Greenghost Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Hi, I just bought both kits and despite been fairly new, the kits do not share the same design concept for the cockpit. As a matter of fact I think the MkIa came out first and the cockpit is very well detailed while the cockpit for the IXc is just a bad representation and common for ancient Airfix kits. Does anybody know the story behind, more important do you know if I can fit the Mk Ia cockpit in the IXc? Thanks S. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ham Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Greetings, The IXc is a bit of a disappointment to say the least but it did come out first. I can't remember what year it came out. A few years ago. Lots of people speak highly of the shape of the new tool IX. I don't like the shape of the horizontal stabilizers. I built one but won't build another. The new tool Ia came out last year. I have not tried to fit the Ia cockpit into a IX. It might work. Personally, I will wait for the new AZ IXc and I have already picked up the new Sword IXe and XVIe. Very nice kits. cheers! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chuck1945 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) You can make the cockpit fit, but ... the Spit I cockpit lacks the back armor. I just added rudder pedals and the foot troughs that went forward to the pedals from the seat along with a stick. Of course I also left the canopy closed so the absence of a complete cockpit is pretty much hidden. Here is the Spit IXc I completed earlier this year. Edited June 27, 2012 by Chuck1945 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Greenshirt Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 As Chuck says, the cockpit can fit. I used a spare seat and stick from a 3D-Kits upgrade set, plus put a piece of sheet plastic for the armor. Tamiya tape seat belts helped. But once the canopy is on it's all hard to see, just enough to know its there. Mk IXc kit came out in 2009, Mk I kit in 2010, and then again as Mk I/IIa in 2011. Given price, I like 'em. Tim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) There's a lot of nice detail molded on the insides of the fuselage parts of the Mk I/IA/II kits, I'm not sure how this could be applied to the Mk IX. On my Mk IX, I made stringers out of stretched sprue, put some bits and bobs of scrap plastic on that and called it "good enough for a closed canopy job". Cheers, Andre Edited June 30, 2012 by Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Greenghost Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 The interior of the IX is a disgrace. Certainly when you close the fuselage and put the canopy on will not be able to see much but I still would like to fit the Ia into de IXc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jay Chladek Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Yes, the Mk IXc pit is lacking, but I consider it a little thing. Indeed you can't see much with the canopy on and even less when you stick a pilot figure in it. I have a feeling Airfix made a conscious decision to not dive too deeply into doing a pit for it since they were doing it for a certain price point (and they used the money they saved to tweak out the PR XIX's details rather nicely. I would say for the person that wants to try to build a few Mk IX Spitfires with uber crazy details, one of the other IXs will probably get you there. But, if you want to build a fleet, then you can get four Airfix kits for the price of one Sword and play around with a plethora of marking schemes. One thing I really like about the Airfix Mk IX though is while some chopping is needed in the front and the rear, one can do a nice little wing and parts swap between it and the PR XIX to end up with a PR XI and a Spit XIVc. Some epoxy putty is needed to shape the lower cowl and there are some other little tweaks needed (plus some decals for your new Griffon Spit with guns and a PR Spit without). But in the end with some creativity, one can still end up with a nice set of birds to add to the Spit ranks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
agboak Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Tooling for a low price can't be the real reason, because the later superior Mk.I is cheaper than the inferior Mk.IX/XIX. The new Mk.22 is better than either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peebeep Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I suspect the Mk IX kit was cut short in its development purely in order to get kits into the marketplace and generating cash flow, along with a number of the other earlier releases after Hornby took over. The previous management had failed miserably in developing new products and something had to be done quickly to get the company back on track. Recent releases are clearly superior to the early efforts, so they must be learning from experience. peebeep Quote Link to post Share on other sites
agboak Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 One thing I really like about the Airfix Mk IX though is while some chopping is needed in the front and the rear, one can do a nice little wing and parts swap between it and the PR XIX to end up with a PR XI and a Spit XIVc. Some epoxy putty is needed to shape the lower cowl and there are some other little tweaks needed (plus some decals for your new Griffon Spit with guns and a PR Spit without). But in the end with some creativity, one can still end up with a nice set of birds to add to the Spit ranks. I don't think you need to do any chopping to the new Airfix Mk.IX "to the front and rear", the fuselage is an excellent match to the Monforton measurements. There was quite a detailed discussion about this elsewhere (Britmodeller, I strongly suspect!) because it is slightly longer than the previous "best 1/72" kits. You do need to reduce the wing chord, and correct the ailerons, but that is on both these kits. The Mk.XIX, on the other hand, is described as being too short in the nose. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Thompson Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I don't think you need to do any chopping to the new Airfix Mk.IX "to the front and rear", the fuselage is an excellent match to the Monforton measurements. I think he meant some trimming of the front and rear edges of the Mk.IX wing undersurface, where it joins to the fuselage centre section, in order to adapt it to the Mk.XIX fuselage, and not that the Mk.IX fuselage needed modifications. Haven't tried it myself, though. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
agboak Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't have the Mk.XIX, but understand the wing shape/size to be the same as on the Mk.IX. There have been a number of similar cross-conversions talked about on Britmodeller without mentioning any problems of fit. Hence I jumped to the conclusion it was some problem with the fuselage that was meant: sorry if that was wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Thompson Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't have the Mk.XIX, but understand the wing shape/size to be the same as on the Mk.IX. There have been a number of similar cross-conversions talked about on Britmodeller without mentioning any problems of fit. Hence I jumped to the conclusion it was some problem with the fuselage that was meant: sorry if that was wrong. You don't need to apologize - I jumped to the same conclusion and almost posted a reply similar to yours, but at the last moment it dawned on me (at least, I think it did - I could be wrong myself, you know!). John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.