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

[Giorgio N]

9 minutes ago, MarkoZG said:

Why did you stop?

 

Hi Marko

I have no intention of stopping, only I've been very busy with my daytime job and have not been able to take more pictures yet. Part 2 will follow soon, I hope to discuss one more kit tomorrow or Monday... sorry for making you wait ! I was hoping to do the whole comparison a lot faster

[Chuck1945]

Don’t you hate it when real world gets in the way of fun stuff 😛

[Yes_Man]

Did anything ever come out of this? More specifically I'm looking for general views on how accurate the new KP kit is. There's a complete dearth of actual builds online of it and only a few in-box reviews which don't really address whether the kit looks "right" when completed. I guess I could always order a kit and see how it compares, but considering I've got plenty of the Airfix Mk.I in the stash I don't particularly want to fork out if I can help it. If not then it's back to the venerable new tool Airfix kit which continues to soldier on until Eduard finally put it out to pasture.

[Graham Boak]

The problem with the Tamiya wing was not the root chord, which is "near enough" right, but the ellipse starts at very nearly the centre line on the real aircraft: on the model the ellipse starts where the wing leaves the fairing, so the curve is fuller and the chord is increasingly excessive until it begins to reduce again to a correct tip chord.  That's why it looks/feels wrong even to those who haven't realised why.  I'm sorry to be hurtful to the insensitive, but just because they can't see problems doesn't mean others can't!   It doesn't cost a company any more to produce an accurate planform than an inaccurate one.  At least the Tamiya chord isn't 1mm too big, as the Airfix Mk.IX/XIX is, with corresponding problems with the position of the leading edge and short noses.  For those who say 1mm is nothing - on a fuselage length I agree, on 17mm chord I don't.  That's about 6% - if you can't see that big a difference try Specsavers.  Of course, if you don't know Spitfires that well, no it doesn't matter.  But modelling is more than kit assembly.

 

If you've plenty of the Airfix Mk.I then you don't need the AZ.  It has finer detail but isn't outstandingly better overall.  I have both, but must make a few more of them!

[Seahawk]

I was looking forward to a considered verdict on the outline accuracy of the old Airfix Mk.I (“AZ-H”).  It’s a pity this thread didn’t get that far.

[Graham Boak]

Outline accurate was excellent - it includes the washout near the wingtips that later models miss.  The fit of the wing to the fuselage at the rear let it down, together with the simplified undercarriage and cockpit.  I'm not sure that the argument over nose length on the old vs new Airfix has ever been settled by accurate measurements, but with that qualification I would suggest that no-one has yet done a more accurate early Spitfire.  

 

People keep saying that  the forthcoming (one day?) Eduard one will automatically be better than any other - the only comment I will make is that we can certainly guarantee that there will be more parts.

[PatG]

There are some quite detailed plans of the Spitfire 1 drawn by G A G Cox and M J Lee (traced by A A P Lloyd) in the Argos Publications 'Aircraft Archive Volume 1' published back in 1988, so are these not accurate enough to rely upon? I'm assuming they based these plans upon examination of a real life example, of which there would have been many to choose from at the time.

 

Far more recently, August 2020, there has been the publication by Robert Grudzien on the Mk. 2a Spitfire so are these plans also suspect as I haven't compared the two?

 

Pat.

Edited June 4, 2023 by PatG

[warhawk]

21 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

People keep saying that  the forthcoming (one day?) Eduard one will automatically be better than any other - the only comment I will make is that we can certainly guarantee that there will be more parts.

 

Looking at their recent chunky-nosed 72nd 109 Emils (done in collaboration with Special hobby), I also have my doubts.

The detail and kit engineering is certainly the best for an 109E so far, but c'mon...

Edited June 5, 2023 by warhawk

[Giorgio N]

This thread has unfortunately suffered the fate of many of my models: get started, progress and then lag behind...

I still intend to complete my analysis, although I realise that it's been ages since I started the thread. I really have to take those pictures and post them....

[Giorgio N]

On 6/4/2023 at 7:12 PM, Seahawk said:

I was looking forward to a considered verdict on the outline accuracy of the old Airfix Mk.I (“AZ-H”).  It’s a pity this thread didn’t get that far.

