1/48 Special Hobby Spitfire VC

[Griffin]

Hi,

I finally received my copies of this long expected model, the level of surface detail is really something, even screws on the removable panel in front of the cockpit have the notch in the middle... at this scale, really impressive

But, if you look closer an test fit the main componants, things are far less glamorous.

First discovery: the fuselage can't line-up well, because the right half is a little shorter ( not a joke, all 3 kits I have do have the same problem...) !

As you see, the front don't match well is the rear is aligned

The only practical solution found:

And the effect on the fuselage:

But that was not the end of the surprises...

Many panels and lines ( overlapping included ) are not at their right place or/and out of quare

and the wing panels....

In fact, almost nothing is really square, maybe traced by a drunk guy....

The molding quality itself cause some ovoidable flaws; trying to restore a good shape will be interesting ....

And the subtle shapes and geometry transitions around the wing roots are just not there...Tamiya and Hasegawa did it million times better in this viewpoint.

Also, the prop have the blades profil completely reversed

The only solution here is an Ultracast replacement or your spare box; the right propeler would be the one you could see in the mirror..... if you can catch it ....

The clear parts are usable, but far from being optically clean ( mostly due to rounded and uneven thickness on the inner side, where it should be flat), especially for the windscreen, if not just badly molded...( 3 kits = 3 time this exact same "quality" )

I'll probably use some the spare Tamiya parts.

The good news is almost everything can be fixed, with time an efforts, but a Tamiya's Mk I with some surgery and engraving on the wing, will give better results, for maybe not much more work (for the fuselage, SH is even shorter than the "Fatally flawed" Tamiya's one and missed the beautifull spitifire curvatures in cross section ).

Maybe somewhat "anal retentive" hard comments, but Special Hobby usually makes quite fine overall products, with the less known planes; why all that mess, is the mythic Spifire an impossible task for most manufacturers ...... :(

Edited October 17, 2008 by Griffin

[Darius at home]

Personally, looking at the first photo I cannot see what you are concerned about but its your kit and you can chop it up as much as you want.

;)

Darius

[Tigerfan112]

  Darius at home said:

Personally, looking at the first photo I cannot see what you are concerned about but its your kit and you can chop it up as much as you want.

;)

Darius

Yep...I have to agree....my eyes are not what they used to be but I cannot work out the problem in the photo. I think he must have some early shots. I have two of these kits and they look fine...I just checked 'em to make sure...

Seems a lot of work chopping the kit aroundbut it is a free world

[thom]

This is a very odd kit - it doesn't look like the moulds have been designed on a computer. I know SH aren't the largest manufacturer, but they might at least have employed a designer with a CAD program, then used someone with some CNC machinery for the moulds. Maybe they're not as mainstream as I thought.

[Jennings]

  thom said:

This is a very odd kit - it doesn't look like the moulds have been designed on a computer. I know SH aren't the largest manufacturer, but they might at least have employed a designer with a CAD program, then used someone with some CNC machinery for the moulds. Maybe they're not as mainstream as I thought.

AFAIK they're not that sophisticated. I was there last year for half a day, and saw no evidence of any CAD/CNC being used. Everything was done by hand the old fashioned way.

Eduard definitely *are* using CAD/CNC technology, but from what I saw, MPM/SH is not.

J

[Griffin]

  Darius at home said:

Personally, looking at the first photo I cannot see what you are concerned about but its your kit and you can chop it up as much as you want.

:D

Darius

Not obvious on pics, maybe, but if you line up and tape it securely at both ends, the fuselage will have a curve turning on the right ( i personaly can't stand to make a banana spitfire ).

My 3 copies may be not exactly what's in everyone's box; if your building seems flawless, some are maybe better than others ( mine are from the same batch but not coming from the first run, already sold out when my order was placed ).

For the "fanciful" engraved panels and the other odd things, that's what you'll have on all the kits......only a new mold could fix that.

About hand made versus CAD, this is not that much important in fact , both can give great or poor results.

For exemple, South Front kits are without doubt hand made and if the first one was a little crude, their last Yak 1 is a little gem in craftsmanship.

The subject offers many possibilities, all a series and conversions were planed.....but this is to much "Fonderie Miniature" style for my sanity and will surely stop after just one ( with probably more butchery ).

[Brad-M]

Well, I just checked my kit and the fuselage halves mate perfectly. I have an interesting swirl marr on the starboard side on top of the engine cowling, but that it. The wings are nicely molded and the panels are square.

Cheers

Brad

[Tigerfan112]

  Brad-M said:

Well, I just checked my kit and the fuselage halves mate perfectly. I have an interesting swirl marr on the starboard side on top of the engine cowling, but that it. The wings are nicely molded and the panels are square.

