Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
REVIEW
1:48 Seafire F.XVII
Merlin
Senior Editor
#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 08:33 AM UTC
Airfix have released their Seafire Mk.XVII, the eagerly awaited follow-up to their quarterscale Spitfire Mk.XII.
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
betheyn
Senior Editor#019
Joined: October 14, 2004
KitMaker: 4,560 posts
AeroScale: 2,225 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 09:15 AM UTC
Great review Rowan.
I like the idea a building a folded wing Spitfire and I'm glad Airfix have included this option. I have always loved the look of it sitting on a flight deck all folded up.
Andy
I like the idea a building a folded wing Spitfire and I'm glad Airfix have included this option. I have always loved the look of it sitting on a flight deck all folded up.
Andy
NickZour
Joined: May 01, 2008
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
AeroScale: 1,241 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 09:18 AM UTC
You gotta love THIS spitfire. I like it, even... ME...that I hate Spitfires in general 
Cheers Nick
Cheers Nick
lampie
#029
Joined: December 23, 2005
KitMaker: 6,249 posts
AeroScale: 3,270 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 09:57 AM UTC
I wonder what the "fatal flaws" are on this one? 
Nige
Nige
FalkeEins
Joined: March 07, 2005
KitMaker: 868 posts
AeroScale: 690 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 10:20 AM UTC
..really enjoyed the XII ..and this looks to be yet another quality Airfix release..thanks for the review, can't wait to get mine !
SunburntPenguin
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 112 posts
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2011 - 02:20 PM UTC
I wonder what the "fatal flaws" are on this one?
Shhh, maybe he won't turn up if he doesn't see this.
Shhh, maybe he won't turn up if he doesn't see this.
GastonMarty
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2011 - 11:57 AM UTC
Same crappy "droopy" nose here as the XII... For the tail it's hard to say being a low back, but it is likely the same story.
My Mk XII modified build is going very well, and I will present it next to an OOB kit, so you can make up your own mind... Hint: It's not close...
I should mention that spinning my spinner smaller on a drill had the unwanted effect of making mine slightly too short, as the tip's length responded to the drill a LOT faster than the diameter (probably because of the hard glue around the base, and less plastic heat absorption at the tip)...
In the end I will use an unmodified Airfix spinner, as the later re-deepening of my nose showed the kit spinner was OK to start with... Hey, It's a trial and error process...
Note I did find that shallowing up the tail made the Airfix tailplanes look slightly too low on the tail: I tacked a Tamiya Spitfire Mk V tail extremity, and it MATCHES my shallower tail exactly, within a small amount of work on the width.
The Tamiya tailfin was made higher and longer by cutting a new hinge backward from the original hinge, and cut higher to fit the higher Airfix rudder (since the size of the Airfix rudder is supposed to be correct).
So the Tamiya rear fuselage depth agrees with me: Either me and Tamiya are wrong, or Airfix is right...
The Airfix nose is not any closer than the tail, but here it is not essentially an overall depth issue. Whatever it is, it is much worse, with the spinner axis too low among other things...
Gaston
Bigskip
Joined: June 27, 2006
KitMaker: 2,487 posts
AeroScale: 575 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2011 - 01:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I wonder what the "fatal flaws" are on this one?
Shhh, maybe he won't turn up if he doesn't see this.
Now look what you've done...
EdgarBrooks
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 18, 2011 - 11:03 PM UTC
Permit me to translate:-
By "same crappy droopy nose," Gaston is saying that, judging by photographs of the kit, the nose contours, like those of the Spitfire XII, will match the published drawings. Without having the kit in his hands, he's also prepared to say that the tail will be wrong; it's bad enough to use skewed photos of the XII, but he hasn't even bothered to do anything similar with the 17.
I'm at a loss to understand how all that hacking and carving made the tailplane sit too low, since all of the work was done below the line of the tail, so its position, with regard to the fin, can't have changed. It's intriguing, too, that he will use the Tamiya Mk.V kit, which has been slated, by people who do know their Spitfires, for several dimensional errors.
Although Gaston has never told us how much he removed from his XII fuselage, since he says that the dimensions now match Tamiya's 1/32 kit exactly, it's safe to say that he finally removed just 1mm, which most modellers have done by the simple expedient of sanding off around .5mm from the top and bottom of the fuselage.
He witters on about the "spinner axis," seemingly totally unaware that the thrust line, of the Griffon, was altered by several degrees, to take account of the extra power of the engine, hence the increased downward sweep of the top cowling.
I trust that readers of this thread will take into account that the Hornby team are known to have gone to Yeovilton, and measured the real thing, something Gaston steadfastly refuses to do.
