Airfix Spitfire PRXIX 1/72 canopy question (now with finished kit photos)

[RichardRoberts]

Hi all.   Newbie here hoping a Spitfire expert might be able to answer this.   

I am in the process of making all the major marks of Spitfire from prototype to Mk22 in 1/72.    

 

Now we all know the issues with the Academy XIV (nothing that can't be fixed it seems) but I am surprised I can't find any mention of the Airfix PR XIX which seems to have a massively under scaled canopy.  

 

The XIX is simply a derivative of earlier high back versions and the canopy is different in having a curved screen,  blown centre piece, external runners and no door but front to back it's way too short.     I have compared the canopy to standard ones from other Airfix Spits as well as Eduard and Italeri etc and they all swamp the XIX in length.    Even taking into account the alterations I can't see this would alter the canopy length by so much.  

 

Before I start any serious surgery I was wondering if anyone else has noticed it?    I can't find anyone who has made the kit commenting on it so am I missing something?

 

Cheers in advance for the help.

Edited August 20 by RichardRoberts
Amended title

[PatG]

Rob Taurus do, or did, a replacement canopy for the Airfix XIX kit so may be worth trying to get hold of one.

 

Kind Regards

Pat.

 

ps. just checked Hannants and still available for £5.50 plus p&p 

Edited July 16 by PatG

[Troy Smith]

9 hours ago, RichardRoberts said:

I can't find any mention of the Airfix PR XIX which seems to have a massively under scaled canopy.  

Never seen mention of this before. 

 

I've seen various other comments on other issues, but not this.

https://www.ipmsstockholm.se/home/spitfire-pr-mk-xix-in-detail/

Airfix kit

 

 

 

 

Note this is an early XIX which was not pressurised.  

 

The canopy maybe not bulged enough, but looks to be the right length, compared to other airframe features.

 

9 hours ago, RichardRoberts said:

The XIX is simply a derivative of earlier high back versions and the canopy is different in having a curved screen,  blown centre piece, external runners and no door but front to back it's way too short.

The XIX is not simply a derivative of earlier high back versions, but part of the PR family.   

The curved screen is the standard PR screen,  note the rear section on the pressurised airframes is deeper.

 

 

 

Rob Taurus it seems just make vac form replacements,  I don't know they bother correcting any issues.

 

If you are doing a Spitfire family, the Falcon Spitfire special set maybe worth considering

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/FNCV4172

 

 

9 hours ago, RichardRoberts said:

I can't find anyone who has made the kit commenting on it so am I missing something?

Comparison photos really help if you are going to ask questions like this.  

 

The Airfix XIX is not a great kit, there are some simple modifications I thought helped it 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235073488-spitfire-pr-xix-airfix-72nd-as-i-thought-it-would-be-easy/

 

The main comment was the wing chord, an easy fix, and blank wheel wells and the club like prop blades need work,  and the seat seems too high, but all of this is in the link.  The canopy came up well with a Kleer dip

 

9 hours ago, RichardRoberts said:

Now we all know the issues with the Academy XIV (nothing that can't be fixed it seems)

If it's the same as their 1/48th, you will need a new spinner, the rest is do-able but it's a load of work.   The Sword kit is limited run but seems to be better.

 

I'm sure various other members will add in their thoughts.

@The wooksta V2.0 @Giorgio N  @Beard ?

 

HTH

[RichardRoberts]

Ok thanks both for the replies.

 

When I mentioned the  derivative I meant that the XIX is a XIV modified for PR and couldn't find any reference to it having a much modified cockpit aperture.     I will take some comparison photos as the difference is marked and you can't see it simply from posting a photo of a single model.  But it's important I get a definitive answer on if Airfix got it wrong as well as the other points you mention.

Thanks again.   

[Planebuilder62]

Ventura make a more finely moulded XIX Spitfire than Airfix. 
 

The challenge, if it is thought the canopy is the wrong size, is how to correct it. The vacform caopies mentioned above will perfectly fit one particular kit only, ask me how I know. 😊

 

The only way to find out is compare the model with a proper scale drawing.

 

Regards Toby

[Beard]

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

I'm sure various other members will add in their thoughts.

I can't say that I've noticed, or heard talk about, the canopy being smaller on the Airfix 1/72 XIX than other Spitfire kits.

 

4 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

[...] the seat seems too high [...]

The seat looks more like something from a car than a Spitfire and is easily sorted by replacing the cockpit interior with one from another kit. On my last Airfix XIX, I used the parts from a scrapped AZ Spitfire V (after removing the armour behind the seat).

[Graham Boak]

The Academy fuselage is a mishapen blob, and I wouldn't describe the Airfix wing chord is easily fixable as it is at the leading edge that the error exists.  Fixing the wing fuselage fairing would not be easy but would make the nose the right length.    Compared with these the Ventura (now Jays) is an inspired choice as the scraping and filing to remove flow excess is straightforward and you can use the interiors and other parts from either of the others.  

