Bill Clark Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 (edited) Here are a few pic's of the build so far......... all should be self explanatory - but feel free to ask...and comment (Due to an unauthorised use of my photo's I've deleted these pic's for the mean-time - sorry!!!) Edited March 17, 2006 by Bill Clark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Clark Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 (edited) More pic's ............... (Due to an unauthorised use of my photo's I've deleted these pic's for the mean-time - sorry!!!) Edited March 17, 2006 by Bill Clark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Clark Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 (edited) ..and a few more... (Due to an unauthorised use of my photo's I've deleted these pic's for the mean-time - sorry!!!) Okay, my initial thoughts......It ain't Hasegawa (thankfully!!), The fuselage looks to be accurate - its certainly longer than the Hasegawa kit. Airfix offer TWO cowling tops - a flatter one for the early MkVII/XIII/IX and a bulged one fore the later IX and XVI. Two rudders - standard and pointed. TWO sets of wings! For some strange reason they have included the WHOLE upper and lower wing from the Vc Kit! The lower section is unusable on a Mk IX or XVI! The "spare" upper wing halves have wheel well bulges - something that Mk Ix's diod not have (although decals are icluded for the OFMC' Mk IX which may have these fitted). The wing trailling edges aren't as thick as some had predicted - though they are certainly bulkier - and they dont't fit very well! IMHO I think that the wings are too thick in section. Wet and Dry may sort that one out! Surface detail is good - certainly none the worse for being "spark eroded". Decals are excellent - well done Airfix!! Armament is excellent. Price is stated as being £10.99!!! I've applied my Milliput tonight, to bridge that gap on the upper cowling - more pic's will follow. BUT it looks to be a winner!!!! (Well I'm happy anyway!!!) (this is very much a quick build - I've spent 3-4 hours ONLY so far!!!) Edited March 17, 2006 by Bill Clark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Thanks for that Bill,I can't wait to get mine.I noticed the wing bulges at Telford and I couldn't believe that Airfix had given a dropped flaps option again.Yours looks good though ;) Stephen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
norwaytbird Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Is this the new spitfire MK IX that Hannants say hasn't arrived in the shops yet? Best regards Toby Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Is this the new spitfire MK IX that Hannants say hasn't arrived in the shops yet?Best regards Toby Yes,but Hannants have it in stock now. Stephen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Great to see photos of the kit. You certainly must have gotten one of the first ones available. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brentce Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Hi Bill, Thanks for the pic's! My first impression is that Airfix did a good job on overall shape. How is the surface detail compared to the Spitfire 22/24 kit? That one is a real beauty. Keep 'em coming! Brent Erickson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bennygmanuk Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 The "spare" upper wing halves have wheel well bulges - something that Mk Ix's diod not have (although decals are icluded for the OFMC' Mk IX which may have these fitted). Here's a shot of MH434 from Duxford last Autumn. Seems to have two distinct bulges on the upper wing? (but I'm no SPitfire expert). Steve. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Clark Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 Here's a shot of MH434 from Duxford last Autumn. Seems to have two distinct bulges on the upper wing? (but I'm no SPitfire expert).Steve. Nice pic Steve, a good mate of mine - who knows a thing or two about Spit's, wrote on another website this.......... ............."The bulges over the wheel wells are a definite post war addition. They changed the geometry of the gear slightly for use on tarmac rather than grass. It beats me why kit makers include these. No doubt because they use restorations as reference, and I suppose it is easier to remove them than to add them as seperate parts." Your pic above proves the point rather nicely......