If anyone has one of these kits, or both, I would like to know how wide are the cowling tops exactly at the front of the exhausts, and what is the respective kit spinner diameter.

Thanks in advance.

Gaston

Hi Gaston

What's the point of comparing two kits in different scales? Why not simply wait until you get the Eduard kit and compare it to full-sized dimensions if you're concerned?

All the best

Rowan

I have built the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire, I sold it so I do not have it anymore to measure but the nose section is so complex that a minor error could effect any measurement.

Remember the nose panels are four separate pieces like on the real plane but they in part hang with magnets and have tabs that align them and hold them in place. I would get slightly different alignments just taking off the panels to show someone the engine. The look of the finished kit is amazing. I also felt a sense of wonder that I had assembled the entire engine assembly installed it and then when I put the panels in place the fit correctly. With so many parts involved the Tamiya kit is an amazing piece of engineering. With that said I would build the Tamiya kit again over the Eduard kit, not because of accuracy, but because by the time you buy all of the extras you can buy the Tamiya kit which already has those things, just bigger.

I just don't think you can make an accurate comparison between the two kits in different scales. It is more valid to compare directly to the real plane and how accurate the scale down is.

Hi Scott

Exactly my point - without knowing the full-sized dimensions, such a comparison between kits is largely meaningless.

All the best

Rowan

Well I will take the full size dimensions soon, probably tomorrow, and that will make it useful.

Also, the 1/32 scale Tamiya nose/spinner "interaction" looks completely different to the 1/48th kit, and the Eduard one looks closer to actual, so there's that too...

Gaston

Who cares?

Hi Gaston

That's alright then. You don't build 1:32 do you?, so why even worry about the Tamiya one? I wouldn't let it get under your skin - just concentrate on enjoying the Eduard kit.

All the best

Rowan

His reason is that he's vainly trying to back up a 'discussion' he's started on the Modeling Madness forum about how desperately inaccurate the Tamiya kit is... He kicked that off with some Googled images and a picture of someone elses model (as usual).

I guess if someone else provides measurements for him he can find a picture to scrawl red lines on in order to give his argument some substance while avoiding the quite unnecessary step of examining the actual plastic...

Remember, this is the individual who ripped on the Eduard kit when the initial test shots were posted on this forum, highlighting inaccurate wheel wells, the fuselage spine, the upper fuselage ahead of the windscreen...

I have to agree with some of the other replies here, there is little point in comparing the dimensions of one plastic kit to another plastic kit in order to establish which is accurate.

Won't stop Marty from trying though.

Here is a link to the MM thread if anyone wants to read it... The responses from most of the regulars over there seem to indicate the weight they give to Gastons ramblings pretty clearly.

http://s3.zetaboards.com/readersforum/topic/7622707/1/

Interestingly he's stated over there that: 'Rest assured this is one area that the Eduard 1/48th kit got right, as it was practically the first thing I checked... Even though the 1/32 kit's been out for over three years, remember that you heard it here first...'

Which beggars the question, if the cowl and spinner of the new kit was 'practically the first thing' he checked then why does he need the measurements now?

Les, the Eduard wheel wells are still wrong, and the spine is also very slightly too high, exactly as I said, when put next to the Aeroclub fuselage, as visible on a mixed assembly by Brett Green himself, if memory serves...

The spine is within plastic thickness, which is why it is less of a big deal than the wheel wells that Eduard"s OWN Mk II photos acknowledge don"t match...

They say the wheel well plan view was changed for later marks: I don"t see much overall plan view changes on a MK XII or MK IX from the Mk II picture they show...

As for the Spinner-Cowl dimensions, I now have them all, including with photos of my own ruler stuck right through the backplate of the Ottawa"s Mk IX, and it adds up almost exactly like I expected: The Tamiya 1:32 Mk IX is 32 mm too broad in the cowl and 23 mm too narrow in the spinner, adding up for a total effect of 55-56 mm, and quite possibly up to 60 mm if the Eduard cowl is correct(!)...

Eduard: 624-715 mm

Ottawa Museum: 647-720 mm, but 715 plausible on the cowl.

Tamiya: 624-752 mm

The surprise is that the Eduard spinner is also 23 mm too narrow (agreeing with Tamiya), but Eduard agrees with my own cowl measurement that makes the Tamiya cowl 32 to 37mm too broad.

The Eduard error is confined to the spinner, and so is less obvious than the two Tamiya errors, where the too wide cowl exaggerates the narrowness of the spinner.

