Hobby Boss Spitfire Vb

[Hacker]

l would still be interested in purchasing the kit at some point down the road dispite the error of the tailplanes l think it a rather nice kit

[LSP_Ray]

FYI: realize that Trumpeter is no doubt working off of some sort of CAD program. If they are like me in how I make my decals, they draw it up 1:1 scale in the program as this reduces conversion errors. This way you can use direct measurements from references or hopefully extisting aircraft. Then you arrange the parts on sprues and spit it out at the correct scale. They don't copy from one scale to another, they just rearrange pieces as necessary and spit out the parts at a different scale in the CAD program. The hope is, of course, that they edit the file for any corrections needed when they cut some new molds. Apparently they didn't with this one which I think is a bit odd. Apparently they didn't want to spend the manhours. Or they cut the molds years ago and are now just getting around to releasing it. Who knows.

[Haggis]

Things I've noticed straight away, and I'm not a Spitfire expert.

 

Fabric tail plane upper halves.

Upper wing bulge at 40 degrees not in line with fuselage.

Canopy too steep.

Rear fuselage 3 - 4mm too short and 1 - 2mm too deep. This makes it look dumpy and fat.

Propeller closer to Mk 1 Rotol unit.

 

There's probably a load more but like I say I'm not an expert.

 

I'll build it, fix the tailplanes and probably the wing bulge but that's probably it.

 

Hopefully Tamiya will use what they can from the IX/VIII/XVI kits and give us a Vb, it's my favourite version other than the Seafires.

[LSP_Kevin]

Or they cut the molds years ago and are now just getting around to releasing it.

 

You know, based on comments Tigger has made here in the past, I suspect this is right. It would also explain why obvious and known errors were not fixed.

 

Kev

[Tnarg]

James, I like your post because you gave us an idea of how to fix something that is wrong. So, with a prop correction (aftermarket or alt from another kit?) and filling the trenches on the tailplanes, we have a pretty good representation of a Vb?

 

Any other suggestions for kit fixes?

 

I guess I would really like an early Mk.I (since Battle of France and Britain planes not only look interesting, they were key to survival of most of our Civilization) but this one is pretty fine as well.

 

Thanks for some good pointers,

 

Tnarg

[Derek B]

http://www.britmodel...topic=65953&hl=

 

one of the members over at Britmodellers is starting the kit and posted some of the sprues that came in the kit

 

 

I was looking and like a lot of the members we notice the tail planes in this shot. Now not having the 1/24 kit myself but based on what l have seen of the kit online over at cybermobeler it does look like they either shrunk or borrowed from the large brother. Seems to me we have fabric covered horizontal tail planes

 

Hi Dave,

 

Yes, this is a known problem with the 1/24 Trumpeter and 1/32 Hobby Boss Spitfire kits. However (and Edgar may well be able to confirm this) the lower tailplane skins on the full size Spitfire tailplanes were different to the upper skins, as these were hand screwed into wooden battens. Therefore, there should be a difference between the two skins, unfortunately, not in the manner that Trumpeter/Hobby Boss wish to portray them (the difference would have been more akin to upper skin rivets Vs lower skin screw heads, which may, or may not, have been covered with doped fabric tape?).

 

Derek

Edited March 16, 2011 by Derek B

[nmayhew]

whilst i would obviously prefer things to be correct rather than not, stuff like goofy tail planes, props, spinners etc are easy to correct once our esteemed fellows in the aftermarket business get beavering away - they are all simple add-ons or inserts, and require pretty much zero modelling skill to use, and thus bring the kit up to scratch

 

however, i am concerned when i hear things like canopies are wrong - as has been identified in another thread at the moment, there is a dearth of companies who even make replacement canopies, and then you have issues of mating correct canopy with incorrect fuselage frame

 

not trashing the kit, rather saying some things will be much easier to fix than some make out, whilst others will actually present much larger problems

 

thanks for posting the pics

 

Nick

[LSP_Ray]

I thought Edgar showed a drawing that made it appear the canopy was quie close to an early V canopy, while the complaints were based on late canopy shapes? I really don't have a problem if it is a decent interpretation of an early V.

 

Still waiting on the reviews, though...

[Edgar Brooks]

This one, I think? When the armoured glass was fitted inside the screen, it had to be extended forward, to keep the glass clear of the gunsight; it had the added effect of making the side panels straighter, as well.

Edgar

[nmayhew]

thanks Edgar - great picture

 

i wonder if Roy Sutherland would care to comment perhaps?

 

interested in a view from the "other side of the fence" that's all - he seems to know lots of Spitfire stuff (just like you!)

 

EDIT: i have now found the relevant discussion on hyperscale where there are quite a few interesting pictures of both early and late canopies

 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1298973929/Boffins%2C+what+say+you-++HB+1-32nd+%26quot%3BSpitfire+Mk-V%26quot%3B+sprue+shots

 

Roy, can you drop in and add your thoughts on this please - would be appreciated??