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Clark Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 Hi Bill,Thanks for the pic's! My first impression is that Airfix did a good job on overall shape. How is the surface detail compared to the Spitfire 22/24 kit? That one is a real beauty. Keep 'em coming! Brent Erickson Hi Brent, The surface detail is fine - though not as crisp as the 22/4. The Mk IX has "spark eroded" plastic, so the surface is slightly mottled - an "orange peel" effect. Nothing a coat of paint won't hide though!! Trevor Snowden R&D Manager at Airfix visited our model club last week and we asked him why Airfix can produce models as good in terms of quality as the 22/4 and the answer was simply down to money. Tooling for the Mk 22/4 (and Seafire) cost in excess of THREE times as much as for the Mk IX! We "modellers" only represent a fraction of purchasers of these kits. Most buyers will not care about how detailled or accurate the kit is - so in that respect I think we are lucky that people like Trevor strive to get as much out of the money that is available. IMHO this is a great value for money kit. (I've heard that the UK price is only £10.99!!! Thats £6 less than the Hasegawa kit) It can be built OOB with little difficulty, and those that want to add a bit more detail can and will do so. I'm rushing this Spitfire - and its looking good, I'll take my time on the next one though!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pingu1 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Apart from decals (which appear, on the one sample I've seen so far, to be in-register) and the shape of the spade grip, no competition for the ICM 1/48 Spit IXs, then? Cheers, Chris. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Sorry your photos got grabbed. I'm glad I had a chance to see them before that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jack Carter Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 The Mk IX has "spark eroded" plastic, so the surface is slightly mottled - an "orange peel" effect. Nothing a coat of paint won't hide though!! You're right Bill its nothing a coat of paint won't hide. I don't undersdtand these morons who complain about it. They do PAINT their models don't they? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 (edited) EDIT - I must add, I don't understand the issue here. If someone posted a link to the article, that occurs all the time. If they used your photo's stating they were theirs, I would understand being upset. We are all modelers who use the net to share information amongst us. Why deny the rest of us the information? I'd sure like to see it. Edited March 17, 2006 by Scooby Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jack Carter Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I think Bill's beef was that his pics were being used by people to slam the kit. They've not seen the kit yet but they feel expert enough to slam it. That's the difference between modellers (like Bill) and "experts" who's sole modelling skill is to trash kits. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Clark Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 (edited) EDIT - I must add, I don't understand the issue here. If someone posted a link to the article, that occurs all the time. If they used your photo's stating they were theirs, I would understand being upset. We are all modelers who use the net to share information amongst us. Why deny the rest of us the information? I'd sure like to see it. I had posted pic's on a website and had (I thought anyway) provided a balanced and honest critique. I pointed out what I thought was wrong, where I noted it, and suggested remedy's. I praised it where I thought it deserved it. I posted MY pictures in good faith - MY pictures supported MY comments of a kit I was actually building. What upset me was that someone chose to lift MY pictures without my permission, reproducing them on Hyperscale, which I wanted to avoid because I feared a slanging match would ensue! They then slagged the kit off and used my name as a reference. This they based on A) MY photographic skill's - or lack of them, B ) My modelling skill's - or lack of them and C) totally missed the point that I had only spent 3 hours on slapping the kit together!! Edited March 17, 2006 by Bill Clark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I had posted pic's on a website and had (I thought anyway) provided a balanced and honest critique. I pointed out what I thought was wrong, where I noted it, and suggested remedy's. I praised it where I thought it deserved it. I posted MY pictures in good faith - MY pictures supported MY comments of a kit I was actually building. What upset me was that someone chose to lift MY pictures without my permission, reproducing them on Hyperscale, which I wanted to avoid because I feared a slanging match would ensue! They then slagged the kit off and used my name as a reference. This they based on A) MY photographic skill's - or lack of them, B ) My modelling skill's - or lack of them and C) totally missed the point that I had only spent 3 hours on slapping the kit together!! That I can understand you being frustrated over. Sorry if I worded my first reply in a manner that was misunderstood. I'm only curious to see the kit and was dissapointed at the denial. Not your valid reasons for removing the images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
