Wasted a lot of money on Special hobby Spitfires.

[Otto]

Just got my two Special Hobby Spitfires from Hannants today. What a waste of money. The fuselage is farther off in length and wing positioning than the Hasegawa one. The aft fuselage is almost a complete 1/4" too short. On the Mk.V spit they copied the Hasegawa exactly but pushed the wing another 3.5mm farther back. I am ticked about this one. The wing is a poor copy of the ICM wing but changed for the Mk.Vc I don't think that I will be able to use anything from the fuse it is so far off. The Seafire Mk.XV is just as bad.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Otto

[seawinder]

Just got my two Special Hobby Spitfires from Hannants today. What a waste of money. The fuselage is farther off in length and wing positioning than the Hasegawa one. The aft fuselage is almost a complete 1/4" too short. On the Mk.V spit they copied the Hasegawa exactly but pushed the wing another 3.5mm farther back. I am ticked about this one. The wing is a poor copy of the ICM wing but changed for the Mk.Vc I don't think that I will be able to use anything from the fuse it is so far off. The Seafire Mk.XV is just as bad.

Hmm. Trying to reconcile your remarks to the following quote from Rowan Baylis in his Aeroscale review:

"... Special Hobby's fuselage matches Tamiya's Mk. V very closely, being 1mm or so shorter behind the cockpit than ICM's and Aeroclub's aftermarket correction set. The rear fuselage matches Airfix's old Mk. V and more recent Mk. IX, but the nose is a mm or so shorter than the former ..."

[Otto]

I check all of them from the wing root. At this time the two that are dimensionally the best is ICM and Airfix 22/24. Even the Airfix XII is good if it wasn't too fat in the belly. If you put the Hasegawa and Special hobby fuses together they fit perfectly. Even the panel lines line up. The problem is that the wing is almost an entire quarter inch farther back. This makes the tail on this kit even shorter than the Hasegawa kit, which is the biggest problem with the Hasegawa to begin with, that the tail is already 2mm too short. If you place the Hasegawa and ICM fuse halves together the wings and the cockpit lines up almost perfectly but the Hasegawa has both the tail and the nose too short.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Otto

[Jennings]

The basic problem appears to be that none of them ever went out and measured an actual Spitfire. Tamiya did when they produced their 1/32 kit, which is why it's just about the only Spit kit with a truly accurate looking fuselage.

[Edgar]

The basic problem appears to be that none of them ever went out and measured an actual Spitfire.

Well, we know that Hornby did (and still do,) since we know the man who did the work before his recent retirement; his yardstick is famous throughout the U.K. modelling fraternity. I'm always intrigued at how often we're told that XXXX's kit is out, by this, or that, measurement, but we're never told the drawings, criteria, or printed dimensions against which they've been checked.

Edgar

[JasonW]

Otto, I will gladly take these horribly misshapen and inaccurate kits off of your hands for you so you do not have to fret over them any longer and can go on with your life. Heck, I'll even pay the shipping cost for you to send them to me.

[agboak]

Well, we know that Hornby did (and still do,) since we know the man who did the work before his recent retirement; his yardstick is famous throughout the U.K. modelling fraternity. I'm always intrigued at how often we're told that XXXX's kit is out, by this, or that, measurement, but we're never told the drawings, criteria, or printed dimensions against which they've been checked.

Edgar

"we know the man" - actually I don't know who you are talking about, though I may be willing enough to agree with the description if I did. However, given that recent Airfix Spitfire kits differ in detail such as wing chord and aileron design, clearly they can't ALL be right. Either this paragon was not used for all recent (taking that as Hornby ownership) Airfix kits, or he didn't compare one set of his own measurements against the other, or someone else in the following process of model-making has distorted some or all of his data.

[Otto]

With todays computer and laser scanning technology there is no excuse. When I was doing my 1/6 corsair I 3D scanned a cowling on the real one in Kentucky. It cost me a bit over a grand to rent the scanner for two days. I than just converted the point cloud to CAD and than to CAM and I cut my cowling in the CNC.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Otto

[Neo]

YOU HAVE A 1/6 Corsair ??? it is it a RC ??

PICS PICS

[dragonlance]

"we know the man" - actually I don't know who you are talking about, though I may be willing enough to agree with the description if I did. However, given that recent Airfix Spitfire kits differ in detail such as wing chord and aileron design, clearly they can't ALL be right. Either this paragon was not used for all recent (taking that as Hornby ownership) Airfix kits, or he didn't compare one set of his own measurements against the other, or someone else in the following process of model-making has distorted some or all of his data.

Finally a voice of reason. I would also like to know why the Airfix Spitfire family fuselages don't match to each other, if all is well in Airfix-land?

Another albeit really minor error that bothers me with Airfix but nobody mentions it - the longitudinal fuselage panel line has a kink under the R/T hatch. Even the old Airfix Mk.Vb has a straight unbroken line there.

