Airfix 1/48 Spitfires - chunky props

[Jennings]

Something about the props (both the DH and Rotol props on the Mk.I and Vb) kits just didn't look right to me. They're too beefy. I compared a Tamiya Vb Rotol prop side by side with the Airfix Vb Rotol prop. Here's the result. The comparison with the DH props is very similar. It's pretty close to twice as thick at the root.

[RCAFFAN]

A comparison to the measurements of an actual prop would be more useful as even Tamiya aren't perfect all the time so this doesn't tell us how off either are....To my eye it looks chunky too but I haven't done any research on the point but don't just assume Tamiya is right either...

Edited April 15, 2015 by RCAFFAN

[Jennings]

I don't assume either, but Tamiya's looks more like an airplane prop and less like something under a ship, and *much* more like what I see in photos of real Sptifires.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Jennings

[Griffin]

Those things have awfully complicated shapes to convert in 3D, far from an easy task….not so surprising to see how often prop blades are the least accurate parts of a model.

This good shot seems to tell reality is somewhere in between:

Looks pretty much like this one, taken from a Seafire XV ( close enough in shape ):

Better pics here

The first resin guy who will captures it accurately, have an occasion to make easy $ £ € ( and take my money )….

[Drifterdon]

I've been using the Ultracast props for my Spits and they look pretty darn close to what I see in photos. I'm replacing all my props and exhausts with their products. No, I don't work for them but they have some of the best Spitfire upgrades I've seen. Here's a link to their Rotol wood prop and long spinner. Looks better in person than in the photo. http://www.ultracast.ca/products/48/115/default.htm

[Edgar]

There must be an entrepreneur who can see the chance for the reintroduction of a remedial product; wasn't it called sandpaper, or something like that?

[Don]

There must be an entrepreneur who can see the chance for the reintroduction of a remedial product; wasn't it called sandpaper, or something like that?

:lol: ...gave me a chuckle.

[Jennings]

A lot easier said than done. You have to make three blades that match.

[Griffin]

There must be an entrepreneur who can see the chance for the reintroduction of a remedial product; wasn't it called sandpaper, or something like that?

With cans of premium quality elbow grease, they always go together. :D

A lot easier said than done. You have to make three blades that match.

Good point.

I've quickly experienced home molding because of that: unable do make 3 identical….much easier to concentrate on making a nice one and resin cast it ( especially effective when you need a dozen of them, without going insane…)

Edited April 15, 2015 by Griffin

[Edgar]

A lot easier said than done. You have to make three blades that match.

Sandpaper + digital calipers + eyeballs always worked for me.

[K5054NZ]

To be honest the Mk.V blades have always struck me as being rather chunky on the real thing:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermarine-349-Spitfire/2582443/L/&sid=6a69b841fd444bb0137bbeddbf56f9ef

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermarine-349-Spitfire/1580484/L/&sid=13e8b9520a4e0cf0200f5bfb45063ecf

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermarine-349-Spitfire/1278814/L/&sid=3e0bfc1c14807e7cd416e0b3d470f3b9

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermarine-349-Spitfire/2453899/L/&sid=08d7b15bde6fee74bb83704c16e5bd50

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermarine-349-Spitfire/2114866/L/&sid=08d7b15bde6fee74bb83704c16e5bd50

[RCAFFAN]

Still no actual measurements but Zacs photos make the Airfix look more accurate than the Tamiya to my mind....

[Brad-M]

There must be an entrepreneur who can see the chance for the reintroduction of a remedial product; wasn't it called sandpaper, or something like that?

Hi Edgar,

I suppose there is, but I like this option:

www.ultracast.ca

Cheers

Brad:)

[Joel_W]

Actually, the Tamiya prop looks a little too skinny compared to the Griffin's posted WWII picture.

I'm currently building the Eduard Mk IXc that has a Rotol prop, and it looks like its right in between the Tamiya and Airfix props.

Joel

[Jennings]

Still no actual measurements but Zacs photos make the Airfix look more accurate than the Tamiya to my mind....

Sorry, but Airfix's looks like it came from under a ship. I've seen and flown a lot of airplanes in my time, and I've never seen anything that chunky attached to the front end of any of them.

[delide]

Measurement could be difficult, but in this article there is a photo with better/similar angle to compare with(second photo in the second row)

http://www.warbirddepot.com/aircraft_fighters_spitfire-lewis.asp

To me the Tamiya one looks too skinny at the root only, the Airfix one too chunky over the half way up, overall Tamiya looks better to me.