daleclarke Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Well done Bill, I am having the same problem with a web build I am doing on the TSR 2. The criticising of Kits and especially Airfix seems to be getting worse, I, like many others just model and try and lead people into finding ways of modelling the faults instead of whinging about them! You should of read the critique of the TSR2 on the Airfix site, KWIK-FIT Modellers I am afraid. Here is a link to the TSR2 build. I am not a serious modeller just for fun. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dale.c/RAFSCA...age2/page2.html be aware it gets busy so you might have to come back, I have upped the server but still getting loads of hits. Dale Clarke UK Air Arm Modelling Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jack Carter Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 (edited) Good work Dale, I think your approach and attitude shows the difference between people who make models and people who don't. Edited March 18, 2006 by Jack Carter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desmojen Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 You should of read the critique of the TSR2 on the Airfix site, KWIK-FIT Modellers I am afraid.Here is a link to the TSR2 build. I am not a serious modeller just for fun. Dale Clarke UK Air Arm Modelling Mmmm, just the sort of comment non 'serious' modellers make Have a word Dale ffs. Jen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
daleclarke Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Not really Jen, just a frustrated one at the constant whinging about Airfix kits, especially when the kit has not even been released. As you will know I have said the same on the Airifx Forum... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jonathan Mock Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Bill, how far have you got? I got around to putting the wing on today which, despite looking loose during the dry run, once I had taped it up to set the dihedral, the join along the roots was nice and tight and just needed a run of liquid cement to weld it together. I got the top and bottom cowls in no probs with no gaps. Might need a smidge of filler on the tail-plane undersides, and I cut off the locating tabs on the wing tips, but then I do that with any kit where that's a feature so I can refine the fit with sanding sticks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Clark Posted March 19, 2006 Author Share Posted March 19, 2006 Bill, how far have you got? I got around to putting the wing on today which, despite looking loose during the dry run, once I had taped it up to set the dihedral, the join along the roots was nice and tight and just needed a run of liquid cement to weld it together.I got the top and bottom cowls in no probs with no gaps. Might need a smidge of filler on the tail-plane undersides, and I cut off the locating tabs on the wing tips, but then I do that with any kit where that's a feature so I can refine the fit with sanding sticks. Hi Jonathan, As I said on the "other" website I managed to use the wrong wing tops initially!! I was totally confused as to what aircraft Marks had the wheel well bulges is the upper wing's and which aircraft marks didn't!! I'm still confused - despite trawling thru' my Morgan & Shacklady's tome and two Wings of Fame books! I must dig out the Modellers Datafile and Vasko Barbik's articles in them aged SAM's!!! Anyway as you may recall I decided to change and correct the upper wings, as stated in the instructions, and these fitted a lot better than the "non- wheel well bulged pair!". I had to use some filler - my fault, but she's more or less ready for painting - and she's now looking every part the Spitfire Mk IX (decided against doing her as the Mk XVI). I sanded down the upper wing sections and trailling edges - but now need to re-scribe in various places. I'll buy another one in the week and spend a bit more time building and maybe detailling it - But overall this is a lovely affordable kit, others may disagree(!) but each to their own! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Hi Jonathan,As I said on the "other" website I managed to use the wrong wing tops initially!! I was totally confused as to what aircraft Marks had the wheel well bulges is the upper wing's and which aircraft marks didn't!! I'm still confused - despite trawling thru' my Morgan & Shacklady's tome and two Wings of Fame books! I must dig out the Modellers Datafile and Vasko Barbik's articles in them aged SAM's!!! Anyway as you may recall I decided to change and correct the upper wings, as stated in the instructions, and these fitted a lot better than the "non- wheel well bulged pair!". I had to use some filler - my fault, but she's more or less ready for painting - and she's now looking every part the Spitfire Mk IX (decided against doing her as the Mk XVI). I sanded down the upper wing sections and trailling edges - but now need to re-scribe in various places. I'll buy another one in the week and spend a bit more time building and maybe detailling it - But overall this is a lovely affordable kit, others may disagree(!) but each to their own! Hey Bill, Does the kit come with the bubble top fuselage as well as the high back fuselage? I thought someone told me it came with both types? TIA Brad ps: Wish we could see your progress. 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.