@Otto

I have almost all Special Hobby Spitfires/Seafires. The Mk.V fuselage is odd because the fuel tank bay has an angled top in profile view, but can be saved by sanding. Also, the kink on the vertical stabilizer bottom is too pronounced making the whole fuselage look skewed. Still, I like the fuselage a lot more than the Tamiya one.

Even ICM IX, being the best, is far from perfect - looks like it's 1mm too long in the nose, engine cowl top is 1,2 mm too narrow (Hasegawa and Tamiya are too broad by the same ammount) and the vertical stabilizer leading edge is suspect, but it's the easiest fixable of the lot.

Before someone jumps in with "aaargh, who cares, not another 1mm kit error thread", this is the way I like my hobby so... :P

Vedran

[Edgar]

"we know the man" - actually I don't know who you are talking about, though I may be willing enough to agree with the description if I did. However, given that recent Airfix Spitfire kits differ in detail such as wing chord and aileron design, clearly they can't ALL be right. Either this paragon was not used for all recent (taking that as Hornby ownership) Airfix kits, or he didn't compare one set of his own measurements against the other, or someone else in the following process of model-making has distorted some or all of his data.

Since he has retired (though he did work for Airfix, for many years, and Hornby, until recently, and is responsible for the 1/48 Spitfire, Seafire and Lightning kits from not-so-recent memory,) it would be pointless to name him, however I supplied him with a set of Monforton drawings (delivered from source,) and he found that they differed from a preserved airframe, which he went to measure.

Sarcastic use of a word like "paragon" says more about you than him, I fear; I know (because I've asked him) of his disappointment with the Airfix-produced IX/XVI, and I also know that he travelled hundreds of miles, in his efforts to get the XII & 17 correct, simply because the Spitfire and its various Marks have always been his favourites.

As an example of how easy it is to get things wrong, during the gestation period of the IX, he showed me some test shots, in which the mould makers had not allowed sufficient leeway for the shrinkage of the plastic after it leaves the mould, and the resultant dihedral was around 20 degrees, instead of six.

[Edgar]

Finally a voice of reason. I would also like to know why the Airfix Spitfire family fuselages don't match to each other, if all is well in Airfix-land?

Changes of ownership, changes of staff, changes of mould manufacturers.

Another albeit really minor error that bothers me with Airfix but nobody mentions it - the longitudinal fuselage panel line has a kink under the R/T hatch.

Which is perfectly correct, since the load-bearing longerons overlap just there, and the panel lines "changed direction" as it were.

Even the old Airfix Mk.Vb has a straight unbroken line there.

Which is wrong.

Edgar

[dragonlance]

pushed the wing another 3.5mm farther back.

The Seafire Mk.XV is just as bad.

I cropped you original post in the quote, sorry. Your comments made me put the Seafire XV on enlarged A.R. Clint's Mk.XIV plans from Bracken's Spitfire: the Canadians.

I was mostly interested in relation of the wing to the cockpit opening. The wingroot is in the right place. The fuselage length from cockpit to tail fits the drawing. The wings also match those drawings, perhaps a little too fat on the trailing edge.

I don't have the Monforton plans. Or the unfinished ones from Al Bentley, are those for sale? I have the Aero Detail, FAOTW, AJ Press, SAM Datafile, Ventura Publications, Zlinek, Cooke's early Griffon and a set of Yugoslav Mk.V/IX plans, but I don't trust any of them. I even have an old battered photocopy of Ian Huntley's drawing with fuselage and wing ordinates for the prototype, something coul be made from those...

We really need a definitive set of reliable Spitfire drawings.

Vedran.

Edited August 14, 2012 by dragonlance

[andrewj]

Just got my two Special Hobby Spitfires from Hannants today. What a waste of money. The fuselage is farther off in length and wing positioning than the Hasegawa one. The aft fuselage is almost a complete 1/4" too short. On the Mk.V spit they copied the Hasegawa exactly but pushed the wing another 3.5mm farther back. I am ticked about this one. The wing is a poor copy of the ICM wing but changed for the Mk.Vc I don't think that I will be able to use anything from the fuse it is so far off. The Seafire Mk.XV is just as bad.

The Special hobby Seafire XV has several faults that appear to have been passed over by the reviewers, the wing is 3mm too far back on the fuselage, the fuselage is the correct depth at the rear edge of the canopy but tapers down too much on the topline ,to be too shallow at the tail joint by nearly 1.5mm giving an odd waisted look. the nose has insufficent down thrust, compare this too the Airfix MkXII which has the correct " Roman-nosed " look. In fact apart from the 1mm too deep rear fuselage the Airfix MkXII is a much more accurate early Griffon Spit than the Special Hobby kit.

