Otto Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) Hi guys, I remember way back when, when the Tamiya Spits came out there were some issues which were pointed out. I do remember the wrong ellipse on the trailing edge issues. I don't remember if the issues were on the Mk.I or the Mk.V or both. I also don't remember if there were any issues on the fuselage length such as there were on the Hasegawa kit. Can anyone bring me up to speed what the issues were. I want to build an accurate Mk.I and the Airfix kit which has a nice fuse has a very primitive wing. I was thinking of maybe doing a kitbash with the Airfix fuse and a ? wing. That is the question, what kit has a good "A" wing that I can use. For some reason, I also remember the Special Hobby being a copy of the Tamiya kit with some alterations. This is why I think there may have been some fuselage issues which I do not remember. I know I am going to open up a can-o-worms by starting this topic, but so-b-it. I do also remember that the wing issue was an easy one to fix by cutting the ellipse back to the right shape and than thinning out the trailing edge on the mating surfaces because the aileron and flap hinge lines are actually placed properly. But the fuselage length issue or possibly the wing placement on the fuselage is now really bothering me. Edited August 30, 2014 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
seawinder Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Well, you may not want to hear my viewpoint because I think both the Tamiya I and V are accurate enough to be satisfactory with a bit of tweaking. I'm pretty sure both kits have the same fuselage parts, which means the I is a couple of mm short, and the wing meets the fuselage a couple of mm too far back. I've just never been too bothered about the latter issue since it's not particularly noticeable unless one views the model directly from the side. Tweakable issues that I'm aware of: 1 (as you mention), the wing trailing edge; 2, the too wide, too flat engine cowling top, which can be helped by some rounding off of the side edges; 3, the protruding MG barrels, which should simply be removed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 30, 2014 Author Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) I wonder if the "fixed" Tamiya wing could be mated to the new Airfix spitfire Mk.V fuselage. If anyone wants to trade a Tamiya "A" wing for a Airfix "B" wing or even a complete ICM Spit nine. that would be greate. Edited August 30, 2014 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 The leading edge of the wing is what's really wrong. Tamiya started the tangent point of the ellipse at the wing root, where the real one starts at the centerline. That makes the leading edge balloon out. The I and V are identical in that respect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 30, 2014 Author Share Posted August 30, 2014 The leading edge of the wing is what's really wrong. Tamiya started the tangent point of the ellipse at the wing root, where the real one starts at the centerline. That makes the leading edge balloon out. The I and V are identical in that respect. I am aware of both the leading edge and trailing edge mistakes. The leading edge can be also fixed. The question is if the cord of the wing is identical to the airfix wing so it could be used with the Airfix Mk.I fuselage or at least close enough for a reasonable alteration to one or the other. I wish Airfix would just come out with an entirely new Mk.I. Now that they have this beautiful Mk.V it is within their grasp. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 The leading edge can be fixed, but you have to reinforce it from behind, since the thickness of the plastic isn't enough to allow you to fix it without breaking through. It's a right royal PITA to do. It's highly doubtful that any kit part is going to be "identical" to any other kit part from a different manufacturer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 I just picked up one for $15 so I will give it a go. I will do my best to match it to an Airfix Mk.V fuse and see if I can get a nice Mk.I out of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Griffin Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 The Tamiya's wing is not that bad. Wing over Monforton plan view: Cuts in leading edge, removal of material where it's needed and all glued back + little sanding at trailing edge, near wing root... After this easy fix, shape is virtually spot on: Wing cord looks good. For fuselage, that's another story... ( a few cuts and sanding should work as well…but if the new Airfix kit is this good, it's maybe a waste of time, now ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 That looks fantastic. The Mk.I should be even simpler since it has no cannon to deal with. Thanks a lot for the help. The hardest part about mating it to the Airfix Mk.V fuse is that it has the same mistake as the Eduard wing to fuse junction where the fillet "V" is too far forward. As long as the angle of the back portion is the same then it wont be that hard. It will only require some plastic to fill the space. Here are some pictures of what I mean. Fore some reason only the Eduard kits and the Airfix new Mk.V have that mistake. All other kits are the same. The wing taped to the Airfix Mk.V fuse half is an ICM Mk.IX wing. Looking at yout Tamiya wing, it will be the same as the ICM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jonathan Mock Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 he hardest part about mating it to the Airfix Mk.V fuse is that it has the same mistake as the Eduard wing to fuse junction where the fillet "V" is too far forward. Demonstrate they are "mistakes". And by that I mean with data, rather than comparing kits. How do you know the other kits are actually correct? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andrewj Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Why bother with the Tamiya MkI at all it has so many defects it's not worth it. Take the new Aifix Vb remove the cannon bulges and rescribe the MG hatches for a MkI . replace the oil cooler with an early type, all the other bits are in the kit including the MKI canopies. Much less work than modifying the Tamiya fuselage and wing to the correct length and planform. Andrew Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DonSS3 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 So, what's the matter with Airfix's Mk.I? