serious issues with 1:48 spitfire Mk Vb

[wijnands]

One of this year's birthday presents was the 1:48 dogfight doubles consisting of the Bf.109e and the Spitfire Mk Vb.

 

The Emil build ok although I found it a bit basic in detailing especially considering the fact it's a fairly new kit. Still it's now almost finished painting and temporarily on hold because I'm out of RLM green.

 

So I got stuck in on the Sptifire. Love the amount of detail in the cockpit, clearly a lot of thought went into that and I had a good time with it. I got considerably frustrated when I joined the fuselage and decided to fit the cover of the cockpit area which didn't line up at all.

/media/tinymce_upload/6fb98f71b7956d0e236e61cf561cc9a5.jpgA conservation with customer service later and a new cover is now apparently on it's way to me. However from a discussion in a model group on facebook i'm getting the impression it's rather the instructions at fault. So, question, has anyone here had more success with this kt and if so what's the trick? Simply cutting down the instrument panel isn't enough

[Ratch]

Is that the A05125 kit?

[Ratch]

Double post

[wijnands]

That plane yes but I got it in the A50160.

[Ratch]

 Not seen that problem before

[Ratch]

 Double post AGAIN!

[Kenneth ONeill]

I've not built the latest Airfix Vb, but I've seen suggestions that the latest Airfix 1/48th Spitfires have a couple of issues, one of tolerances, and another of engineering, in several reviews, including in AMW.

The engineering issue is that there is a hole in the cockpit base to accommodate the landing light reflector, and it's in the wrong place. This means that the landing light will stop the after centre section joint closing.

The tolerances one is complex to explain, but if you don't cement the cockpit detail anywhere except on the frames behind the pilot, then it should be possible to push the oil tank cover part down so that it mates right with the fuselage. Having said that, that tank cover looks like it's for a Griffin Spitfire!!

[Simon g]

I've built this kit a couple of times, the insert is not the easiest part to install but I've not had the same degree of problem that your photo shows, I suspect you might have some misalignment of  the instrument panel or other internal detail. I don't like that the panel infront of the windscreen is moulded raised, it doesn't look right in 1/48, I sanded mine flush which is only a few minutes work.

I'm afraid it looks like you are going to have to carve away at the interior surfacea to get yours to fit, I don't know if your replacement part will be any better, from memory there are two different parts in the kit so you could experiment with the other one in the meantime.

[wijnands]

Thanks everyone!

After the Comet and the Mig-15 I think this will be the plane that broke the camel's back when it comes to airfix. I've got the Curtiss Hawk in 1:72 in the stash, we'll see how that turns out.

I find I'm just not enjoying fit issues like these on kits that are modern new tooling and not that cheap. And since model making is supposed to be a hobby...

[MiracleMasks]

I don't have the MkV kit, yet,  but I do have the Mk1. This has the same type of insert as your MkV and as the fuselages were esentially the same then I assume that this insert is to accommodate the changes over this area rather than having to mould a complete new fuselage for each change. The Mk1 kit has 2 different inserts. So the inserts in the Mk1 kit will fit pretty much the same as in the MkV (they will be the same!) I have just taped the fuselage halves together and test fited one of the inserts and it is pretty much bang on. 

I would suggest that you have fitted the cockpit interior in a way that it interfears with the insert? That can be the only conclusion. The rule of thumb is to always, always test fit. There is a step on the underside of the insert, just in front of the gun sight faring. Try removing that. If that doesn't work then try filing down the top of the instrument panel and the fire wall.The way that the cockpit interior is set up and fixed none of this should be necessary and I have seen several built up models that suggest that is not a problem of the kit?

[Jonathan Mock]

I find I'm just not enjoying fit issues like these on kits that are modern new tooling and not that cheap. And since model making is supposed to be a hobby...

I can only echo what Mal says, and that's test fit - and then test fit. It's advice that goes back to year dot when it comes to modelling, no matter how modern the kit.