 

cheers

 

Nick

 

PS having seen pics of the "early" canopy, i am much more inclined to buy this kit, knowing that other bits are probably an easier fix; good for me, bad for my wallet

Edited March 17, 2011 by nmayhew

[LSP_Ray]

Yes Edgar, that was the one!

 

Still awaiting a good review...

[DougN]

FWIW, the Jamie Haggo, the OP, has posted his impressions on Hyperscale:

 

 

 

Things I've noticed already, and they are major things not subtle mistakes. I'm not an expert but I'm sure there's some more.

 

Cons

 

1. Top of tail planes have fabric representation! Fix, sand flush and rivet.

 

2. Rear fuselage 3 - 4mm too short and 1mm too fat, upshot is it looks too fat! Fix, cut and shut. I'm not doing that!

 

3. Fin leading edge wrong curves. Fix, re-profile with sanding sticks.

 

4. Windscreen far too steep. Fix, replace!

 

5. Upper wing bulges canted at 30 degrees. Fix, sand off and replace with Milliput.

 

6. Props for Mk.1 Rotol. Replace with donor kit or scratch build.

 

Pros

 

1. Surface detail. Subtle rivets (not to everyone's taste but these are quite subtle, like Eduard's).

 

2. Cockpit OK, not Tamiya OOB but not bad.

 

3. Engine and gun details a good base for detailers. Even get the fuselage fuel tank.

 

4. Decals. Even though you get RF-D they look nice and the other option in DG,DE, Sky which is unusual (but correct).

 

That's not an exhaustive list but my initial impressions. I reckon it will build up well but may look a bit odd next to a Tamiya IX or older Hasegawa kit.

Edited March 17, 2011 by DougN

[Rob Colvin]

I am not sure you would have to rerivet the tail planes. Below are pics posted by a "Pascal" over at Brit Modeler. It would appear to me at least in scale.... sand um down....done. These are not my pics and all credit goes to whoever took them.

 

Edited March 18, 2011 by Rob Colvin

[Roy Sutherland]

OK, you asked! Here are my thoughts on this new kit.

 

I do not have the kit. Based on what I have seen in the very clear sprue shots, I feel very unmotivated to drop such a chunk of change for something that I am very sure will get thrown in a pile and never built. Here is what I can clearly see as problems with the kit. I do not have to hold it in my hands to know that the problems are not caused by the camera.

 

1) The instrument panel shows the fuselage section at this point to be both fat and slab sided. The panel itself looks suspect in the upper curve, rendering the forward cowling all wrong in section as well. The panel itself is grotesque. Tiny instruments with jet style square bezels. Yeesh.

2) The wing leading edge curve sure seems odd to my eye. The tyre bulges on the upper wing are fiction. Need reworking or replacement. The wing spar attachment blister is also wrong.

3) The underwing cannon breech blister is fiction. It should be kidney shaped. Hasegawa got this right in 48th. Tamiya did not.

4) The wingtip formation lights need replacement. Just wrong.

5) The elevators look very odd in shape. Not to mention the fabric covered hor. stabs.

6) Really poor depiction of the intake and exit ramps for the radiator. Flat? Really? See Tamiya's Mk IX for proper depiction.

7) Cockpit sidewalls bear only passing resemblance to real items. Rear bulkhead is also misshappen and wide looking. Seat is not correctly shaped or detailed.

8) The Merlin engine is a cartoon. Huge square and blocky with only the barest representation of the angled cylinder banks. The Merlin is a beautiful piece of aero engineering. HB's version is not.

9) DH blades (bad in shape and section) with what looks like a Rotol prop. OK...

10) Exhaust stacks look extremely weird.

11) Canopies look distinctly wide in these shots.

12) Sutton harness is a cartoon version. Oil cooler matrix looks to be 1:1 scale. Rear seat armor(?), if that is what it is looks nothing like the real deal.

13) Misproportioned C and C1 roundels with all roundels having bright red instead of dull roundel red centers.

14) Codes for W3458 should probably be MSG, not Sky, and the stroke width and style seem wrong.

 

From what I have heard from those who have seen this kit in the flesh, it is a scale down of the Trumpeter 24th Spit Vb (which I have scrutinized) with some improvements and some all new new screwups. The trumpeter 24th scale Spit Vb owes a lot to the Airfix 24th scale Spit I/V, which have a whole host of shape problems themselves.

 

I am no Trumpeter basher. Their 72nd Wyvern is superb. Their 48th Seahawk is very nice. Their Sea Furies are both deplorable.

 

For my money, this kit is too much work to make it a worthwhile purchase. It would be much less work to backdate a Tamiya Spit IX IMHO.

 

Let the discussions roll!

 

Happy modelling! Roy

[nmayhew]

hi Roy,

 

thanks for your detailed thoughts

 

a trifle off-topic, but....

 

regarding backdating a Tamiya IX into a V, i think the issue you may have is the cost of the base kit - although i would have to see what someone (you? ) actually came up with first, my initial thoughts are that i would be reluctant to start chopping and fiddling with something so expensive

 

perhaps others could chime in, but i would rather spend $50 aftermarket on a base kit which was much cheaper (and the HB Spit is about half the price)

 

cheers

 

Nick