RELEASED - 1/72 Early Merlin Spitfire Family - IBG Guessing Game Round 2

[Dennis_C]

I'd say no chance for a Seafire family from IBG. I could easier imagine a family of Fw-190 prototypes. 

[Piotr Mikolajski]

5 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

Would IBG, or any other manufacturer take a similar challenge?

 

It is impossible to make the whole Spitfire and Seafire family in one go and we may well see this in the 1/48 kits from Eduard - the ‘Late Merlins’ were released first, the ‘Early Merlins’ were released a few years later, the ‘Griffons’ have not been released to date and there is no indication that they will be released in the foreseeable future. None of the Seafires have been announced and moreover, Eduard has not released any Spitfire PR either. Quite simply, there is too much of it all.

[VMA131Marine]

23 minutes ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

It is impossible to make the whole Spitfire and Seafire family in one go and we may well see this in the 1/48 kits from Eduard - the ‘Late Merlins’ were released first, the ‘Early Merlins’ were released a few years later, the ‘Griffons’ have not been released to date and there is no indication that they will be released in the foreseeable future. None of the Seafires have been announced and moreover, Eduard has not released any Spitfire PR either. Quite simply, there is too much of it all.

Eduard could get the PR.X and PR.XI out of their late Merlin Spitfire kits relatively easily. 
The Seafire Ib and IIc are relatively straightforward conversions of the Vb and Vc respectively as they were in real life. The most involved would be the Mk.III because it had folding wings. The Seafires have an interesting history and different colour schemes that should make them attractive for some company to do, other than as limited run kits.

[Giorgio N]

28 minutes ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

It is impossible to make the whole Spitfire and Seafire family in one go and we may well see this in the 1/48 kits from Eduard - the ‘Late Merlins’ were released first, the ‘Early Merlins’ were released a few years later, the ‘Griffons’ have not been released to date and there is no indication that they will be released in the foreseeable future. None of the Seafires have been announced and moreover, Eduard has not released any Spitfire PR either. Quite simply, there is too much of it all.

 

Totally agree, the variations are too many. Even if a company decide to do them all over many years, it makes no sense to make all variants out of a common set of parts. Eduard have recently issued the early Merlin spits in 48 and will do the same in 1/72 yet all these kits have no part in common with the existing Mk.IXs and similar. Should they decide to do a new family of Griffon engined aircraft they would likely do the same

That is what AZ/KP have done too... they have released quite many variants to date but again starting from a number of different kits: their Mk.I may have parts in common with the V but has none in common with the IX or the older XIV or 22 etc.

 

[Giorgio N]

8 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

Eduard could get the PR.X and PR.XI out of their late Merlin Spitfire kits relatively easily. 
The Seafire Ib and IIc are relatively straightforward conversions of the Vb and Vc respectively as they were in real life. The most involved would be the Mk.III because it had folding wings. The Seafires have an interesting history and different colour schemes that should make them attractive for some company to do, other than as limited run kits.

 

The problem is always to agree on what "relatively easily" mean. They would have to make a new fuselage, a new wing and new clear parts for the PR.XI. Sure they could retain the common sprue of their Mk.IX/VIII kit, this would be a bonus. Is it worth doing it? The various PR machines may be fascinating for some (I'm a big fan of them myself) but would there be enough interest to make the investment worthwhile?

Same for the Seafire, although here it would be a bit easier for the Ib and IIc, just a completely new fuselage and a new sprue with the various details (hook for all and other IIc specific parts). Would the investment for the new fuselage be justified ?

Edited January 17 by Giorgio N

[Dennis_C]

Late Griffon Spitfires and Seafires were all covered quite recently by Special Hobby. Although these have strange canopy, I think the demand for them is exhausted for now so I think neither Eduard, nor IBG or Arma would go into this theme now. 

 

Early Griffon Spitfires and Seafires are not as nicely covered I think. There were Sword kits of these, but I think a series of Spitfires XIV, XVIII, XIX and Seafires XV and XVII could be selling okay. Not sure how possible is it to produce all these as a one series... different fuselages, cockpits, wings, propellers...

 

Early Seafires is one more topic. I think Seafire mk.III could be a great bid for e.g. Arma. Not sure if Arma should try to produce it in a way allowing mk.I or II with non-folding wings. I think mk.III being the definitive Merlin Seafire alone could be very popular. 

