Improving Hasegawa's 1/72 Spitfire MkIXc

[phat trev]

I have started on a 1/72 Spitfire Mk.IXc by Hasegawa (converting it back to an early style Mk.IXc, basically larger cannon blisters taken from the Airfix VC)

How accurate is this model though?

Edited January 9, 2011 by phat trev

[Test Graham]

The rear fuselage is too fine - shallow and narrow. Not really repairable.

You may also need the fuel cooler inlet in the port(?) leading edge near the wing root,and the earlier elevators without horn balances.

[Seahawk]

I have started on a 1/72 Spitfire Mk.IXc by Hasegawa (converting it back to an early style Mk.IXc, basically larger cannon blisters taken from the Airfix VC)

How accurate is this model though?

The prop is weedy: Pavla or the Heller Spitfire XVI can provide alternatives.

[Dave Fleming]

The nose is too short (If the size of the Airfix kit is to be believed as accurate, as the measured dimensions seem to suggest) .

[David H]

Hi Trev,

i built the MK VIII almost from the box, substituting a Hawkeye Models spinner and blade set.

Personally i found the kit a delight to build, unlike the trio of Fujimi XIVs i has just finished up.

As for accuracy' people think the rear fuselage is too slender, but it looks like a Spitfire to me. Roy Sutherland did a blog over at Barracudacals on building a HF VII. Might be a good source of inspiration.

At any rate, its worth building.

HTH,

david

[Seahawk]

As for accuracy' people think the rear fuselage is too slender, but it looks like a Spitfire to me. Roy Sutherland did a blog over at Barracudacals on building a HF VII. Might be a good source of inspiration.

At any rate, its worth building.

I agree. If Airfix had done their homework, the Hasegawa Spitfire, with its recognised failings, would have been rendered obsolete overnight. But they didn't and my stash of Hasegawa VIIs/VIIIs/IXs is staying where it is.

PS Is the Hawkeye prop still available? Didn't spot it on their website?

Edited December 20, 2010 by Seahawk

[Ed Russell]

I agree. If Airfix had done their homework, the Hasegawa Spitfire, with its recognised failings, would have been rendered obsolete overnight. But they didn't and my stash of Hasegawa VIIs/VIIIs/IXs is staying where it is.

PS Is the Hawkeye prop still available? Didn't spot it on their website?

The Red Roo 'front-end set' which comprises a propeller and exhausts is a very worthwhile addition to the Hasegawa kit, even if it's all you fix. I have built a couple and I just accepted the anorexic rear fuselage and slightly wrong nose profile as it is impractical to fix them properly. but I did fix the other problems pointed out

The CMR one is far more accurate but it's a bit more expensive. It does however come with a spare prop (usually), spare exhausts (sometimes) and lots of decal options - all useful for the Hase one It mostly looks like a Spitfire but looks too 'delicate' against a CMR or Airfix one.

[Test Graham]

If I was starting out afresh, with no backlog of kits, I would choose the Airfix kit as the most accurate Mk.IX. Although it has its faults, the most blatant ones are readily correctable, unlike those of the Hasegawa. However, I've only sold one of my Hasegawa since the arrival of the Airfix, and kept the other two. It does indeed make a nice model.

Chris Wrenn's caricatures look like Spitfires too, but I don't think that we would accept models based on them rather than the real thing.

[Chuck1945]

I pretty much ignored the fuss over the errors in Hasegawa's 1/48 Spitfire IX since I had built their 1/72 Spitfire VII back when it was a new kit and thought it looked quite nice.

After Airfix redid their Spitfire IX, and it appeared to be accepted as accurate, at least as far as fuselage dimensions, I compared it to the Hasegawa kit - ouch. If both kit's fuselage halves are aligned at the rudder post, Hasegawa is significantly shorter overall , approx 1/4". Compared to Airfix, the Hasegawa wing is located too far aft, the cowl is too short and the rear fuselage too short with major discrepancy being in the cowl length. Built up the short front isn't quite so obvious because the wing is located further back giving the impression of a longer cowl.

At least the Hasegawa kit has a better wing

[The wooksta V2.0]

The Airfix IX is supposedly too long, with the problem being in the oil tank.

[Test Graham]

I don't recall seeing this - where did you see it? Certainly not "oil tank" - do you mean the fuel tank in front of the cockpit? (Or is this the explanation for the slightly longer nose on the new Mk.1?)

From (fallible) memory I thought it matched the measurements in Paul Monforton's book very well - surely there is a massive thread on the subject somewhere?

[Work In Progress]

I don't recall seeing this - where did you see it? Certainly not "oil tank" - do you mean the fuel tank in front of the cockpit? (Or is this the explanation for the slightly longer nose on the new Mk.1?)

From (fallible) memory I thought it matched the measurements in Paul Monforton's book very well - surely there is a massive thread on the subject somewhere?