The good thing is that the Eduard kit backs me up on the cowl, and for the spinner I have a picture of my ruler stuck through the back of the spinner plate (with museum approval), and so the only error possible is towards too narrow given the center hub (surprisingly thin)... I had to hold the square-angle folding ruler over the cowl, and so had no picture of that...

In raw numbers, the Eduard spinner is 0.5 mm too narrow (like my Otaki-Hasegawa kit-bash with ICM spinner: Oh well: I"ll live with it...), and the Tamiya is 0.75 mm too narrow in the spinner, except in this case combined with being one full mm too broad width in the nose, for a 1.75 mm combined discrepancy...

I"m guessing one mm is way, way over the plastic thickness...

That"s over two inches of total discrepancy (About 2.2 inches: 56 mm total, possibly 60 mm if the Eduard cowl is closer than my measurement), roughly evenly split between cowl and spinner.

Given those thin nose pieces it will be tricky to fix... Also, adding 0.75 mm to the whole spinner diameter is a gigantic task best left to ambitious and well-equipped resin manufacturers...

The two problems compound one another. On the Eduard only the spinner is too small, so it looks better.

That"s similar to why I like the Tamiya 1:48th Tiger I turret better than the Skybow turret: Both have the same one inch lack of height to the turret, but the Tamiya gains point by having also a too small mantlet to match it, which at least LOOKS better... So Tamiya gets bonus points for a LESS accurate part that doesn"t worsen the overall turret appearance like Skybow"s mantlet does... See? Good enough works for me too...

What I hate is when things are mismeasured for no reason, and then another part comes in, also mismeasured, but the OTHER way to make the first part look worse...

And yet generally 1:32 still is lucky compared to us in 1:48th. The Eduard Spitfire is just a (welcomed) exception.

And yes I don"t model in 1:32 scale, and so don"t really care, but it"s nice to expose groundless criticism for what it is (and find out things about my own scale as well)...

Now watch some complain about the terrible indignity of being informed...

Gaston

The trouble is Gaston, that if you say it most modellers disbelieve it, or certainly don't care You may have a point but it is the way that you put it over so none of this is helpful because many simply dismiss it out of hand as you already have their backs up. I actually don't believe that you have measured a spinner back plate because, even though you claim to have pictures you don't post them, when in most other instances you use other peoples photos to "prove" you arguments!

Will you please leave this hobby alone

Hi Gaston

I'm afraid no-one will pay much credence without your photo. Incidentally - how did you manage to stick a ruler through the spinner when there's a propeller in the way? Is the Ottawa exhibit dismantled for restoration?

All the best

Rowan

He has a special ruler that allows him to do that and also add red lines to any picture that is available on the subject.

I don't care about these measurements as the kit looks like a Spit IX and nothing else. The same applies to the Tamiya 32nd scale kit.

Millimetres out......who really cares?

Does anyone really care? What happened to building a kit for pure enjoyment. Isn't that what a hobby is all about?

Perhaps you might all like to see unbiased measurements, as drawn by Paul Monforton, in his book on the Spitfire IX; his figures, for the top cowling, are:-
At the rear (frame 5) (29.74") 75.56cm; in 1/32scale that's 23.6125mm, Tamiya's item = 23.65mm, or .0375mm too large.
At the widest point, just aft of the exhausts, it's (30.70") 77.98cm, in 1/32 that's 24.36875mm, Tamiya's is 24.47, or .10125mm too large.
At the transverse panel line, just in front of the exhausts, it's (29.08") 73.86cm, in 1/32 that's 23.08mm, Tamiya's is 23.00mm, or .08mm undersized.
At the front it's (22.43") 56.98cm, in 1/32 that's 17.80mm, Tamiya's is 17.09, or .71mm undersized.mm
The spinner backplate was measured at (25") 63.5cm, which is 19.84mm, and Tamiya's is 19.72mm, or .12mm undersized.
Talking of the width of a Spitfire cowling shows a typical lack of knowledge of the airframe, since it never remains constant, as anyone who's looked along the outside of the cowling will tell you.
As I don't have the Eduard kit, details will have to wait.
One minor detail, if there's an engine in a Spitfire, you can't shove a ruler through, or behind the spinner, since the drive shaft/mechanism gets in the way. If the engine's missing, how do you know that it's a genuine Spitfire spinner, and not a home-made spare?
If there is no visible difference between the wells of a Mk.IX and a Mk.II, buy some glasses, since the IX's u/c (starting from the Vc) was raked forward, to take the extra weight of the Merlin into account.
Edgar

There you go again, someone elses pictures, comparing one plastic kit with another and making proclomations about accuracy.




