New Airfix Spitfire Mk.1.

.

New Airfix Spitfire Mk.1.

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 7:44 pm

July 11th, 2007, 8:34 am #1

I have just found time to have a look at the new Mk.1 and though it's ancestry, in that it is a derivative of the the old Mk V, is plain to see, there have been many changes.

I am using a mix of fullsize dimensions and the works blueprints based (unpublished)drawings I obtained from Arthur Bentley and I trust them.

The fuselage is very good and from the firewall back it matches on all points, windscreen ,door, rear of rear view panel etc. The rudder is of correct chord and shape, with the only very minor niggles being the shape of the fin/fuselage fillet and that the rudder hinge line is 0.5mm too far aft. The wing fillets are good and of the correct width.

I have long maintained that the nose contours(ie thrust-line) on these Airfix Merlin family Spits are too high and although some reshaping has been done the Mk.1 nose plate is still too high by .75mm. Ok most folks won't notice it.

The wings. In 1:48 scale the Spitfire wing at it's thickest point should be 7mm and this new kit comes very close. Shapewise, the trailing edge is very good.
The leading edge at the centre gun positions is a touch too "full" and again at the very tip where the nav light is. The wing root angles on model Spits are all different and these follow the pattern but not the drawings.
I don't like the silly fabric sag, but a film of filler will sort this . The panel lines are fine. The trailing edges though much improved will still benefit from thinning down on the insides.

The shape of the D.H. prop blades is good but the Rotol not so good and the Watts two blader should look the part when assembled but watch out for the tips sweeping back.

So as far as the basic shape goes, Airfix have done well and remember that this was done under the constraints of the old company and so as such it is not a new Hornby kit.

Just my observations.

John
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: October 5th, 2005, 1:07 am

July 11th, 2007, 9:18 am #2

...I'm rather fond on "classic" brands such Airfix, Monogram, etc...and find them much more appealing than modern stuff like Tamigawa. I like the way old kits were developed, with its benefits and failures. I enjoyed a lot building the Airfix Hurricane Mk.I, and copared with the Hasegawa "Hurri", I found it very nice and straight to build. I can't understand those modelers who spend lots of time and money building the "ultimate" kit and don't mind about accuracy and historic backgrounds. But, as always, that's just my opinion.
By the way, I've finally been able to get an old Aeroclub's Gloster Gauntlet vacuform kit, and I'd like to ask you a question, John...
Could it be possibly to use a Roden's Gloster Gladiator cockpit to enhance the Gauntlet interior?
Thank you in advance and best regards from Spain...
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 21st, 2006, 6:55 pm

July 11th, 2007, 9:25 am #3

I have just found time to have a look at the new Mk.1 and though it's ancestry, in that it is a derivative of the the old Mk V, is plain to see, there have been many changes.

I am using a mix of fullsize dimensions and the works blueprints based (unpublished)drawings I obtained from Arthur Bentley and I trust them.

The fuselage is very good and from the firewall back it matches on all points, windscreen ,door, rear of rear view panel etc. The rudder is of correct chord and shape, with the only very minor niggles being the shape of the fin/fuselage fillet and that the rudder hinge line is 0.5mm too far aft. The wing fillets are good and of the correct width.

I have long maintained that the nose contours(ie thrust-line) on these Airfix Merlin family Spits are too high and although some reshaping has been done the Mk.1 nose plate is still too high by .75mm. Ok most folks won't notice it.

The wings. In 1:48 scale the Spitfire wing at it's thickest point should be 7mm and this new kit comes very close. Shapewise, the trailing edge is very good.
The leading edge at the centre gun positions is a touch too "full" and again at the very tip where the nav light is. The wing root angles on model Spits are all different and these follow the pattern but not the drawings.
I don't like the silly fabric sag, but a film of filler will sort this . The panel lines are fine. The trailing edges though much improved will still benefit from thinning down on the insides.

The shape of the D.H. prop blades is good but the Rotol not so good and the Watts two blader should look the part when assembled but watch out for the tips sweeping back.

So as far as the basic shape goes, Airfix have done well and remember that this was done under the constraints of the old company and so as such it is not a new Hornby kit.

Just my observations.

John
and confirms my initial impressions of more-than-adequate 'Spittyness', and, so long as you don't value ease of assembly over scale accuracy, better than the Tamiya kit by a long chalk. I've just ordered two at my LHS, and I can see myself getting several more.

Cheers,

Chris.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 7:44 pm

July 11th, 2007, 9:40 am #4

and anyone with a marginal amount of skill in their fingers shouldn't have any problems with the basic assembly and fortunately any of the corrections are of the "sand off" and not "build up" type.

Cheers

John








Last edited by John016 on July 11th, 2007, 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 7:44 pm

July 11th, 2007, 9:50 am #5

...I'm rather fond on "classic" brands such Airfix, Monogram, etc...and find them much more appealing than modern stuff like Tamigawa. I like the way old kits were developed, with its benefits and failures. I enjoyed a lot building the Airfix Hurricane Mk.I, and copared with the Hasegawa "Hurri", I found it very nice and straight to build. I can't understand those modelers who spend lots of time and money building the "ultimate" kit and don't mind about accuracy and historic backgrounds. But, as always, that's just my opinion.
By the way, I've finally been able to get an old Aeroclub's Gloster Gauntlet vacuform kit, and I'd like to ask you a question, John...
Could it be possibly to use a Roden's Gloster Gladiator cockpit to enhance the Gauntlet interior?
Thank you in advance and best regards from Spain...
Thanks for your comments. I am just injection moulding a completely new Gauntlet kit, (I have just done the first 100 sets of wings) and I will have some new interior parts available soon though the kit release is not scheduled until later this year.