Try to obtain a copy of the G A G Cox / M J Lee Spitfire Mk I plans that were published in the April '71 issue of Scale Models, these are widely acknowledged to be one of the more accurate Spitfire Plans, most of the major dimensions remained the same for all Spitfire variants , with the exception of Merlin /Griffon noses and tails.

Compared to these plans the most accurate 1/48 scale kit availible is the elderly Airfix Vb.

Andrew

[Otto]

The Special hobby Seafire XV has several faults that appear to have been passed over by the reviewers, the wing is 3mm too far back on the fuselage, the fuselage is the correct depth at the rear edge of the canopy but tapers down too much on the topline ,to be too shallow at the tail joint by nearly 1.5mm giving an odd waisted look. the nose has insufficent down thrust, compare this too the Airfix MkXII which has the correct " Roman-nosed " look. In fact apart from the 1mm too deep rear fuselage the Airfix MkXII is a much more accurate early Griffon Spit than the Special Hobby kit.

Try to obtain a copy of the G A G Cox / M J Lee Spitfire Mk I plans that were published in the April '71 issue of Scale Models, these are widely acknowledged to be one of the more accurate Spitfire Plans, most of the major dimensions remained the same for all Spitfire variants , with the exception of Merlin /Griffon noses and tails.

Compared to these plans the most accurate 1/48 scale kit availible is the elderly Airfix Vb.

Andrew

That is exactly what I found. The Mk.V fuse has the identical problems and the nose is also too short.

[dragonlance]

Try to obtain a copy of the G A G Cox / M J Lee Spitfire Mk I plans that were published in the April '71 issue of Scale Models, these are widely acknowledged to be one of the more accurate Spitfire Plans, most of the major dimensions remained the same for all Spitfire variants , with the exception of Merlin /Griffon noses and tails.

Compared to these plans the most accurate 1/48 scale kit availible is the elderly Airfix Vb.

Andrew

Edit: these are the drawings mentioned here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59271&st=40

It appears they were "squished" during the printing process and need to be stretched.

Vedran

Edited August 14, 2012 by dragonlance

[Otto]

I think that these might be quite valid.

http://www.albentley...om/spitfire.htm

Edited August 14, 2012 by Otto

[Otto]

This is about the best picture from the best angle there is of this airplane. Because of the angle, it is visible that the back frame of the sliding hood is exactly over the trailing edge of the wing root. This is represented in most every kit on the market with the EXCEPTION of the Special Hobby kits. The trailing edge is half way under the back part of the canopy tunnel.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Otto

[dragonlance]

Now I see it. The Clint plans have the wing trailing edge about 1,5-2mm back from the rear of the cockpit opening. SH added couple of mm's.

Oh well, back to the plan of modifying a bunch of cheap ICM's for the whole familiy, with the help of Aeroclub and Ventura conversions.

Luckily I have buyers for SH's already lined up....

Vedran

[seawinder]

This is about the best picture from the best angle there is of this airplane. Because of the angle, it is visible that the back frame of the sliding hood is exactly over the trailing edge of the wing root. This is represented in most every kit on the market with the EXCEPTION of the Special Hobby kits. The trailing edge is half way under the back part of the canopy tunnel.

Interesting: when I visually compare that shot to the two ICM Spits on my display shelf, the ICM rear fuselages seem significantly more shallow, especially just ahead of the vertical tail -- they appear longer and more slender, the photo chunkier.

[Otto]

That is the perspective of the lens due to the distance of the picture. That is not an issue though since the ICM fuse verticle dimension is identical to all the kits which are deamed as good.

[seawinder]

That is the perspective of the lens due to the distance of the picture. That is not an issue though since the ICM fuse verticle dimension is identical to all the kits which are deamed as good.

I forget -- which ones are deemed good?

[Otto]

I forget -- which ones are deemed good?

To word it as properly as I am able; The ICM is considered to have the least ammount of dimensional errors and oversights.

[seawinder]

To word it as properly as I am able; The ICM is considered to have the least ammount of dimensional errors and oversights.

I actually wasn't trying to be facetious. If, as you implied, there are more than one kits for which the rear fuselage shape/dimensions are within acceptable limits, which ones are they IYO? Mind you, I'm just considering rear fuselage at this point.

[Otto]

I actually wasn't trying to be facetious. If, as you implied, there are more than one kits for which the rear fuselage shape/dimensions are within acceptable limits, which ones are they IYO? Mind you, I'm just considering rear fuselage at this point.

I Didn't think you were, I just didn't want to start WW-III by making the wrong statement. The ones I am familiar with are the ICM all, Airfix F-22/24 & old Mk.V. The Ocidental would be if it didn't have that weird shape behind the canopy. The TamIya is just a tiny bit short in the tail. Not as bad as the Hasegawa.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Otto