 

If you are not that fussed just make the Airfix and put it on the shelf behind other subjects.

[The wooksta V2.0]

The Ventura 19 is the best of the bunch, despite it's limited run nature and crudity in places.  The outline is bang on.  All the Ventura Spitfires were, but they were the product of an old school mindset that gave you an accurate outline and the basics, you had to do the rest of the work.  Many modellers now are either unable or unwilling to do it, so the Ventura Spitfires get overlooked.

 

The canopy on the Airfix 19 has never worried me, the one on the Fujimi 19 is bloated, which carried over in to the MPM IX and 2nd iteration of the 19 they did (which used a warmed over Fujimi fuselage as a master).  The Airfix fuselage is meant to be short, with the error being aft of the firewall.  The cowling is right, it's that the wing chord is too wide.  The trailing edge is in the right place, so that extra width is at the leading edge which makes the cowling look short. The ailerons are also iffy, being the same depth chord wise top and bottom.  Others have mentioned the cockpit interior, but TBH under the canopy you'd never notice anyway.

 

I've done conversions over the years using the Airfix 19 fuselage and it takes other canopies (2009 Airfix IX mainly) easy enough. TBH, I wouldn't worry about it, because the kit is a decent enough clothes horse.  

 

If you want a really good 19, I'd start with a KPM mk XI wing and a Sword XIV high back fuselage.  And they do cross kit.

 

As for Academy's 14...  Nice kit, poor Spitfire.  Others may be happy with it, but I think it barely fit for the bin.

 

[Giorgio N]

20 minutes ago, The wooksta V2.0 said:

The Ventura 19 is the best of the bunch, despite it's limited run nature and crudity in places.  The outline is bang on.  All the Ventura Spitfires were, but they were the product of an old school mindset that gave you an accurate outline and the basics, you had to do the rest of the work.  Many modellers now are either unable or unwilling to do it, so the Ventura Spitfires get overlooked.

 

 

 

Not true: some were and others were not.

Their Spitfire IX features a fuselage of the same length of the hasegawa kit, that has rightly been criticized for being too short. If the Hase kit is too short, then the Ventura kit also is too short.

Their Seafire 47 is also not accurate. Comparing it with the Airfix Mk.22 shows very different lines in every aspect. The Airfix kit matches known measurements, the Ventura one doesn't.

Their Seafire XV and XVII on the other hand match well known measurements, I have never owned any of their Griffon engined Spitfires so can't comment on these.

My view is that Ventura got some things right and others wrong. However for some reason the myth has propagated over time that all their products are very accurate. That is something that too often happens with many kits made before the advent of the Internet and the immediate diffusion of information.

[steh2o]

If I may express my opinion, after looking at what is or was available on the market for a Griffon Spitfire and comparing it to the most up-to-date plans like Jumpei Tenma's, the most accurate Griffon nose  is the Airfix Mk.22/24 one. Sword's look nice at first sight, but the position of the exhaust openings and cylinder head fairings are not correct.  Airfix Mk XIX is not far, but requires much work to reshape the top of the fairings, and IIRC it is also a bit slim. Today, getting an accurate Pr. Mk XIX is no easy task

Edit- I second Giorgio opinion above but I add that Sword XV and XVII are no better than their XIV. Nice looking overall, but not accurate. That's the reason why I choose Airfix Mk 22 for both my XIV and XII conversion work

Edited July 17 by steh2o

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

and I wouldn't describe the Airfix wing chord is easily fixable as it is at the leading edge that the error exists. 

unless I have really misunderstood, it is, or I found it so.  

1 hour ago, The wooksta V2.0 said:

The Airfix fuselage is meant to be short, with the error being aft of the firewall.  The cowling is right, it's that the wing chord is too wide.  The trailing edge is in the right place, so that extra width is at the leading edge which makes the cowling look short.

 

 

red pen shows the difference

yes, it's a Spit 22, but the wing outline is the same (I also used another to check) and the engine is in the same place....

line up the trailing edge,  use correct shape wing to a draw line on XIX. (I used a very point permanant marker) see photo in post #1 

Trim XIX wing to line.

Trim back fuselage wing leading edge fairing.

You may well (I did) end up with some small gap here, I used bits of plastic card. 

 

port/left wing below is corrected, starboard/right is not,  look at cutting matt lines.

 

3 hours ago, Beard said:

The seat looks more like something from a car than a Spitfire and is easily sorted by replacing the cockpit interior with one from another kit. On my last Airfix XIX, I used the parts from a scrapped AZ Spitfire V (after removing the armour behind the seat).