 

This kit is on the list ! I'm planning both "old and new" Airfix, KP and the Revell Mk.II (ok, not a Mk.I but close enough). Can't guarantee when though,,,

With this thread I feel a bit like Father Dougal when he said "I went too far too soon. I didn’t know what I was getting into, I didn’t know you had to follow up a good idea with loads more little good ideas" 🤣

Edited June 5, 2023 by Giorgio N

[tempestfan]

1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

 

This kit is on the list ! I'm planning both "old and new" Airfix, KP and the Revell Mk.II (ok, not a Mk.I but close enough). Can't guarantee when though,,,

With this thread I feel a bit like Father Dougal when he said "I went too far too soon. I didn’t know what I was getting into, I didn’t know you had to follow up a good idea with loads more little good ideas" 🤣

I assume the new one, Giorgio. For H-611 one I can speak from experience: Almost as accurate as BT-K... The nose is quite acceptable up to the rear of the cockpit; beyond that, it's too long for a significant amount (quarter inch or so?), has a kind of sharp razorback, and a grotesque fin/rudder. The wing t/e is quite OK again, but the l/e curve is much to shallow and spoils the look without redemption.

[Graham Boak]

23 hours ago, PatG said:

There are some quite detailed plans of the Spitfire 1 drawn by G A G Cox and M J Lee (traced by A A P Lloyd) in the Argos Publications 'Aircraft Archive Volume 1' published back in 1988, so are these not accurate enough to rely upon? I'm assuming they based these plans upon examination of a real life example, of which there would have been many to choose from at the time.

 

PatG.  The names tell us that these plans are very old - I can recall G A G Cox's scratchbuild articles from Aeromodeller in the 1950s.  The 1988 book was a collection of Argus Publications (i.e. mainly if nor entirely Aeromodeller) plans from a wide range of vintages.  I don't recall this particular plane but their Mk.IX plans from the early 1960s, which looked absolutely superb at the time, are no longer regarded as particularly good.  But for the Mk.IX, and certain basics, there is always Monforton.  

 

I don't know the Grudzien plans.

 

Giorgio.  Re BT.K, I presume you are referring to the original Airfix Spitfire - but I suspect that many of the younger modellers will associated that with the much later special release of the 1970s kit and perhaps get a misleading idea.

 

 

[viscount806x]

13 hours ago, tempestfan said:

I assume the new one, Giorgio. For H-611 one I can speak from experience: Almost as accurate as BT-K... The nose is quite acceptable up to the rear of the cockpit; beyond that, it's too long for a significant amount (quarter inch or so?), has a kind of sharp razorback, and a grotesque fin/rudder. The wing t/e is quite OK again, but the l/e curve is much to shallow and spoils the look without redemption.

But we loved it back in 1962…..

[Richard Humm]

The Cox and Lee drawings first appeared in the first issue of Scale Models in 1969. I've got a copy of John Beaman's Calling All Spitfires from 1973, and his advice on making a Mk. I was use the FROG fuselage, Revell wings (despite their being too short and too pointed), exhausts, carburettor intake, radiator, prop and (modified) spinner, and vacform a new canopy using the Airfix Mk IX one as a basis. The Airfix Vb must have made making early Spitfires a lot easier when it came out...

[PatG]

I'll go off and compare the Cox/Lee plans with those more latterly published by Robert Grudzien to see how they compare as basically the IIa should match the I as it was exactly the same airframe in terms of overall dimensions.

 

Pat.

[Giorgio N]

Not a plan but in theory we may have a benchmark: the Airfix Mk.Vc kit ! This is said to have been designed using 3D scans of an original airframe, if this is the case then at least the basic dimensions should be correct (although we know that some details are not...)

[Yes_Man]

On 05/06/2023 at 18:20, Giorgio N said:

With this thread I feel a bit like Father Dougal when he said "I went too far too soon. I didn’t know what I was getting into, I didn’t know you had to follow up a good idea with loads more little good ideas" 🤣

 

I feel a bit bad now for stirring it all up again! It's just funny to me how for a type so famous as the early-Merlin Spitfire marks we're still missing that truly definitive kit in 1/72. Certainly Kotare seem to have wrapped up 1/32 and, from what I've read online, the Eduard kits are considered the standard in 1/48 (alongside the Tamiya tool albeit that's only a Mk.I). It's a real shame Tamiya cancelled their planned new 1/72 Spitfire Mk.I as, I suspect, it was based around their 1/48 kit. They did the same for their 1/72 Bf 109G-6 and it's absolutely the first port-of-call for anyone wanting a 109 in their collection.

 

In any case the "new" tool Airfix Mk.I has been whipped out of the stash and is currently undergoing the mandatory "fill up the panel lines" stage.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Yes_Man

[PatG]

Airfix use the latest LIDAR scanners for their new kits but if they choose the wrong example to scan, as in the Cosford Mosquito, then you get a very accurate representation of the wrong aircraft!