Cheers

Brad

Brad,

Yep.....looks like yours came from the same batch as mine.....No, its not Tamigawa but it is good and, personally, I cannot see where the problem lies. I dry fitted one of my kits again this morning, just to double check and it is looking good. Interestingly, I too have that 'swirl' effect on the cowling !

Cheers

Tigerfan112

[thom]

  Jennings said:

AFAIK they're not that sophisticated. I was there last year for half a day, and saw no evidence of any CAD/CNC being used. Everything was done by hand the old fashioned way.

Eduard definitely *are* using CAD/CNC technology, but from what I saw, MPM/SH is not.

J

That's interesting to know. I know you can get great results without CAD, it's just the photos here seem to show quite a lot of places where it would have been better to leave the computer to it - the ejection ports on the undersides of the wings, for example, look particularly roughly moulded. It's a bit surprising, because if it comes out of the same stable as MPM stuff I would have thought it would have been as nice as the Xtrakit stuff, which is typically well designed (including the Meteor which I've built).

It's not so poorly moulded that I'd be totally put off, but haven't CA just put out quite a nice a Vc?

[ron]

I think people should be mindful that these limited run kits by Special Hobby, Classic Airframes, Pacific Coast Models etc cannot be compared to Tamiya and Hasegawa. They are injected at low pressures and tend to have less defined details, less than perfect mating faces between parts and sometimes thick parts. The parts typically do not not fit perfectly if just cut off the sprues and glued together. They take some limited modeling skills to pull off a good fit but many forget this and expect a Tamiya fit or it's junk? They are kind of in between an injection molded Tamiya kit and a vacuformed kit

I am building the PCM 1/32 Spit mk IX right now. This kit has been slammed by many on line as poor fitting when in fact it's just the opposite if build like it was intended.

It is poor fitting if you just cut the parts off the sprues and slap them together like a Tamiya or Hase kit. But it fits perfectly with only one minor problem area that needs filler if you just take the time to flat sand the fuse and wing halves on a sheet of sand paper taped to a piece of glass, true up mating surfaces with an emery board and trim off any flash. The Classic Airframes 1/48 Barracuda and Defiant are the same way as is the Special Hobby 1/32 P-39. The fit is terrible if just slapped together, perfect fit if parts are properly prepped.

As for the photos of this fuse, it looks perfectly fine to me but they are just photos and if it takes a little cutting to get a good fit, then it takes a little cutting to get a good fit.

My two cents

Ron

Edited October 18, 2008 by ron

[thom]

I think I misunderstood Special Hobby's position in the industry then, Ron. I didn't think this was a limited run in the same way as a PCM. If it is, then the 'flaws' are certainly forgiveable. What sort of level would you put SH at?

ps: How's the PCM Spit coming on? I'm really keen on that kit.

[Big Kev]

I have to agree with others who have mentioned it: I really can't see anything wrong with the alignment of the fuselage halves, and can't see any difference in the before and after shots. Glad to read I wasn't the only one!

Kev

[Griffin]

With a line just in the middle, is it now more visible?

Ron, do you really think this is simply poor fitting, the kind some "skills and sanding blocs" will fix easilly?

In fact, yes, you can always force the parts to stay in line, but with other shapes problems for result.....the plastic of models can be bent but not stretched, no mystery there.

I would feel uncomfortable to sell a today's plastic model, that needs to cut in halves a major part for a good fit, erase and re-engrave almost alf the surface panelling etc.....but an opinion is not a rule.

The fact this is a super classic and not a very obscure, exotic subject have also a bad effect on this point of view, of course ( read: Spitfire "fanatic" inside :) ).

[mikenewton]

Dare I ask how it compares to the Airfic Vc? Should I ditch my Airfix ones and buy the SH one instead?

Mike

[jrallman]

Airfix Vc is a hybrid of the very old raised panel line Vb fuselage and a new engraved panel line c wing.

[Jennings]

  ron said:

I think people should be mindful that these limited run kits by Special Hobby, Classic Airframes, Pacific Coast Models etc cannot be compared to Tamiya and Hasegawa. They are injected at low pressures and tend to have less defined details, less than perfect mating faces between parts and sometimes thick parts.

Actually, in the case of MPM that's not true. They're using regular injection molding machines (and paying little Ukranian ladies $2 an hour to run them, btw). Not the biggest ones available, but they're not 'cottage industry' stuff either. They're regular (German made IIRC) injection molding machines just like those used by any other injection molder. What they don't use is steel tools. That's what makes them 'limited run' simply because the molds wear out much faster than steel tools do.

J

[jenshb]

It is possible to get some quite impressive results from Alumium tooling as well - even for low production volumes of say 10000 pieces. Is that what they use?

Jens