Edgar
By "same crappy droopy nose," Gaston is saying that, judging by photographs of the kit, the nose contours, like those of the Spitfire XII, will match the published drawings. Without having the kit in his hands, he's also prepared to say that the tail will be wrong; it's bad enough to use skewed photos of the XII, but he hasn't even bothered to do anything similar with the 17.
I'm at a loss to understand how all that hacking and carving made the tailplane sit too low, since all of the work was done below the line of the tail, so its position, with regard to the fin, can't have changed. It's intriguing, too, that he will use the Tamiya Mk.V kit, which has been slated, by people who do know their Spitfires, for several dimensional errors.
Although Gaston has never told us how much he removed from his XII fuselage, since he says that the dimensions now match Tamiya's 1/32 kit exactly, it's safe to say that he finally removed just 1mm, which most modellers have done by the simple expedient of sanding off around .5mm from the top and bottom of the fuselage.
He witters on about the "spinner axis," seemingly totally unaware that the thrust line, of the Griffon, was altered by several degrees, to take account of the extra power of the engine, hence the increased downward sweep of the top cowling.
I trust that readers of this thread will take into account that the Hornby team are known to have gone to Yeovilton, and measured the real thing, something Gaston steadfastly refuses to do.
Edgar
SunburntPenguin
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 112 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 19, 2011 - 11:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
My Mk XII modified build is going very well, and I will present it next to an OOB kit, so you can make up your own mind... Hint: It's not close...
Would that be due to your kit being modified to match those same old photos you drag out and butchered to within an inch of it's life?
As Edgar points out the team from Hornby who own Airfix crawled over the MkXVII at Yeovilton, I guess they got it right by measuring an actual airframe and not relying on photos.
Jonathan_Mock
Joined: February 07, 2011
KitMaker: 24 posts
AeroScale: 23 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 03:23 AM UTC
Tell me Gaston, can you supply a dimension for the spinner length and diameter? Can you also supply dimensions for the curvature of the nose from windscreen to the spinner?
If you can supply the data you are using, I can compare it to the actual measurements I have here. No "I looked at photos" or objective opnion, or long spiel, just actual dimensions for a Seafire XVII that can conclusively prove you are right and Spitfire scholars like Edgar are wrong.
Yes or no? Simple question.
If you can supply the data you are using, I can compare it to the actual measurements I have here. No "I looked at photos" or objective opnion, or long spiel, just actual dimensions for a Seafire XVII that can conclusively prove you are right and Spitfire scholars like Edgar are wrong.
Yes or no? Simple question.
Holdfast
President#056
Joined: September 30, 2002
KitMaker: 8,581 posts
AeroScale: 4,913 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 06:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
So the Tamiya rear fuselage depth agrees with me: Either me and Tamiya are wrong, or Airfix is right...
Well when you add your name to it I'd bet on Airfix everytime
TheModeller
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 07:26 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Same crappy "droopy" nose here as the XII... For the tail it's hard to say being a low back, but it is likely the same story.
Wrong on both counts Gaston, and the XII as well
Quoted Text
My Mk XII modified build is going very well, and I will present it next to an OOB kit, so you can make up your own mind... Hint: It's not close...
Do you mean you're poor butchered lump of styrene? I'm not all that surprised!
Quoted Text
I should mention that spinning my spinner smaller on a drill had the unwanted effect of making mine slightly too short, as the tip's length responded to the drill a LOT faster than the diameter (probably because of the hard glue around the base, and less plastic heat absorption at the tip)...
Yeah, the spinner is within a fraction of a mm of being perfect in both diameter and length... Either that or Roy Sutherland and the Airfix 22/24 kit are wrong...
Quoted Text
Hey, It's a trial and error process...
I'd call it vandalism personally but YMMV...
Quoted Text
Note I did find that shallowing up the tail made the Airfix tailplanes look slightly too low on the tail: I tacked a Tamiya Spitfire Mk V tail extremity, and it MATCHES my shallower tail exactly, within a small amount of work on the width.
Now I don't find that in the least surprising Gaston, neither of you are correct!
Quoted Text
So the Tamiya rear fuselage depth agrees with me: Either me and Tamiya are wrong, or Airfix is right...
See above, I'll go with you and Tamiya being wrong... But wait, aren't Tamiya wrong about everything Gaston?
Quoted Text
The Airfix nose is not any closer than the tail, but here it is not essentially an overall depth issue. Whatever it is, it is much worse, with the spinner axis too low among other things...
No, no there isn't any issue Gaston, the only issue is that you should have gone to Specsavers!
There are a few, minor, improvements worth making to both the XII and the XVII.
The props on both kits don't bear much resembelance to the real things, the XII prop is pretty poor and the XVII prop is identical when the blades should be much closer in shape and profile to a XIV blade, I've found that cutting down some spare Aeroclub 21 blades will do the job with a little refinement.