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 So, what's the matter with Airfix's Mk.I? A lot; The thrust line is way too high, Spinner is way too large almost 6 scale inches, the upper wing bulges are way too blended in they should be crisp, the trailing edges are way too thick, the vertical fin is way mis shaped etc etc. there is an entire web site dedicated to the mistakes which I found last night. Much more than I ever imagined. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andrewj Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 So, what's the matter with Airfix's Mk.I? Nothing much really , it's quite accurate in outline , perhaps the engine thrust-line is a little high ,but not really noticeable. It's just it lacks a little of the finesse of some other kits eg. some quite thick trailing edges, but then again nothing a bit of sanding can't cure. Andrew Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 Demonstrate they are "mistakes". And by that I mean with data, rather than comparing kits. How do you know the other kits are actually correct? Besides all the detail pictures I have from the Museum of Science and Industry down town Chicago. You can see it clearly in those. Unfortunately they are not digital for me to post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BGB Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Hello Griffin ! Nice job on that wing!! Cheers Boris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jonathan Mock Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Besides all the detail pictures I have from the Museum of Science and Industry down town Chicago. You can see it clearly in those. Unfortunately they are not digital for me to post. Yes, you posted a photograph - what are you trying to show? I think Andrew demonstrated that there is a variance in the wing root fairing, so are you sure those are mistake in the two recent kits, or perhaps a Spitfire quirk that you were previously unaware of? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Griffin Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) Thanks Boris. The hardest part about mating it to the Airfix Mk.V fuse is that it has the same mistake as the Eduard wing to fuse junction where the fillet "V" is too far forward. Demonstrate they are "mistakes". And by that I mean with data, rather than comparing kits. How do you know the other kits are actually correct? Good point; here again, Monforton book and scale plan will be the reference I'll use ( probably the best work to date on the subject ). Conclusion: all are wrong, new Airfix included… only Eduard looks fairly close. There is a ( sort of ) flat spot, just around the main wing spar area ( can be see quite well on Your picture, Otto ), just in between the "v" . But no big deal, this can be fixed by putty/engraving the right line etc… Edited August 31, 2014 by Griffin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andrewj Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Thanks Boris. Good point; here again, Monforton book and scale plan will be the reference I'll use ( probably the best work to date on the subject ). Conclusion: all are wrong, new Airfix included… only Eduard looks fairly close. There is a ( sort of ) flat spot, just around the main wing spar area ( can be see quite well on Your picture, Otto ), just in between the "v" . But no big deal, this can be fixed by putty/engraving the right line etc… Don't really see how you can claim the Eduard is "fairly close" and the new Airfix is "wrong" when they fit together almost exactly. By the way this is my Spitfire Vc conversion, both the Airfix wing root and the Eduard wing are unmodified at the point of contact. Andrew Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 Don't really see how you can claim the Eduard is "fairly close" and the new Airfix is "wrong" when they fit together almost exactly. By the way this is my Spitfire Vc conversion, both the Airfix wing root and the Eduard wing are unmodified at the point of contact. Andrew Very nice work. I know that mating the Tamiya wing will be a bit more work but hopefully still duable. There definitely seems to be variances between airframes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Falkirk1298 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 A lot; The thrust line is way too high, Spinner is way too large almost 6 scale inches, the upper wing bulges are way too blended in they should be crisp, the trailing edges are way too thick, the vertical fin is way mis shaped etc etc. there is an entire web site dedicated to the mistakes which I found last night. Much more than I ever imagined. John Adams says the thrust line of the Airfix Spitfire nose is about 0.75mm too high - I suspect most people aren't going to notice. The major difference between the Airfix and the Tamiya MkIs is that the Airfix shortcomings can be fixed but the Tamiya can't. What do you base the "6 scale inches" oversize of the spinner on? Is that length, diameter? John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 Put the Mk.V spinner next or on top of the Mk.I spinner. The difference is huge. OK it's not six inches but it is a lot. Way too much to ignore. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Griffin Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Don't really see how you can claim the Eduard is "fairly close" and the new Airfix is "wrong" when they fit together almost exactly. By the way this is my Spitfire Vc conversion, both the Airfix wing root and the Eduard wing are unmodified at the point of contact. Andrew Proof again a picture can be confusing, my bad... Good to know they can match fairly well. What a nice Vc conversion, show us more, please ! :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Falcon50EX Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Perhaps i'm a luddite, but i built the Tamiya Mk I Spitfire back when it came out in the 90s and i thought it was a fun, trouble free build and sure looked like a Mk I Spitfire to me. Good fit (except for the clean part behind the canopy, which shattered) and not fiddly. david Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andrewj Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Perhaps i'm a luddite, but i built the Tamiya Mk I Spitfire back when it came out in the 90s and i thought it was a fun, trouble free build and sure looked like a Mk I Spitfire to me. Good fit (except for the clean part behind the canopy, which shattered) and not fiddly. david Exactly the point , nice kit , goes together well , trouble free build , just not very accurate . You pays your money and you take your choice. Andrew 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.