I think this perception may be based on comparison with the PR.XIX. I believe it is actually more likely that the XIX is short.

[Ham]

This morning before leaving for work I did some quick comparisons of the new tool Airfix Mk. IX, Hasegawa Mk. VIII, and CzechMaster Resin (CMR) Mk. IXe. The Hasegawa and CMR kits have pretty much the same overall length. Length from cockpit windscreen to spinner base looked the same to me as well. Or at least shorter than that of the Airfix Mk. IX.

I don't hold myself as a Spitfire expert and I don't have access to accurate drawings. I am sorry to say there are no real Spitfires for me to fondle and measure in my geographical location either.

I would like to know if the vaunted CMR kits are short in the fuselage length as the Hasegawa is purported to be. Inquiring minds want to know...

[Giorgio N]

I remember well the post on the Airfix IX length. In the end it seemed to match quite well the monforton measurements, being maybe half a mm too long.

The xix though seems quite short when compared to measurements. Interestingly I compared it with the old Aeroclub XIV conversion and there's quite a difference between the two, with the aeroclub fuselage matching he measurements much better.

Even more interestingly, the Ventura IX kit that was for a long time considered the most accurate, was found to be short when compared to measurements.

Rergarding the hasegawa kit, I'd just leave it as it is, apart from the propeller. Cutting the fuselage to find the extra length needed is going to be tricky.

[Chuck1945]

I just did some comparisons using the plans by Clint in Bracken's Spitfire, the Canadian Years. If Clint's drawings are good, Airfix got the cowl length correct.

According to the plans, the Spitfire IX had a length of just under 5' from the leading edge of the wing to front of the cowl (not including spinner). The scale in Clint's drawings is slightly smaller than 1/72 so I have to use the scale printed in the book, but I would put the length as somewhere between 58 and 59 Inches. Measuring the same length on the Hasegawa kit gives a length of approx 52-53" (not quite 4.5') and Airfix has a corresponding length of approx 59". Continuing, from rudder post to wing leading edge is just over 22' again, by 2-3". On Airfix, the measurement is (scale) 22' 3" and Hasegawa is barely 22'.

Once again with the qualifier on plan accuracy, this indicates Hasegawa is short in both the rear fuselage and short in the nose.

For jollies, I also compared the old Airfix Spit Ia and the new Spitfire Ia. Old has a rudder post to l/e of 22'3", and new one is closer to 22'4", the Airfix XIX is 22'3". All of these are quite close in the rudder post to wing leading edge measurement and also very close to what I could interpolate from Clint's drawings. So, if he apparently got the proportion correct in the rudder to leading edge, I have no reason to suspect he is off on the forward fuselage ... the alternative being both Clint and Airfix made the same errors in proportions. Take your pick

[phat trev]

A very interesting discussion, so thankyou everyone for your comments and views!

I am personally happy with the Hasegawa fuselage so I am please many have stated that is good to keep it so as I do not really see the point in cutting it up too much! I may well deepen the undercarrage wells thanks to suggestions here and will consider using 'early Mk.V style' elevators I can find some that match the neat detail work of the Hasegawa panel lines.

As for the propellor I have a Heller one somewhere I hope.

First pics up later this eve of the build.

Edited December 20, 2010 by phat trev

[phat trev]

The cannon bulges from the Airfix 1/72 Mk.VC were in the spares box, a little off shape but after a bit of sanding to remove them from the 'backing' they look good I feel.

Using a sharp/ flat blade I chiseled into the moulded 'late' bulge detail...this took two goes on one wing! I managed to scar the surface a little unfortunatly so considering how to remove the errors.

The new cannon panels have not been glued yet, I think the wings will be primed first to see if I havee managed to level the bulges enough over the top of the u/c bays.

I have got an Airwaves set for the cockpit but it looks to be poorly etched?? can this be rectified and are the parts still ok to use.

[Dave Fleming]

re the Airfix mk XIX (and just about every other Griffon Spit in 1/72) - the length from the windscreen to the top of Frame 5 (the panel just behind the engine) is wrong. This seems to come about because the top half of frame 5 is angled forward on the Griffons. All the kits match the cockpit to TOP of the frame to the same length as the Merlin variants, when in fact it's the lower half of the frame that should be in the same place - the top distance between the cockpit and the frame should be longer

[John Thompson]

re the Airfix mk XIX (and just about every other Griffon Spit in 1/72) - the length from the windscreen to the top of Frame 5 (the panel just behind the engine) is wrong. This seems to come about because the top half of frame 5 is angled forward on the Griffons. All the kits match the cockpit to TOP of the frame to the same length as the Merlin variants, when in fact it's the lower half of the frame that should be in the same place - the top distance between the cockpit and the frame should be longer

Soooo... It's as simple as splicing in a spacer to lengthen the distance between frame 5 and the cockpit on the Airfix (and Ventura) late-Griffon Spitfires? Or, for someone with a huge kit stash and no conscience, cutting a nose off slightly long from a donor kit and using this as a transplant?