Edited January 17 by Dennis_C

[Piotr Mikolajski]

That's the point - each new version is another batch of new parts that need space on the moulds. Designing new parts takes time, and space on the moulds costs money, so the project starts to get longer and more expensive. At some point the project has to be locked down, each company calculates the cut-off point differently.

 

Besides, in case of ‘from Spitfire Mk.I to Seafire Mk.47’ project an investment would be huge and the company would be freezing a mass of cash, the return of which would be much more difficult than if it was broken down into phases. Successive versions released every 2-3 months would mean a few years of a continuous stream of Spitfire/Seafire kits. Even the biggest Supermarine fans would be fed up, and their wallets would have been drier than sand in the Sahara Desert.

[Giorgio N]

14 minutes ago, Dennis_C said:

Late Griffon Spitfires and Seafires were all covered quite recently by Special Hobby. Although these have strange canopy, I think the demand for them is exhausted for now so I think neither Eduard, nor IBG or Arma would go into this theme now. 

 

Early Griffon Spitfires and Seafires are not as nicely covered I think. There were Sword kits of these, but I think a series of Spitfires XIV, XVIII, XIX and Seafires XV and XVII could be selling okay. Not sure how possible is it to produce all these as a one series... different fuselages, cockpits, wings, propellers...

 

Early Seafires is one more topic. I think Seafire mk.III could be a great bid for e.g. Arma. Not sure if Arma should try to produce it in a way allowing mk.I or II with non-folding wings. I think mk.III being the definitive Merlin Seafire alone could be very popular. 

 

I feel the need to correct the highlighted statements: Late Griffon Spitfires and Seafires were all pretty poorly covered quite recently by Special Hobby...

these kits are IMHO pretty inaccurate. The Airfix Spitfire 22 is a much better reproduction of the shapes of this variant, atlhough the quality of the mould is not great.

 

Regarding Seafires, I don't see why a company like Arma, would feel the need to do a Seafire III... if they want to make money they can simply offer a very similar Spitfire V. There's a reason why they made a P-51B/C and not say an A or an H.

To most people a Seafire III is just a less interesting variant of the Spitfire, it's only for those who are into Spitfires and hard line FAA enthusiasts that a Seafire is particularly interesting... and I'm saying this from the perspective of a Spitfire enthusiast who would happily buy even the most obscure variant! I know I would buy a few Seafire IIIs, I already have bought a couple and converted Spitfires into Seafires. Still as much as I love the type I also understand how Seafires are a niche and what people really want in large numbers are Spitfires, possibly the well known variants

[VMA131Marine]

11 minutes ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

That's the point - each new version is another batch of new parts that need space on the moulds. Designing new parts takes time, and space on the moulds costs money, so the project starts to get longer and more expensive. At some point the project has to be locked down, each company calculates the cut-off point differently.

I don’t disagree but Eduard produced six different frames, each containing fuselage and wing parts, to account for all the variations of the Fw 190A/F series from the A-5 onwards that could probably have been done with glue on lumps and bumps instead.

[Piotr Mikolajski]

Just now, VMA131Marine said:

I don’t disagree but Eduard produced six different frames, each containing fuselage and wing parts, to account for all the variations of the Fw 190A/F series from the A-5 onwards that could probably have been done with glue on lumps and bumps instead.

 

The Fw 190A/F from Eduard is the best offering in 1/72, but it is far from all the variants of the A and F versions, starting with the A-5.

[Dennis_C]

1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

I feel the need to correct the highlighted statements: Late Griffon Spitfires and Seafires were all pretty poorly covered quite recently by Special Hobby...

these kits are IMHO pretty inaccurate.

No doubt. I just tried to stay polite

[12by12]

OK, here's a challenge. If it's a spitfire family (which I'm not sure about but there's plenty of Polish connections) what is the simplest way to get to seven props?  Here's my first try..

Mk1 early, two blades and DH three blade.

Mk V with various three-bladers and a Mk VI with four.  Different wings and filters according to taste on the same base kit

Two-stage Merlin spit, IX, VIII, XI all with four blades. additional sprue gives a Griffon MkXII with a different prop and spinner.

Mk XIV and PR XIX with five-blader

Mk21 with contraprop. Doesn't need a Seafire at all, or any cut-down rear fuslage.

 

Five kits, seven props, all blade counts covered, a fair number of (mostly) common sprues such as wings, undercarriage, tailplanes and such.