The radiators are pretty thick and clunky and can use some thinning and fettling to improve the appearance and fit. You might also want to replace the radiator flaps while you are at it.
As the review mentions the trailing edges of the ailerons and wing flaps could use some work to give a sharper edge.
Drill out the exhausts and add a set of decent seat belts and it looks like you'll end up with a gem of a model. I might put some of Ultracasts block-tread mainwheels on mine but I'm still looking for a clear 'in service' picture to confirm they were used on XVIIs.
More power to Airfix on both these kits, now, lets have a Mk.XIV and a nice new Tempest please!
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 11:54 AM UTC
Hi Les
I quite agree about the prop. I didn't notice when I reviewed the kit, but I can't say I'm very convinced by it now I've had a chance to start building the beastie. Even thinned down heavily it doesn't seem right.
All the best
Rowan
I quite agree about the prop. I didn't notice when I reviewed the kit, but I can't say I'm very convinced by it now I've had a chance to start building the beastie. Even thinned down heavily it doesn't seem right.
All the best
Rowan
Littorio
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,728 posts
AeroScale: 1,351 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 12:04 PM UTC
Well I've gone and placed an order for one, faults or not as this is the only game in town unless you use the Aeroclub conversion.
At the end of the day it looks like a Seafire.
At the end of the day it looks like a Seafire.
TheModeller
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 12:27 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Les
I quite agree about the prop. I didn't notice when I reviewed the kit, but I can't say I'm very convinced by it now I've had a chance to start building the beastie. Even thinned down heavily it doesn't seem right.
All the best
Rowan
Its about the only real 'flaw' in the kit, it looks like Airfix simply used the same CAD pattern for both the XII and XVII, in this case it definitely isn't right and is well worth correcting if you can.
Having had a look at the wings as I'm working on the kit I've also noticed that the outer .303 ejection port seems kind of large in comparison to its inboard neighbour, not difficult to correct as I think lining the opening all round with some thin strip before joining the surfaces will take care of the matter.
As is his wont Gaston is, as usual, talking complete rubbish from a position of utter ignorance about the subject at hand, where he gets his ideas from is anyones guess, Google I suppose, and I've taken to ignoring him lately. The fact that he seems bent on making things up about both the XII and XVII kits just tests my patience. It'd be something if he'd even bother to present something impirical, like a verifiable measurement, but he doesn't, for that alone I consider his 'opinions' simply worthless noise.
EdgarBrooks
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 11:49 PM UTC
I've hesitated to include this drawing, since it's for the XIV & 20-series airframes, so is a little too long, but you'll see that the "crappy, droopy nose" goes as far as Supermarine's own drawings. One should not use the drawing for scale purposes, but the figures included should enable the true expert to check how far out the Airfix kits really are.
Edgar
Edgar
SunburntPenguin
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 112 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2011 - 12:01 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Les
I quite agree about the prop. I didn't notice when I reviewed the kit, but I can't say I'm very convinced by it now I've had a chance to start building the beastie. Even thinned down heavily it doesn't seem right.
All the best
Rowan
Rowan
Do any aftermarket corrections exist for the prop blades for the Mk XII and this kit?
TheModeller
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2011 - 12:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Do any aftermarket corrections exist for the prop blades for the Mk XII and this kit?
The blades of the Mk.XII are quite unique and I'm not aware of any AM you could use to replace them. Dave Gibson improved his Mk.XII by re-working some spare Academy XIV blades.
As I said I'm modifying some spare Aeroclub Mk.21 blades for my Seafire but Cooper Details (Roy Sutherland) used to produce a Mk.XIV prop and spinner if you can find one, Quickboost make a replacement prop for the Academy XIV but given that its matched to the oversized nose of that kit I think the blades will be too short to be correct, the o/a dia of the Mk.XII and Mk.XVII props is 10' 5" or 66mm in 1/48th.
It might be worth making an enquiry with John Adams of Aeroclub, he has a forum on the BritModeller board.
HTH.
EdgarBrooks
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2011 - 07:25 AM UTC
Sorry about the confusion; this really is the cowling lines for the XII:-
Edgar
Edgar
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 - 02:42 AM UTC
Hi there
Sorry, but I'm going to lock this thread in case it descends to the level we sadly witnessed over the Spitfire Mk.XII. Lively debate is to be encouraged in the pursuit of accuracy, but personal slagging matches have no place on Aeroscale.
All the best
Rowan
Sorry, but I'm going to lock this thread in case it descends to the level we sadly witnessed over the Spitfire Mk.XII. Lively debate is to be encouraged in the pursuit of accuracy, but personal slagging matches have no place on Aeroscale.
All the best
Rowan
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 AeroScale and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.