactly follows the separation of fabric and metal leading edge for the fabric ailerons if I'm not mistaken. Why would there be a panel line in this position on an all-metal aileron? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airfix Spitfire 1a (new) and newer Airfix Spitfire Vc - Noses

 

Thanks Giorgio for raising this topic and I have just rather unscientifically compared the nose/ cowling area of the new Airfix  Spitfire 1a and the newer Airfix Spitfire Vc.  I think when the Mk1a came out, comment was made that the nose was a bit wide.  Looking at the Spitfire Vc, the comparison is 'striking'.  The plan view of the Vc nose around the exhaust stacks is more streamlined than the Spitfire 1a and the Vc closely matches the 1/72 drawings in the Aerodata International Spitfire publication. (I did say it is all eyeballed and not scientific).  I also think that the nose of the Spitfire Vc is closer in plan view to the current 1/48 Tamiya and Airfix Spitfire 1a s (again just eyeballed on the shelf) than the Airfix 1a. 

 

It is also possible that the Airfix Spitfire 1a cockpit canopy (and windscreen) is also a bit wide, but that is just based on a general unease nothing more.   And please note I have probably built around 15 Airfix Spitfire 1a kits, so I am not anti it in anyway.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not withstanding the fact that the Tamiya kit is superbly detailed and a pleasure to build the biggest issue I had with it was not with the dimensions, albeit I'm not someone who pays too much attention to this, but the way in which the front screen also includes part of the forward fuselage. For me as someone with modest skills this makes it extremely difficult to replace with a more accurate example so in the end I suffered this inaccuracy and used a Rob Taurus replacement for the other two parts of the canopy which just about worked OK.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. bought the Revell Mk.IIa when it first came out thinking it would be an accurate and state of the art kit but the reality was woefully different so it was rapidly consigned to the spares box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

So let's start with the basic dimensions of the Tamiya kit !

Unsurprisingly the 72nd Tamiya kit looks to have the same glitches as the old tool 1/48th kit.    

 

I had a go at trying to correct the 48th Tamiya kit, here 

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/

It was not just the dimension problems,  the biggest is that is is slab sided from engine to behind the cockpit, and a little bit wide.  

 

Note this base measurement for Spitfires

The length of the fuselage from frame 5 [ firewall ] to the rudder post is 245 inches which is 6223mm  /72 =86.4mm

 

HTH

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

If Eduard do release a Mk.1 at some point it will be very good news, although for me not as good as if it was a Mk.XII, and price wise it should be far more reasonable than if Arma had a go at it!

 

Regards

Colin.

Arma are good kits, but the price is higher every 3 months, due certainely of the petrolium problems.

 

Alain

 

PS : it is somebody of the Eduard team how tell me about the scale down of the earliest Spitfire.

But don't tell me when!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arma are very good kits but no better than Eduard yet they have a track record pre-Ukraine and recent oil price rises of pricing noticeably higher. Sort of the reason why I've not bought anything from them as yet other than a couple of Hurricanes that came down quite a lot in price after the initial release.

 

Regards

Colin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us have to care about the cost of a kit so it's all relative depending upon your own circumstances but it is still worth highlighting.

 

As for getting back to Mk.1 Spitfires in 72nd scale I suspect I will receive a lot of 'comments' for my views but I still don't get why there is always so much debate about the very minor and almost imperceptible errors in a 72nd scale fighter that is barely six inches long! As the builder you may take great satisfaction from knowing it is accurate to within less than 1mm in every dimension and all the rivets are the correct depth and exactly where they should be but who else will ever notice? Even a keen observer is far more likely to notice a poor build, paint job or obvious error so for me these are the areas I focus on in order to improve my modelling skills. At least that way I hopefully end up with a finished kit that looks something like the real thing which is my rationale behind building scale models in the first place.

 

I will now bow out of this post as it is clearly not for me

 

Regards

Colin. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...