 

I'm making the Tamiya 1/48 F-14 Tomcat right now, a kit that has had glowing reviews for the fit. But I'm still test fitting everything just in case I've managed to do something that'll foul up the fit further down the line.

 

 

[Steven-434888]

Hi W:

I covered off this matter in the August 2014 issue of AMW, when I'd built a test shot of the kit for review. There were two armoured fuel tank covers, a 'Duxford' version and the one for the McNair option, D33. I initially taped the fuselage halves together and test fitted D33 in situ. It gave a slight  overhang of the fuselage widthways, which was fine but was very visibly stepped on top.

I immediately dropped Sam an email at Airfix and he advised the CAD had been set to produce a lip all round of 0.1mm but that this 'may be greater when rendered in plastic'. My findings were therefore that the plastic gave the 0.1mm lip on the lower horizontal edges but increased markedly topside. Understand that at this stage I hadn't test fitted with the tub in place as I wanted to ascertain how the fit was absent the cockpit.

I then removed plasic from the lower horizontal mating edges of D33 and some plastic from the corresponding fuselage side of things, until I had he requisite lip that Airfix intended. I noted all the while that D33 has quite some thickness to it and went on to test the tub in place. A repeat of the D33 trial revealed that with the tub correctly located (the forward bulkhead is shaped to locate under the wing fillets and the rear frames give no ambiguity of location) the armoured cover was once again thrown out.

I severely gutted excess plastic from the inside of D33 and carefully reduced the top and sides of the IP and forward firewall but thin gaps still remained on the horizontal edges. My solution was to glue the tub in only at the rear frame points, to keep them tight and tidy, leaving the forward firewall unglued. With this fully cured, it allowed the tub to flex gently down, accommodating D33 completely.

I was puzzled that the grey primer Airfix display builds looked fine and were apparently built 'as is'. However, it looked to me that the Duxford cover had been the option used, rather than D33 and a separate test of that part indeed indicated a much better fit.

As Mal and JM have indicated, test fitting is the name of the game, so just write this off to experience and under no circumstances let it put you off. Most kits (even Tamiya ones) need fettling here and there.

While we're talking engineering on the Vb (and new Mk.I), you'll likely find clear part F13 (that locates in the lower wing) doesn't correspond with the hole in the lower tub it's supposed to pass into. It'll then stop the rear wing portion closing up. As the light housing is under seat I just filed it away completely (just leaving the lens) but other modellers have enlarged the tub hole forwards for the same result. Your choice entirely.

The undercart is the only other bone of contention - a stepped butt joint to the pintle hinge you fit into the well first, I personally had no issue with it on either the Vb or Mk.I but other modellers have expressed sharp dislike, preferring to drill and pin the legs.

Wish you well with it W.

 

Best regards

 

Steve :-)         

[Simon g]

While we probably all agree test fitting is a good plan I think that wijnands has a valid point in that we shouldn't expect to find these sort of fit issues with modern computer designed kits and I understand how for some it will dull the enjoyment of building a model.

I'm interested to read that Airfix designed a 1mm lip around this part, scaled up that's 48mm, nearly 2 inches! Seems to me rather a bizarre thing to do.

[Steven-434888]

While we probably all agree test fitting is a good plan I think that wijnands has a valid point in that we shouldn't expect to find these sort of fit issues with modern computer designed kits and I understand how for some it will dull the enjoyment of building a model.

I'm interested to read that Airfix designed a 1mm lip around this part, scaled up that's 48mm, nearly 2 inches! Seems to me rather a bizarre thing to do.

Hi Simon:

My post reported a "0.1mm" lip - one tenth of a mm, not the 1.0mm you mention.