 

Since I though it was liable to be visible, I made a seat back, which is ribbed black leather, and straps, out of thin lead foil, had to make a slot in the seat armour, and made a hole in the rear pressure bulkhead for a bit of wire for the straps to attach too. 

 

I had to drop the seat, as it was too high, and trim plastic off the bottom.  I think it's too deep in fact... or maybe the part the rudder pedal attach to is too high....

 

 

 

 

I did check what was visible through the canopy.  Not much, so only added anything that would be visible, the camera switch box on the IP 

 

and a tiny bit of clear streched sprue to the back of the headrest for the desiccant tube

 

Time spent on boxing in the wheel wells and some wing structure is easy enough with microstrip and card

 

 

As @The wooksta V2.0  it makes a good enough clothes horse. 

 

It's a good kit to try some basic upgrades as well, well that was my experience

 

HTH

[Graham Boak]

Troy:  Trimming from the rear certainly works better than it did on the Tamiya kit with the shape problem.  Your picture does not show the work required to move the upper part of the nose of the wing/root fairing, restoring a reasonable shape to the upper section and the filling of the resulting gaps.  A workable solution yes but "easy"?   Not very, other than for an experienced modeller.

 

Giorgio:  I don't recall the Hasegawa kit as being criticised for too short, but too slim.  I would suggest that it may well be too short in the nose, for this is true of almost all Mk.IXs pre the Airfix, when compared with the Monforton dimensions.  There are a number of traps for people commenting on the Mk.IX, not least the difference in length between the short rudder and the wide rudder.  I recall an AZ kit receiving a vicious review by a Czech modeller because  if being too short.  It turned out  they had modelled a late rudder aircraft to the correct length of the earlier rudder.  As the flaw was over the entire length of the fuselage it was indiscernible to the eye.  But this is for a Merlin posting.                                                           

[PatG]

Depending upon your skill level with vac formed canopies I mentioned the Rob Taurus one as his/their canopies are made slightly thicker so easier to remove with fine scissors and offering a greater thickness to apply adhesive to.

 

I've previously tried Falcon and Squadron ones and whilst they seem to be very accurate and clear I've always found them too flimsy for my limited skills, so really up to you I guess.

 

HTH.

 

Kind Regards

Pat.

Edited July 17 by PatG

[RichardRoberts]

Thanks all for your valued input.   Some great info there.  In a bit I will post up some pics regarding the canopies just to highlight where I am coming from.   Cheers.  

[Giorgio N]

3 hours ago, steh2o said:

If I may express my opinion, after looking at what is or was available on the market for a Griffon Spitfire and comparing it to the most up-to-date plans like Jumpei Tenma's, the most accurate Griffon nose  is the Airfix Mk.22/24 one. Sword's look nice at first sight, but the position of the exhaust openings and cylinder head fairings are not correct.  Airfix Mk XIX is not far, but requires much work to reshape the top of the fairings, and IIRC it is also a bit slim. Today, getting an accurate Pr. Mk XIX is no easy task

Edit- I second Giorgio opinion above but I add that Sword XV and XVII are no better than their XIV. Nice looking overall, but not accurate. That's the reason why I choose Airfix Mk 22 for both my XIV and XII conversion work

 

I agree that the Airfix 22 looks to be the most accurate Griffon engined variant kit on the market. Pity that the nose is not particularly well moulded for a modern kit, although both my 2 kits are from the original made in India batches. I've noticed on other kits how the more recent harder plastic issues are much better moulded, I'd have to check if the latest Spitfire 22 also benefits from the better plastic and mould quality.

Regarding the Sword Seafires, I have both but haven't checked them yet against measurements and pictures.

[Giorgio N]

A general comment about Spitfire canopies: I've not measured all 1/72 Spitfire kits but I measured a few when I started comparing the various kits of the Mk.I (thread is somewhere on the forum). I also built a few model adding bits and pieces from various kits and clearly companies have very different ideas about the width and length of the canopies of the Spitfire. When it comes to width I found that the widest ones were almost 50% wider than the narrowest ones... 

[Giorgio N]

21 hours ago, RichardRoberts said:

Hi all.   Newbie here hoping a Spitfire expert might be able to answer this.   

I am in the process of making all the major marks of Spitfire from prototype to Mk22 in 1/72.    

 

Now we all know the issues with the Academy XIV (nothing that can't be fixed it seems) but I am surprised I can't find any mention of the Airfix PR XIX which seems to have a massively under scaled canopy.  

 

The XIX is simply a derivative of earlier high back versions and the canopy is different in having a curved screen,  blown centre piece, external runners and no door but front to back it's way too short.     I have compared the canopy to standard ones from other Airfix Spits as well as Eduard and Italeri etc and they all swamp the XIX in length.    Even taking into account the alterations I can't see this would alter the canopy length by so much.  

