Very Early Spitfire Mk1 Help

[RLWP]

Oh dear - here we go again

 

As a no-nothing on the shapes and problems with the various kits, would it be possible for people to demonstrate exactly what the shortcomings are with each? Preferably pictures backed up with supporting images of real aeroplanes or credible drawings to show the issues

 

I would find that very useful as it allows me to understand and make a choice. At the moment, it seems like every kit is branded 'wrong' and 'unacceptable' by someone leaving uninformed modellers (like me) very confused

 

Richard

[19squadron]

42 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Oh dear - here we go again

 

As a no-nothing on the shapes and problems with the various kits, would it be possible for people to demonstrate exactly what the shortcomings are with each? Preferably pictures backed up with supporting images of real aeroplanes or credible drawings to show the issues

 

I would find that very useful as it allows me to understand and make a choice. At the moment, it seems like every kit is branded 'wrong' and 'unacceptable' by someone leaving uninformed modellers (like me) very confused

 

Richard

Yes - I have all the mismeasurements in photos on photobucket, but cannot seem to make them upload anymore

 

- however if you measure a Tamiya MkIXc which has exactly the same fuselage behind the engine firewall, you will find the fuselage width 24.5mm wide. At the same point the Revell is 27,5mm wide. - the Revell is too fat, and it looks it. Ditto length of nose from front of screen to the front of the engine cowling.

 

[19squadron]

51 minutes ago, wunwinglow said:

Really??!! The Hobbyboss kit is a completely weird shape all over!  I gave mine away, and I don't do that very often....

hobby boiss isn't perfect, but it is enormously better than the Revell.

[RLWP]

Just now, 19squadron said:

Yes - I have all the mismeasurements in photos on photobucket, but cannot seem to make them upload anymore

 

- however if you measure a Tamiya MkIXc which has exactly the same fuselage behind the engine firewall, you will find the fuselage width 24.5mm wide. At the same point the Revell is 27,5mm wide. - the Revell is too fat, and it looks it. Ditto length of nose from front of screen to the front of the engine cowling.

 

 

Comparing one kit to another seems a bit misleading.

 

Presumably both have to arrive at the same compromise - fitting a 'scale' interior into a 'scale' exterior while having the fuselage thick enough to injection mould. Has Tamiya made the interior underscale allowing a scale exterior? Has Revell made the interior scale (and easier to see) which compromises the external dimensions?

 

Without referring to  credible drawings how can I know and make a choice?

 

Likewise, has the whole length of the Revell nose been stretched uniformly, or is all the 3mm in one panel?

 

I'm not trying to be awkward or augmentative, I would genuinely like to know

 

Have you got a link to your Photobucket folder?

 

Richard

[19squadron]

22 minutes ago, RLWP said:

 

Comparing one kit to another seems a bit misleading.

 

Presumably both have to arrive at the same compromise - fitting a 'scale' interior into a 'scale' exterior while having the fuselage thick enough to injection mould. Has Tamiya made the interior underscale allowing a scale exterior? Has Revell made the interior scale (and easier to see) which compromises the external dimensions?

 

Without referring to  credible drawings how can I know and make a choice?

 

Likewise, has the whole length of the Revell nose been stretched uniformly, or is all the 3mm in one panel?

 

I'm not trying to be awkward or augmentative, I would genuinely like to know

 

Have you got a link to your Photobucket folder?

 

Richard

The Tamiya kit is dimensionally accurate and compares well to original Supermarine drawings I have, the Revell kit is and looks all wrong.

 

the Revell kit is 3mm too long in the fuel tank armour and engine cowl combined, and its about 3mm too wide across the fuselage at the cockpit door.

[wunwinglow]

4 hours ago, 19squadron said:

hobby boiss isn't perfect, but it is enormously better than the Revell.

No way. The fuselage is utterly borked. Beyond redemption. Look at the fuselage cross section immediately behind the canopy rear, it is elliptical, when we all know the upper flanks of the fuselage are pretty much flat, as is the rear canopy.  Classic case of some CAD monkey using a plan and a side elevation and just sweeping a vague shape along it, with no knowledge, or care, of what the actual cross sections are.  Awful model. Yuck.

 

In my humble opinion!!

[MikeC]

1 hour ago, wunwinglow said:

No way. The fuselage is utterly borked. Beyond redemption. Look at the fuselage cross section immediately behind the canopy rear, it is elliptical, when we all know the upper flanks of the fuselage are pretty much flat, as is the rear canopy.  Classic case of some CAD monkey using a plan and a side elevation and just sweeping a vague shape along it, with no knowledge, or care, of what the actual cross sections are.  Awful model. Yuck.

 

In my humble opinion!!

To say nothing of the strange ribs on the tailplanes (the fixed bits, not the elevators).

[dennismcc]

 

Here is Edgar's thoughts on the Hobbyboss and Hasegawa Spitfires, maybe the Hasegawa hybrid I/II is the way to go.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/70605-132-spitfire-vb/&tab=comments#comment-773508

 

You pays yer money, and takes yer choice:-

Hasegawa all raised panel lines; Hobbyboss engraved.

Hasegawa cockpit (apart from too-wide seat) a pleasure to work with; Hobbyboss, unfortunately, somewhat fictional, plus a seat too short front-to-back.

Hasegawa fuselage slab-sided at fuel tanks; Hobbyboss slightly curved; both have a too-square cross-section at the firewall.

Hasegawa has no engine; Hobbyboss has an engine which doesn't resemble any Merlin I've seen.