Edited April 24, 2015 by delide

[PMG Offramp]

delude, your pics are the best for comparison, my preference goes to the Airfix part with (perhaps) a very slight 5 mins sanding stick session at mid length.

At 1st sight, I would have thought the Tamiya to be spot on but it appears the truth is between both parts.

Edited April 24, 2015 by PMG Offramp

[Edgar]

I suppose there is, but I like this option:

The problem, I suppose, is that I'm just showing my age; in the 60s/70s, if something looked oversized, thick, or "chunky," we simply pulled out the sanding board, or sheet of sandpaper, and put it right, without saying anything.

Try the 1/32 Matchbox/Revell Spitfire 24, whose propeller blades are so thick, and lacking any aerofoil section, they could apparently turn either way. It's the same with "over-thick" wing trailing edges; sand, or scrape, them down (it's been normal behaviour on vacforms for years.)

Model kits used to be viewed as a canvas, on which a modeller could, if he wished, show his abilities to modify, improve, call it what you will; now a fuselage 1mm "too fat" makes a kit unbuildable, and, from my perspective, that's a little sad.

[Drifterdon]

The problem, I suppose, is that I'm just showing my age; in the 60s/70s, if something looked oversized, thick, or "chunky," we simply pulled out the sanding board, or sheet of sandpaper, and put it right, without saying anything.

Try the 1/32 Matchbox/Revell Spitfire 24, whose propeller blades are so thick, and lacking any aerofoil section, they could apparently turn either way. It's the same with "over-thick" wing trailing edges; sand, or scrape, them down (it's been normal behaviour on vacforms for years.)

Model kits used to be viewed as a canvas, on which a modeller could, if he wished, show his abilities to modify, improve, call it what you will; now a fuselage 1mm "too fat" makes a kit unbuildable, and, from my perspective, that's a little sad.

Well said Edgar. :salute:/>

[MacStingy]

Oh great!

I just finished a Tamiya Mk-1 Spit and now I won't be able to sleep, worrying if my prop is right.

This is so relaxing.

Edited April 24, 2015 by MacStingy

[KOG7777]

Well said Edgar. :salute:/>/>

Fully agreed.

[Joel_W]

Edgar,

Being the resident expert on all things Spitfire, whose prop is closer to the correct proportions? Or are both wrong?

Joel

[Edgar]

Unfortunately, all of Rotol's records were lost in a flood about 40 years ago, so I have nothing official against which to measure; it's likely, therefore, that companies measure the real thing, and (try to) get the mould-makers to match their findings. Like everybody else, I just have to rely on eyesight.

P.S. At the time Tamiya were producing their Mosquito and Beaufighter, we were told they were using cameras which also took measurements; I would be very surprised if they were not still using the latest technology for their moulds, and we also know that Hornby are now using lasers to take 3D measurements of their subjects, which seems to suggest that any differences might/should be in the mould-making process.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Edgar

[Brad-M]

The problem, I suppose, is that I'm just showing my age; in the 60s/70s, if something looked oversized, thick, or "chunky," we simply pulled out the sanding board, or sheet of sandpaper, and put it right, without saying anything.

Try the 1/32 Matchbox/Revell Spitfire 24, whose propeller blades are so thick, and lacking any aerofoil section, they could apparently turn either way. It's the same with "over-thick" wing trailing edges; sand, or scrape, them down (it's been normal behaviour on vacforms for years.)

Model kits used to be viewed as a canvas, on which a modeller could, if he wished, show his abilities to modify, improve, call it what you will; now a fuselage 1mm "too fat" makes a kit unbuildable, and, from my perspective, that's a little sad.

Hi Edgar,

I agree, and everyone's canvas may look a little different, and I think that's a good thing.

Cheers

Brad :)/>

Edited April 26, 2015 by Brad-M

[delide]

It would be sad if everyone just do they own fixing and say nothing, no matter how trivial the problem may seems. I wish there were more threads like this, I'd love to know every short coming of a kit, even if I won't fix anything it's still good to know, kinda like knowing the short comings of people I care about...

Here is another link with many photos of different marks/blades, there are a few with good angels of the blade, hope it helps to draw your own conclusion.

http://plane-crazy.k-hosting.co.uk/Aircraft/WW2-Planes/Spitfire/spitfire.htm