There are similarities between the Gauntlet and Gladiator so you can use some of the Gladiator cockpit but there are so few photos around of the early RAF Gauntlet.

Cheers

John
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 26th, 2002, 4:32 am

July 11th, 2007, 9:51 am #6

I have just found time to have a look at the new Mk.1 and though it's ancestry, in that it is a derivative of the the old Mk V, is plain to see, there have been many changes.

I am using a mix of fullsize dimensions and the works blueprints based (unpublished)drawings I obtained from Arthur Bentley and I trust them.

The fuselage is very good and from the firewall back it matches on all points, windscreen ,door, rear of rear view panel etc. The rudder is of correct chord and shape, with the only very minor niggles being the shape of the fin/fuselage fillet and that the rudder hinge line is 0.5mm too far aft. The wing fillets are good and of the correct width.

I have long maintained that the nose contours(ie thrust-line) on these Airfix Merlin family Spits are too high and although some reshaping has been done the Mk.1 nose plate is still too high by .75mm. Ok most folks won't notice it.

The wings. In 1:48 scale the Spitfire wing at it's thickest point should be 7mm and this new kit comes very close. Shapewise, the trailing edge is very good.
The leading edge at the centre gun positions is a touch too "full" and again at the very tip where the nav light is. The wing root angles on model Spits are all different and these follow the pattern but not the drawings.
I don't like the silly fabric sag, but a film of filler will sort this . The panel lines are fine. The trailing edges though much improved will still benefit from thinning down on the insides.

The shape of the D.H. prop blades is good but the Rotol not so good and the Watts two blader should look the part when assembled but watch out for the tips sweeping back.

So as far as the basic shape goes, Airfix have done well and remember that this was done under the constraints of the old company and so as such it is not a new Hornby kit.

Just my observations.

John
can get itself back on track then that's a big plus.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 7:44 pm

July 11th, 2007, 10:07 am #7

and moulded to a higher standard than the Airfix one but it isn't correct in shape and again again I am trying to address what is good in the new Airfix one rather than on pure moulding finesse.

John
Last edited by John016 on July 11th, 2007, 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 26th, 2002, 4:32 am

July 11th, 2007, 10:19 am #8

Watts prop. Came out OK, but I'd like to give the Airfix a go also - principally to do another BoB a/c.
Last edited by MalcolmMcKay on July 11th, 2007, 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 24th, 2002, 4:17 pm

July 11th, 2007, 11:49 am #9

I have just found time to have a look at the new Mk.1 and though it's ancestry, in that it is a derivative of the the old Mk V, is plain to see, there have been many changes.

I am using a mix of fullsize dimensions and the works blueprints based (unpublished)drawings I obtained from Arthur Bentley and I trust them.

The fuselage is very good and from the firewall back it matches on all points, windscreen ,door, rear of rear view panel etc. The rudder is of correct chord and shape, with the only very minor niggles being the shape of the fin/fuselage fillet and that the rudder hinge line is 0.5mm too far aft. The wing fillets are good and of the correct width.

I have long maintained that the nose contours(ie thrust-line) on these Airfix Merlin family Spits are too high and although some reshaping has been done the Mk.1 nose plate is still too high by .75mm. Ok most folks won't notice it.

The wings. In 1:48 scale the Spitfire wing at it's thickest point should be 7mm and this new kit comes very close. Shapewise, the trailing edge is very good.
The leading edge at the centre gun positions is a touch too "full" and again at the very tip where the nav light is. The wing root angles on model Spits are all different and these follow the pattern but not the drawings.
I don't like the silly fabric sag, but a film of filler will sort this . The panel lines are fine. The trailing edges though much improved will still benefit from thinning down on the insides.

The shape of the D.H. prop blades is good but the Rotol not so good and the Watts two blader should look the part when assembled but watch out for the tips sweeping back.

So as far as the basic shape goes, Airfix have done well and remember that this was done under the constraints of the old company and so as such it is not a new Hornby kit.

Just my observations.

John
Nice to see that after market would merely embellish not make up for failures.

Hopefully Airfix will find its way back to the quality of the Mk. 22 and Mk. 47.




Note: the opinions expressed herein are my opinions alone, and do not represent the opinions of anyone else at any modeling forum or the world at large or any parts thereof. If there are other opinions similar to mine, it is a coincidence only and I do not seek to represent similar opinions by the use of such word as I, WE, US or OUR. If I do use terms such terms, please ignore such outlandish political incorrectness, and read I, ME or MY in their place.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 7:44 pm

July 11th, 2007, 12:47 pm #10

to reach the "47" standard but it is a move away from the IX.

There is an odd mix of sprues in my kit which includes the 16 lo-back canopy ? but the difference between some of the new and old parts, eg door fairings, is noticeable.

John
Last edited by John016 on July 11th, 2007, 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share