 

[352nd Fighter Group]

I am Sticking with my first guess a Fairey Firefly TT1 

Edited January 17 by 352nd Fighter Group
Remove a word

[Piotr Mikolajski]

1 hour ago, 12by12 said:

Here's my first try.

 

And this first try would mean doing ‘Early Merlins’, ‘Late Merlins’ and ‘Griffons’ families at the same time. The unreality of such an approach is explained literally a few posts above.

[352nd Fighter Group]

This is going to be a complete shot in the Dark 

 

what about a few Protoype RAF Aircraft 

 

Hawker Tornado  R7936, was used as a propeller testbed after its initial flight testing.

 

Typhoon HG641 was built to serve as a testbed for the Bristol Centaurus engine. Seen here with its original three-blade propeller

Hawker Tornado HG641 with the new four-blade propeller 

 Hawker Fury LA610 originally flew with a Griffon engine

 

 Maybe but very   highly unlikely 

Edited January 18 by 352nd Fighter Group
Remove a word

[steh2o]

15 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

The Fw 190A/F from Eduard is the best offering in 1/72, but it is far from all the variants of the A and F versions, starting with the A-5.

The Eduard Fw190A has shape errors that really detract from its look. The thing that comes closer to an Fw190A-8 in 1/72 scale is the Airfix release, which is not the best in terms of finesse of particulars. So -yes- I would very like see a new, accurate family of Antons, and there is plenty of market space for it. 

[MiG-Mech]

One new information:
5 different fuselage

[Adam Poultney]

Interesting, it sounds like this is a pretty comprehensive family of... whatever it is.

[Adam Poultney]

I would now assume it's probably small if they're tooling so many versions. Probably a single engine fighter, which I think is what most of the speculation has been anyway. 

[Tbolt]

If it's a P-47 then it would have to include at least one prototype like the XP-47J or XP-47H and that would account for extra props.

 

P-47B

P-47C/D to D-23

P-47D-25 to D-40, M and N ( the N could also be done from the D fuselage if they designed the N wing to slot into the gear bay )

XP-47J

XP-47H

[352nd Fighter Group]

1 minute ago, Tbolt said:

If it's a P-47 then it would have to include at least one prototype like the XP-47J or XP-47H and that would account for extra props.

 

P-47B

P-47C/D to D-23

P-47D-25 to D-40, M and N ( the N could also be done from the D fuselage if they designed the N wing to slot info the gear bay )

XP-47J

XP-47H

XP-72 as well ?

[Tbolt]

5 minutes ago, 352nd Fighter Group said:

XP-72 as well ?

 

Most likely the XP-72 instead of the XP-47J otherwise it would be more than five,  but I really want a XP-47J since Halberd gave us the XP-72 conversion!

[ModelMod]

If Kovozavody Prostejov is announcing several boxes of "early" 190A variants...

 

https://www.modelarovo.cz/novinky-kovozavodu-prostejov-na-leden/

 

...I think it is "statistically" possible for IBG to be releasing  the same family. 🙂

 

(I mean, it would be in keeping with AZ/KP's "tradition" of releasing several boxes of a certain subject on the market just before another large manufacturer launched its own family: it happened with Special Hobby's Cobras, Eduard's Z-37s, Eduard's initial P-51D Mustang, Special Hobby's 109E, etc.)

 

Returning to the topic, I would love to see a new family of Spitfire, or P-47, which has not had a new mold for years. But it seems to me that IBG tends more towards axis subjects, it has much of this work already done with the 190D family, and only anecdotally, the presentation will be in Nuremberg. 

 

My two cents.

[Piotr Mikolajski]

2 minutes ago, ModelMod said:

I mean, it would be in keeping with AZ/KP's "tradition" of releasing several boxes of a certain subject on the market just before another large manufacturer launched its own family

 

It takes up to a few years to prepare and design a project of family of kits, cut the steel moulds and test the quality of injection moulding. Are you seriously trying to compare this whole process with a 'hard work' of copying an existing kit and releasing it from a resin mould, where all that takes a few weeks?

[352nd Fighter Group]

32 minutes ago, Tbolt said:

If it's a P-47 then it would have to include at least one prototype like the XP-47J or XP-47H and that would account for extra props.

 

P-47B

P-47C/D to D-23

P-47D-25 to D-40, M and N ( the N could also be done from the D fuselage if they designed the N wing to slot into the gear bay )

XP-47J

XP-47H