Manufacturers don't set out to create errors in either engineering or fit and even Tamiya don't get it right every time. I recently built their 1/32 Mustang for the AMW 'USAAF Special' and the radiator bath and intake were by no means a drop fit and somewhat out of step with the otherwise excellent fit elsewhere. In fairness to the Vb Airfix kit, fit is generally excellent and the trend has been for the company's products to steadily increase in overall quality. The LIDAR scanning of the He.111 (a first among model manufacturers) showed real commitment to accuracy. 

It's pertinent to mention here the benefit of checking out the initial AMW coverage of a new Airfix kit release. As I mentioned, I reported the issue with D33 and the ventral lamp back in 2014, to enable purchasers to anticipate the odd area that might need extra attention and by that means tackle them. 

 

Best regards

Steve

 

 

[Simon g]

 

[Simon g]

Hi Steve,

My humble appologies for missing the decimal point in your original post, of course .1mm sounds better I stand corrected!

Not withstanding the design intention, what Airfix have actually produced is out of scale (or maybe it's the recessed section at the back of the part below the sides of the windscreen?, something doesn't look right) and as bad luck would have it the lip complicates filling and sanding in an area that may well need it.

Since you mention Tamiya, Arfix pitched this kit against their excellent pre existing 1/48 Spitfires which I have also built several times, they really needed to be on top of their game to better these, I don't think they have.

laser scanning is a great and perhaps overdue way of getting the overall shape but it isn't particularly relevant to breakdown and fit of individual kit parts. While this technology is being promoted as demonstrating a commitment to accuracy I suspect that it will also reduce kit development costs in the long term which may be the bigger picture from the manufacturers point of view.

You mentioned the trend towards ever improving quality, a couple of months back I built the 1/48 Lightning a tooling from about 20 years ago, the surface detail and fit are at least as good if not slightly better than current new offerings.

I appreciate reviews of new products drawing attention to problem areas, pre warned is a good thing, but the point remains that it shouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I'll forgive Airfix this one but I won't let them think its OK, it isn't, and as this thread has demonstrated those newer to the hobby (who can't be expected to be doing extensive research into a kit) can be truely dishartened and put off, if not the hobby as a whole then perhaps a particular brand.

I love Airfix, I remember the day nealy 50 years ago, watching my dad painting the firewall of his 1/24 Spitfire when I got bitten by the modelling bug, I have Airfix to thank for that and I want to be marking them A+ on all their new products.

It seems to me a model kit should as a basic starting point be both accurate and fit together properly, it can't be any harder to get it right than wrong,  if as a customer you want to pay a premium for 'extras' such as exposed engines etc all well and good. A small company offering an obscure subject may well  have the comfort of being the only game in town but Airfix ought to be selling us an issue free Spitfire.

[Kenneth ONeill]

I think Steven's original article said that the Spitfire MkI had 2 different oil tank covers. The early one was flush fit, and the later one (with the 0.1mm "lip") was thicker because it is armour plated to protect the oil tank in combat.

[Steven-434888]

Hi Steve,

My humble appologies for missing the decimal point in your original post, of course .1mm sounds better I stand corrected!

Not withstanding the design intention, what Airfix have actually produced is out of scale (or maybe it's the recessed section at the back of the part below the sides of the windscreen?, something doesn't look right) and as bad luck would have it the lip complicates filling and sanding in an area that may well need it.

Since you mention Tamiya, Arfix pitched this kit against their excellent pre existing 1/48 Spitfires which I have also built several times, they really needed to be on top of their game to better these, I don't think they have.

laser scanning is a great and perhaps overdue way of getting the overall shape but it isn't particularly relevant to breakdown and fit of individual kit parts. While this technology is being promoted as demonstrating a commitment to accuracy I suspect that it will also reduce kit development costs in the long term which may be the bigger picture from the manufacturers point of view.

You mentioned the trend towards ever improving quality, a couple of months back I built the 1/48 Lightning a tooling from about 20 years ago, the surface detail and fit are at least as good if not slightly better than current new offerings.