 

I'm a huge Airfix fan but I treat everything they do with a certain degree of suspicion.

 

Pat.

[warhawk]

8 hours ago, PatG said:

Airfix use the latest LIDAR scanners for their new kits but if they choose the wrong example to scan, as in the Cosford Mosquito, then you get a very accurate representation of the wrong aircraft!

 

Don't forget their 72nd Defiant - a result of scanning the actual thing, which had temporary (different and smaller!) wheels at that moment.

BTW, what's wrong with the Cosford Mosquito?

[Giorgio N]

8 hours ago, PatG said:

Airfix use the latest LIDAR scanners for their new kits but if they choose the wrong example to scan, as in the Cosford Mosquito, then you get a very accurate representation of the wrong aircraft!

 

I'm a huge Airfix fan but I treat everything they do with a certain degree of suspicion.

 

Pat.

 

8 minutes ago, warhawk said:

 

Don't forget their 72nd Defiant - a result of scanning the actual thing, which had temporary (different and smaller!) wheels at that moment.

BTW, what's wrong with the Cosford Mosquito?

 

That's why in my post I mentioned the basic shapes. That is the problem I've focused my search on since the various Mk.I kits show quite large differences in length, span and other measurements. 

3D scanning is a tool that can be very useful but alone does not necessarily lead to an accurate kit, there's still need for proper research to get all aspects right. The same tool however is great to help getting basic shapes right, much more than relying on scale drawings 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Giorgio N

[PatG]

As has been well detailed the Cosford Mosquito is a TT.35 so the bomb doors had various bumps and mods to accommodate the towing gear, but sadly Airfix overlooked this aspect and went ahead with it 'as is'.

 

But at least it kept the after market folks busy!

 

Pat.

[Phantome]

Still baffled why the Tamiya gets so much hate in these forums sometimes. The issues pointed out here are frankly minimal. I have perhaps more to complain from the slightly boxy cowl area but even that is nowhere near as pronounced as some people make it seem. If Eduard eventually produce a Mk I I will definitely give it a go but as it is, can't be bothered to build any other brand given how good the fit and the surface detail is.

[PatG]

I would agree about the Tamiya kit as I built it some years ago and it is excellent.

 

However being of limited expertise the main/only issue I had was the windscreen which is not that great but as it also incorporates part of the fuselage as well is not easy to simply replace with a new vacuum replacement and therefore is a bit of a pain so I ended up leaving it as is. Many may be able to solve this problem but for me it was way to tricky to sort/improve so just a pity it wasn't more simply molded as just the screen alone.

 

Pat.

[Wm Blecky]

On 6/24/2022 at 12:57 PM, Giorgio N said:

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.

 

 

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 ?

 

 

Great job with this comparison thus far, i am really enjoying it and finding it to be very helpful.  Over the years, I have been trying to figure out a way to help the Tamiya kit along with some tweaks.  Looking at the above picture, if I were to take issue with the shorter fuselage, I think that I would cut the fuselage in half just ahead of the tail section along the spine and extend it the additional distance.  Not sure that it would be 100% correct, but it might help the overall appearance.

 

The wings are another matter though.

 

I have just started reading this thread, so please forgive me if some of this has already been addressed.  I am also curious if you have compared the Tamiya kit to the AZ Model one.  Based on my past experience with AZ Models, they seem to get "inspiration" from other manufacturer's work.  AZ does make some nice improvements and I have often wondered if it would be worth buying and AZ kit to cross kit with the Tamiya Spitfire.

[Graham Boak]

11 hours ago, Phantome said:

Still baffled why the Tamiya gets so much hate in these forums sometimes. The issues pointed out here are frankly minimal. I have perhaps more to complain from the slightly boxy cowl area but even that is nowhere near as pronounced as some people make it seem. 

 I don't know about "hate" but disagree about "minimal".   It is too fat in the fuselage and has the wrong wing shape.  That's two major blows against.  As I recall the exhausts were a caricature and I recall doubts about the prop/spinner.  There's a comment above about the windscreen.  To be honest, I rather thought the "boxy" top to the nose might be more accurate than other kits, many kits simply don't think about the shape of the engine that their cowling has to have inside!  Good surface detail and a beautiful fit, yes, and if that's what matters most to you, enjoy it.  Personally I prefer models that look rather more like their subject.

 

Yes, I have had both the Tamiya 1/72 Spitfires, they (unsurprisingly but you never know) shared the same faults and despite some attempt at salvaging, most of the kits apart from cockpits and undercarriage have ended up in the bin.