Hasegawa wheel wells like frying pans; Hobbyboss straightsided; both kits have wrongly-shaped underside cannon blisters, with Hobbyboss worse of the two.

Hasegawa fuselage slightly narrow aft of cockpit; Hobbyboss fuselage matches Cox's drawings in length, height & width.

Hasegawa has no armament; Hobbyboss has full gun complement, and an under-fuselage bomb, which would be better dropped.

Hasegawa no radio; Hobbyboss radio + tray + poseable hatch.

Hasegawa fixed control surfaces & flaps; Hobbyboss has separate surfaces & flaps.

Hasegawa choice of internal, or external, armoured windscreen; Hobbyboss external only, and the (separate) armour appears to thin, and wrongly-shaped.

Hasegawa's propellor (choice of blades & spinners) looks more realistic than the Hobbyboss effort.

Hobbyboss has fictional "ribbing" on the tailplane upper surfaces, but they're nowhere near as prominent as on the 1/24 Trumpeter kit, so can be sanded smooth quite easily.

Hobbyboss has finely-done rivet detail, all engraved, when the V had raised rivet heads aft of the cockpit.

Difficult to choose between decal sheets; Hobbyboss's red appears over-bright, but their Sky is closer than most other companies' efforts.

Edgar

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

 

•  

• Quote
• Go

[RLWP]

23 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

How else would you decide which one to buy?

 

Kit A is 35mm wide. Kit B is 40mm wide - which is 'right'? Comparing the dimensions of one kit to another without knowing the size of the thing they are presenting seems misleading. Is 'A' thin or 'B' fat

 

Being an engineer I'd want to know what size the object the kit is meant to represent was. I'm just like that...

 

Look, this hobby is a complicated mix of engineering, history, storytelling, romance and art. None of it really makes any sense. If we get into something being dimensionally inaccurate (as opposed to wrong colour, era, markings) it would at least make sense to have some sort of agreed reference. And the real world object seems to be the best bet

 

 

 

Richard

Edited May 31, 2020 by LSP_Mike
Comment best left out. Talk about the kit.

[19squadron]

18 hours ago, wunwinglow said:

No way. The fuselage is utterly borked. Beyond redemption. Look at the fuselage cross section immediately behind the canopy rear, it is elliptical, when we all know the upper flanks of the fuselage are pretty much flat, as is the rear canopy.  Classic case of some CAD monkey using a plan and a side elevation and just sweeping a vague shape along it, with no knowledge, or care, of what the actual cross sections are.  Awful model. Yuck.

 

In my humble opinion!!

You are absolutely right, the Hobby Boss is wrong there, but The Revell kit looks pregnant and the nose is too long, and I'd say those are EVEN worse faults than the Hobby Boss failure.

 

All in all it says a lot that THE most important aircraft ever designed, THE most beautiful aircraft ever designed, engaged iin the single most important aircampaign ever fought, has not been well molded and made available in 1/32.

 

AND it makes the demise of WNW as the one company who singlemindedly researched and produced beautiful accurate models in 1/32 is in serious trouble or forever gone! Appalling on both counts!

 

[LSP_Mike]

Guys, let's talk Spitfire kits and their relative merits. I'm one that would also like to learn a bit, but without the historonics and cheapshots.

  Surely it is possible to address a subject without patronizing or mocking those with less knowledge? I'd like to think that any question can be fielded by those who have studied the subject.

[dennismcc]

I've probably built all the 1/32 scale Spitfire kits and each has their good points and bad points but with some careful fettling they all look like Spitfires (to me), the Spitfire being my favourite aircraft.

My first 1/32 scale Spitfire was the original Revell 19plonk version which was very nice, apart from wheels, wheel wells and the lack of a gull wing but it had great surface details and was a pleasure to build.

 

I then graduated to the Hasegawa Mk. V and VI, which I built a couple of times, nice solid kits with raised panel lines and sparse details. I also used the same kit to build a Paragon Mk. VIII, Mk. XII and a Warbirds XIV.

 

Next up was the Hasegawa Mk. I/II which was their Mk.V with new wings with nice engraved details, this same kit was then reboxed by Revell of which I have a couple in the stash as well as more Hasegawa Mk.V kits.

 

Next up was the Hobbyboss Mk. V, I built both versions and found them to be well engineered and a pleasure to build, HPH and Barracuda detail sets figured prominently in both builds.

 

Next up was the new (2014) Spitfire Mk.I/II which was a very nice kit to build but needed a lot of help from Barracuda resin details.

 

There are lots of build threads and reviews out there so just build what suits you.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[RLWP]

On 5/29/2020 at 8:46 AM, Aviacom said:

Hi,

l’ve always wanted to do a very early Spitfire Mk1 of 19 Sqn when they were at Duxford in 1938.

 

I have the 1/32nd Revell Spit Mk2a (New version) but can’t seem to find and aftermarket for it regarding the Watts 2 Blade Prop, Resin Cockpit, Correct Oil Cooler, Etc.

 

As it’s been an ambition of mine to do this for my lounge display cabinet, I’d like to throw all that I can at it to make it the ultimate Spitfire model.

 

Can anyone point me in the right direction please of what aftermarket items I would need for this project, and where to get them please, as I’ve spent hours searching but not come up with anything.

Thanks in advance

 

 

I'm wondering if any of what has been posted in your thread is helping you?

 

Richard

[LSP_Mike]

Good question.

Feedback?

[Aviacom]

Yes it’s very helpful indeed, thanks very much.

Each post teaches me a lot more about the subject that I’m going to take the plunge on and make very soon.

Thanks again