John

[Dave Fleming]

Soooo... It's as simple as splicing in a spacer to lengthen the distance between frame 5 and the cockpit on the Airfix (and Ventura) late-Griffon Spitfires? Or, for someone with a huge kit stash and no conscience, cutting a nose off slightly long from a donor kit and using this as a transplant?

John

As far as I can see - what I need is proper dimensions!

[Giorgio N]

Good start on the bulge transplant ! Don't forget to remove the other bulge too (that between the cannon bulge and the fuslage), this is a post war modification.

To treat scars on the surface I find the typewriter correction fluid very useful. Unless the scar is too deep, in which case filler or superglue are better.

Re the griffon spits length: I'm not sure the airfix can be corrected by simply inserting a spacer. I'll have to check again and see what's best. Interestingly the infamous academy xiv got the length of the nose quite well. Pity they didn't get the width and depth...

[Test Graham]

As far as I can see - what I need is proper dimensions!

measure the angle, then calculate?

Don't you trust the Fujimi in this area? Ventura, Frog, Academy (yeah, ok) or any of a multitude of later Griffon kits which should have the same dimension here?

[Chuck1945]

...Don't you trust the Fujimi in this area? Ventura, Frog, Academy (yeah, ok) or any of a multitude of later Griffon kits which should have the same dimension here?

FWIW yesterday when I was measuring the various Airfix and Hasegawa Spitfires, I also did the Fujimi XIV and Airfix XIX. Aligned at the rudderpost, the Airfix kit is approx 2mm shorter than Fujimi, the Airfix wing l/e is approx 1mm further back and the front of the cockpit opening is approx 5mm further back than Fujimi's. Fujimi's length from rudder post to wing l/e is ~ 22'6" while Airfix's XIX is 22'3". While I am not sure where frame 5 is located, the Airfix cowl has a forward sloping (from bottom to top) panel line aft of the exhaust and Fujimi use that same panel line as a parts breakdown for their top cowl panels. Using the bottom of the line as a reference, Airfix measures a scale 7' to the front of the cowl, Fujimi 7'4" although the angles are different since at the top of the panel line, the distance to the front of the cowl is virtually the same on both kits.

I need a stiff drink! and the sun isnt even close to the yardarm yet in my corner of the world.

[John Thompson]

At the risk of derailing this thread (MkIX, remember!) or at least sending it down a siding, I did some quick nose length checks on several 1/72 MkXIV and MkXIX kits. My reference was an M.A.P. reprint of Peter Cooke's drawings from the October and November 1978 issues of Scale Models magazine, since I don't have access to the Monforton drawings. This is not a perfect comparison because of differences in the way the several kits are designed making a certain amount of squinting necessary (also the main components of one of the kits, the MPM MkXIX, were already assembled). I found that the Fujimi, Academy, and MPM kits do match the drawings quite well. The Airfix and Ventura kits are very slightly short - possibly 1 millimetre (but see below).

Part of the problem too is that I was trying to juggle more than one reference location (rudder post, rear edge of cockpit opening, leading edge of wing root). This showed, for example, that the nose length of the Academy kit matches the drawings well when referenced to the cockpit and wing root, but not the rudder post, as if the rear fuselage section is about 1mm short.

Regarding the Airfix version, the answer is a bit more complicated. When referenced to the wing root leading edge, the nose is visibly short. Checking further, the upper wing surface where it meets the root is slightly too wide by at least 1mm, possibly just a bit more. It appears that this extra width falls at the leading edge, causing the l/e to be shifted forward and thereby contributing to the "short nose" effect. I vaguely remember someone (Graham Boak, perhaps?) commenting on this extra width when the kit was first released in another thread which I haven't tried to track down.

The wing widths of the Fujimi and Ventura kits match the drawings exactly. Again, the usual caveats regarding accuracy of any particular set of drawings!

If anyone wants further specifics, please let me know before the samples go back into the warehouse!

John

Edit - Arrr - while I was messing around checking things for the past two hours, Chuck beat me to the (rum) punch. I can only say that the mainbrace definitely needs splicing in these latitudes too, me hearties...

Edited December 21, 2010 by John Thompson

[Giorgio N]

This showed, for example, that the nose length of the Academy kit matches the drawings well when referenced to the cockpit and wing root, but not the rudder post, as if the rear fuselage section is about 1mm short.

I came to this same conclusion when I built mine. When I added this 1 mm it made quite a difference in the final appearance

Back to the hasegawa IX, the big problem for every accuracy fanatic is that it's hard to understand where an extra plug can be added to put the length right. At least I couldn't find it... that's why my personal suggestion would be to leave it as is. In the academy kit I know where I'd insert the plug.. but I'll post this in another thread when I'll finally take a couple of pictures of mine...