Tamiya 1/48th Sptifire kits

[Spit Fan]

Hi all, before I get too far along on the three (1/48) Tamiya Spitfires sitting on my work bench I need to know if there are any probelms with the kit's main landing gear legs. I vaguely recall reading a post that hinted that they were problems with the length and or rake of the legs. Or just possibly it's the ICM kit that has the gear leg issues. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated as would any other thoughts on the Tamiya Spits. John R.

[TheModeller]

Hi all, before I get too far along on the three (1/48) Tamiya Spitfires sitting on my work bench I need to know if there are any probelms with the kit's main landing gear legs. I vaguely recall reading a post that hinted that they were problems with the length and or rake of the legs. Or just possibly it's the ICM kit that has the gear leg issues. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated as would any other thoughts on the Tamiya Spits. John R.

I've built maybe a dozen of Tamiyas Spits and never noticed a problem, the fit can be a bit slack sometimes so care is needed, I also think personally that the mains are a little widely spaced but that maybe a knock on effect from the slightly tubby fuselage.

The ICM two-stage spits all have long gearlegs, spoiling the sit, either cut the oleos and shorten by a millimeter or what I do is usually replace them with Aeroclub w/m legs which fit perfectly and are the right length.

Regards.

[Jim Kiker]

Hi John,

I have been lucky enough to see several Spitfires up close. These are all warbirds, of course, so they do not carry as much weight as they did in combat. What I noticed is that the Spitfire often seems to sit low to the ground. Model manufacturers nearly always create models that sit too high compared to the real aircraft. Generally you can see this in the "sit" of the model, and also by comparing the length of the landing gear oleo struts to pictures of the real aircraft; most kits have them at full extension rather than a normal shorter stance.

My "take" with the Tamiya Spitfires is that they sit a bit too high. I often replace the struts completely on my Spitfire builds, but short of that, I would take out about 1/32" or so or about 1mm, in the oleo section. I think it improves the sit a lot, but it is not a thing that many modelers really notice. As has been said however, the ICM Spitfires sit much too tall, to the tune of at least 1/16" by my reckoning. So at the end of the day, you will have to decide if the 1/32" (to my eyes, your mileage may vary) is enough to fuss with or not.

Happy modeling, Jim

[Spit Fan]

Hi John,

I have been lucky enough to see several Spitfires up close. These are all warbirds, of course, so they do not carry as much weight as they did in combat. What I noticed is that the Spitfire often seems to sit low to the ground. Model manufacturers nearly always create models that sit too high compared to the real aircraft. Generally you can see this in the "sit" of the model, and also by comparing the length of the landing gear oleo struts to pictures of the real aircraft; most kits have them at full extension rather than a normal shorter stance.

My "take" with the Tamiya Spitfires is that they sit a bit too high. I often replace the struts completely on my Spitfire builds, but short of that, I would take out about 1/32" or so or about 1mm, in the oleo section. I think it improves the sit a lot, but it is not a thing that many modelers really notice. As has been said however, the ICM Spitfires sit much too tall, to the tune of at least 1/16" by my reckoning. So at the end of the day, you will have to decide if the 1/32" (to my eyes, your mileage may vary) is enough to fuss with or not.

Happy modeling, Jim

Many thanks for the info Jim. I though there was something that needed doing with the Tamiya struts. I will use your suggestion on reducing the length of the oleos 1mm. I will also take a harder look at the ICM kit gear legs. I am glad I asked as I am still at the stage I can tweak things without a lot of undoing things. Now let the build being.

John