 

Before I start any serious surgery I was wondering if anyone else has noticed it?    I can't find anyone who has made the kit commenting on it so am I missing something?

 

Cheers in advance for the help.

 

The Academy Mk.XIV can be fixed and I built a much more correct model from it a few years ago... it simply took cutting the fuselage across its lenght, eliminating plastic from the middle to reduce the excessive depts, removing plastic from the contact areas to reduce the excessive width, adding an extra section before the tail, reshaping the engine cowling area, reding the diameter of the spinner, replacing the propeller, modifying the radiators.... yes, it can be fixed but is it really worth it ? Its accuracy problems are a real pity as the kit builds very nicely from the box and features good detail and mould quality for a pretty low price.

 

I did compare the Spitfire XIX with measurements a few years ago, again the thread should be somewhere on the forum and I'll look for it later. Personally I was much less than impressed about various accuracy aspects and I never bothered checking it in more detail. IMHO trying to correct it is a bit of a waste of time, I'd probably only add some more detail and correct some basic errors (flaps lines and a couple others). That the kit is very toylike doesn't help, if I have to choose between the inaccurate Airfix kit and the inaccurate Fujimi one I'd go for the latter with a vacform canopy.

Speaking of canopies, Pavla also did vacform canopies for this kit, in a 2.canopy set that included one for the pressurised aircraft and one for those without pressurisation. Clearly this set, similarly to the Rob Taurus one, does not correct any accuracy issue, they are designed to fit the kit. They however look nicer than the original being thinner.

[gingerbob]

Perhaps this one Giorgio?

 

 

Your photo of fuselages on graph paper is on page 2, and you say more on page 3.  There's a lot of angst to wade through, or skim over.

[Johnson]

I made the Airfix XIX a while ago and used the Rob Taurus canopy which I thought very good.

 

 

 

 

The kit was pretty straightforward as I remember and I enjoyed the build.

 

 

Here's the WIP if it helps.

 

 

Charlie

[Planebuilder62]

Something that impoves the look of the finshed Airfix XIX is to fill in all of the panel lines at the start of the build. The PR XIX shares the same deep panl lines as the newly moulded Mk 1. This build might help: 

 

 

Regards Toby

[RichardRoberts]

Sorry ignore

Photo problem

 

Edited July 28 by RichardRoberts

[Dave Wilko]

On 7/16/2025 at 5:32 PM, RichardRoberts said:

Hi all.   Newbie here hoping a Spitfire expert might be able to answer this.   

I am in the process of making all the major marks of Spitfire from prototype to Mk22 

 

The XIX is simply a derivative of earlier high back versions and the canopy is different in having a curved screen,  blown centre piece, external runners and no door

Sir,an excellent project if one may say so.

The Airfix 1/72 Mk.22 is indeed a thing of very accurate beauty for a small kit,the only thing one can suggest with it is that the five blade propeller maybe slightly undersized.

 

Might one most respectfully point out though,the XIX is not simply a derivative of the XIV,agreed,they share the Griffon 65 engine,but,in the course of much research by one's self and others some 40 years ago actually proved that the PR.XIX

owes it's lineage far more to the PR.X/XI series of Merlin 70 series engined PR Spitfires.

 

The PR.X being pressurised as were the later production XIX, the PR.XI being unpressurised as were the early production XIX,all three variants shared the "D" or popularly referenced "Bowser wing",the fuselage/cockpits/retractable tail wheel.

The main differences are,of course,the engines,pressurisation/non-pressurisation and some engine instrumentation(Griffons do not rev as high as a Merlin)such as RPM,boost,temperature and oil pressure.

 

David

[RichardRoberts]

OP here,

Thanks David I appreciate that but the main concern here is that the cockpit aperture on this Airfix kit is noticeably shorter than any other kit.   By some way even at 1/72.     Looking at photos I cannot see any modification to existing airframes and I doubt super marine would have made a new fuselage just for the xix......it "looks" like the standard centre section.    

 

I have taken a photo of several canopies including Eduard and other Airfix etc which I hope comes out below with the xix on the bottom.    Quite odd.     

 

A question for those who used aftermarket canopies..... Did it fit the kit or overlap the aperture?   Thanks. 

 

[tempestfan]

I wonder how it looks when lined up at the rear, as it appears the difference is mainly in the rounded windshield. I wonder how much difference remains if you substract the external armoured windshield pane? In any case, I wonder how well suited the others are as reference, the second from the top looks rather blobby, and the one right below suggests the main canopy slides under the windshield, making the latter rather excessive in width.

[RichardRoberts]

Oh yes I agree I just grabbed what I could but the others all agree in length despite lack of quality.

 

I did compare each of the 3 sections and all are equally shorter than the others.