I appreciate reviews of new products drawing attention to problem areas, pre warned is a good thing, but the point remains that it shouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I'll forgive Airfix this one but I won't let them think its OK, it isn't, and as this thread has demonstrated those newer to the hobby (who can't be expected to be doing extensive research into a kit) can be truely dishartened and put off, if not the hobby as a whole then perhaps a particular brand.

I love Airfix, I remember the day nealy 50 years ago, watching my dad painting the firewall of his 1/24 Spitfire when I got bitten by the modelling bug, I have Airfix to thank for that and I want to be marking them A+ on all their new products.

It seems to me a model kit should as a basic starting point be both accurate and fit together properly, it can't be any harder to get it right than wrong,  if as a customer you want to pay a premium for 'extras' such as exposed engines etc all well and good. A small company offering an obscure subject may well  have the comfort of being the only game in town but Airfix ought to be selling us an issue free Spitfire.

Hi Simon.

No apology necessary. 

I believe D33 starts off by being too thick and could have been moulded thinner. That's a CAD / tooling matter. In tandem with that, The forward bulkhead and IP perhaps sit a little high and wide; an engineering aspect. However it's explained, too much plastic is attempting to occupy too little available space. Again I say, any disparity was not intended by the manufacturer and the overall quality is very good.

As far as a direct comparison between Tamiya's Spitfires and those of Airfix is concerned, the late and deeply knowledgable Edgar Brookes made no secret that the earlier 2007 incarnation of the Airfix Spitfire was first choice if modellers wanted the most accurately shaped Mk.I - pushing the Tamiya kit into second place. I noted the raft of internet abuse from some forum quarters that trashed the kit - so I built one, addressed matters within it and published the result here -

http://www.hyperscale.com/2008/features/spitfireiia48sb_1.htm

Tony Bell gave a fair comparison of the 1993 Tamiya Spits vs the 2014 Airfix Vb here -

http://www.hyperscale.com/2016/features/spitfirex248tb_1.htm

My very good friend and obsessive American Spitfire nut, Jon Bius also recorded a balanced comparison of Tamiya vs Airfix (2014); first on the subject of cockpits -

http://www.jonbius.com/2016/10/24/comparing-148-spitfire-mk-vb-kits-airfix-versus-tamiya-the-cockpit/

...and then wings -

http://www.jonbius.com/2016/10/26/comparing-148-spitfire-mk-vb-kits-airfix-versus-tamiya-winging-it/

I see the continued attraction of the Tamiya kits but if greater accuracy is top of the shop, then Airfix (2014) takes it. Delivering a product free of fit issues was undoubtedly Airfix's intent and the 2014 kit is wonderful upgrade from the 2007 offering. I'm sure the D33 matter has been noted by Airfix, so we'll see how things go moving forwards with other kits.

Yes, the Lightning and late mark Spitfires did represent a high water mark in production quality I entirely agree. My point about increasing quality was intended in broad brush terms though, directed at the entire product line, rather than a couple of examples from within it.

As a modeller (new to the hobby or not), we're all free to check previous builds or not, magazines, forums and so forth, in order to gauge a kit. Modelling is about learning - a journey, not a destination. Things go right. Things go wrong. Access to information is now easy and quick - a huge advantage over when I started modelling some five decades ago and in truth, I find new modellers in particular hungry for knowledge, not vice versa and I'm encouraged by that.

The original post certainly communicates frustration (entirely fair) but seeks solutions (entirely logical). I can't see any 'deal breaker' narrative in there, either in terms of the 'hobby as a whole' or 'the brand' and I think the post remains a positive step in seeking to move forwards and glean advice - to increase knowledge and learn from experience. I'd reiterate Mal and Jon's earlier advice of always, always test fit before committing to glue and check out review and web builds for an insight into how others have faired.

I do respect your individual point of view that the kit should have been fault free Simon. Wish you well with your modelling. :-)

 

Steve