No-one, in the U.K., who is aware of the story of Airfix over the years, will assume anything. Somehow, the research & development manager managed to get the Spitfire, Seafire & Lightning kit moulds manufactured by the South Korean company, which, at the time, was producing Tamiya's moulds. To this day, we don't know how he managed it, in the teeth of disinterested, incompetent management, but he did; unfortunately he was never able to repeat the miracle. As an example of what he faced, at a directors' meeting he was asked why it was thought necessary to have three Messerschmitts in the catalogue; it had to be gently pointed out that the 109, 110, & 262 were different aircraft. Hornby have shown that they're not to be confused with the earlier owners of Airfix, with each successive kit being better than the previous, as they gradually get their mould makers to supply what they want. Unlike the previous owners, who only acquired Airfix because Humbrol came with them, and could be sold off at a profit, Hornby have shown that they're in this because they're interested in the final product, not just profit. Unlike some, we don't expect newcomers to this hobby to provide perfection every time. Edgar[/quote] ah. interesting information, and good to know - explains a lot.

As you can see, not a lot, and this is a well-worn airframe; also, from August 1942 (and that includes the XII,) the entire wing leading edge, back to, and including, the mainspar line, was filled, smoothed, primed, and painted. Can you imagine the reaction, if a kit manufacturer supplied a Spitfire kit, with a completely smooth leading edge? Edgar P.S. I don't know how Arthur is progressing, but hope to talk to him at a future show, later this year. As he is now blind, in one eye, I try not to interrupt his work with general chit-chat.

How deep would that be under the perspex? The Airfix Mk XII is at about four inches. If that is correct, then both the Special Hobby (maybe) and the Airfix kit (definitely) are correct. Gaston

How deep would that be under the perspex? The Airfix Mk XII is at about four inches. If that is correct, then both the Special Hobby (maybe) and the Airfix kit (definitely) are correct. Gaston[/quote] Now ! , that's one of the most rediculous statements I've seen lately, there's a 3mm difference in the wing position on these two kits. One or the other is wrong , the cannot both be correct, either " maybe or definitely ". Andrew

How deep would that be under the perspex? The Airfix Mk XII is at about four inches. If that is correct, then both the Special Hobby (maybe) and the Airfix kit (definitely) are correct. Gaston[/quote] Now ! , that's one of the most rediculous statements I've seen lately, there's a 3mm difference in the wing position on these two kits. One or the other is wrong , the cannot both be correct, either " maybe or definitely ". Andrew[/quote] If you had bothered to read this thread before becoming all hot and troubled, you would have known it was not MY claim that the (basically identical to Mk XII) Airfix Mk XVII kit and the Special Hobby kit are fairly close in wing trailing edge position, since don't have both kits, hence the (maybe) you could have taken a clue from before becoming all excited over it: ------------------------------------------------------------ "Niels Peter Lemche CALLSIGN:NPLemche Sweden LINK Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 - 08:17 PM GMT Strange things happens. Read through the criticism of the Special Hobby Seafire XVs. Correct, how they got the wing so wrong i s amystery. As to the length I just compared it to the Airfix Seafire XVII fuselage, and the difference is a fraction of a milimeter. The back part of the fuselage on the Soecial Hobby item is exactly (give and take o,2 mm) the same as Airfix's. So really a black out with the wings' position. But noway otherwise as bad as argued by Gaston." -------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed it wasn't as bad as I RELAYED as being argued by others on ARC (thus not 3 mm into the rear canopy perpex, but 2 mm, as correctly pointed out later), since I have the Airfix Mk XII fuselage in my hand, and it looks like the wing trailing edge is roughly in the exact same position versus the front of the rear canopy perpex as the Special Hobby side of the photo comparison below, which means a similar 2 mm into the rear perspex: Your claim of a 3 mm difference on this trailing edge position issue between the Special Hobby Mk XV and the Airfix Mk XII seem a bit farfetched to me, since they BOTH are positionning the trailing edge about 2 mm into the fixed rear perpex, as the photo above shows for the Special Hobby kit side of thing... If that 3 mm difference in relationship is from some other reference point, then you didn't bother to specify which... Another thing you don't seem to realize is that I cannot change this area on my Airfix Mk XII kit anymore, so if someone can confirm this 2 mm position into the fixed rear perpex is correct, then I would be more than glad about it... In any case, the Airfix Mk XII kit seems to have got a lot of longitudinal issues correct, as well as a nice wing shape (my worry was that the rear canopy perpex was too far forward, NOT the wing too far back), so if other kits don't agree with it, I would be just as inclined to doubt them... Gaston

Gaston, it's obvious from your photograph that your method of comparing the fuselages is flawed, perhaps fatally. You have aligned the nose to make your comparison, totally ignoring any differences in nose lengths. On a Spitfire the dimensions of the fuselage from the engine firewall to the rudder post remained constant from the prototype to the F24. Therefore in order to make any meaning comparison you will need to line up the fuselages using either the rudder post or the firewall as the datum,[in an ideal world both ] any other starting points will be almost meaning less as there will be too many variables. you will find that if you had compared the fuselages in you photograph correctly this would have pushed the SH wing another mm or so further aft for a start. Andrew

Hi Andrew Gaston has actually used Vance's comparison photo from earlier in the thread. Judging by the offset in the photo, lining up the rudder post would show a distinct mismatch in the position of the rear of the cockpit, and an even more pronounced ofset in the wing's leading edge. I'll bow to the experts on which is correct, but I did find problems (in my opinion) with the nose of the Aeroclub conversion when I examined it in the course of reviewing the Airfix Mk. XII. All the best Rowan

Always an experience to read Gaston's mails (maybe he should change identity to Lagaffe-the cartoon figure from the 1970s?). You never know where he will go. But he evidently knows very little about the special features of the Spitfire. Maybe he should invest in some of Peter Cooke's drawings (it would also be a kind of excuse to Peter Cooke).

I trust you can see the line of rivets parallel to, and just aft of, the rear of the cockpit door; this is the centre-line of the seat bulkhead, and aligns with the rear of the wing:-