Then you really need to look more closely, as Edgar stated, the gear rake from the Vc onward was increased.




Yeah, I cropped out all that claptrap as its tedious and incorrect. Brevity isn't a word you're familiar with is it Gaston?

Edgar has posted accurate dimensions which tally with my own measurements, Montforton and the Tamiya kit measurements.

If you take each dimension independently then there is an average of less than a .1mm discrepancy between all of the measurements comparing the Tamiya kit with actual figures and well researched, accurately drawn scale drawings.

.1 of a mm is close enough for me and I suspect its close enough for everyone else as well... Frankly .1 of a mm difference can easily be explained by variations in tolerances during construction.




But you're the one that kicked this of by making the groundless criticism in the first place, had you forgotten that?

If you want to moan about percentage point fractions of millimetres in plastic kits Gaston then I reckon you've got the wrong hobby, you need to take up something far more demanding. For my part I think the main reason you like to bring stuff like this up is so you can take a poke at people that don't agree with you.

So how about taking the Airfix 1/48th PR.XIX to task over its narrow cowl and small spinner then Gaston? You've never even mentioned that error, yet you are happy to make the outrageous claim that Airfix re-tooled thier Mk.XII fuselage because of your complaints!

If its that important to you, go and buy the kits.

Gaston, could we please see some of your models, please. I bet their real nice. Thanks Rick

I think that given his strident demands for better accuracy, his criticism of any tiny error he perceives and the scorn he pours on any kit that doesn't measure up to his fraction-of-a-millimetre perfect expectations I'd expect his models to be masterworks of impeccable quality and accuracy and finished to the most exacting standards, IPMS National championship winning material every single one of them...

And yet the Butcher of Quebec continues to hide his light under a bushel... Perhaps its to spare all us poor plebs the pain of realising what crappy kit-assemblers we are...

Ah well, there is always stamp-collecting I suppose!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=amkfkcbn3pJsjM&tbnid=stCob_Ww6eYH6M:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fnews46%2F3775848520%2F&ei=7UlrUdLLJOrMyQGCvoCIAg&bvm=bv.45175338,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFdgOxUPB2I4iOEoFBZ261Y8h4S3A&ust=1366072173894049
Here is a link showing Gaston taking measurments!

PS click on flicker link when you reach the page

While its a funny picture it does clarify something, I was unaware of the history of this particular airframe, I now know better.

This airframe was damaged by AA fire during the war, sold to the Dutch, sold to the Belgians and rebuilt as a trainer before crashing again, it was then sold into private hands and rebuilt as a target-tug before being purchased and rebuilt yet again by John Paterson who donated it to the museum in 1964...

There is no way to tell if any of the cowling panels or the spinner were replaced during any of these rebuilds, any one, or all of them, might not be standard.

Thats always a danger with measuring rebuilt and restored museum examples, they might not be as complete or correct as they seem.

I don't doubt that its a point lost on Mr Marty.

I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak, although I think in general, paying too close attention to minutia can detract from the job of the hobby. This is suppose to be fun and as someone who likes to play golf, it seems to me that we are really in competition with ourselves many times. We are trying to do the best work we can, with the skills we bring to the modeling table, with the tools we have too. I think worrying too much about a millimeter here or there is meaningless; and would drive many people away from the hobby who are new to it!! Just my two cents. I have said this before and will say it again, I am not the best modeler on here or the worst, LOL, but I enjoy the hobby and interchange with like minded people around the world. Aeroscale is a unique forum for that indeed. I like most other modelers, try and better themselves, not worrying if a kit is slightly off or not and not worrying if one is "the fastest gun". There is always someone who is faster, just remember that. Russell

My kit arrived today, and it's impossible (whoever you are) to say what the dimensions of the engine compartment/cowling are, until you've built, and finished, the model, since the upper part is made of two pieces, so you can, if you get it wrong, make it any width you like.
However, the spinner backplate is a single piece; a 25" backplate equates to 13.23mm in 1/48 scale, and Eduard's measures out at 13.21-13.22mm., making this 23mm error business a load of ********(rhymes with rowlocks); can't speak for the rivet-counters, of course, but I can live with an "error" of .01-.02mm.
Edgar

Other source, quoting the SAME Monforton book:

-Largeur capot, juste devant les ouvertures latérales ( à hauteur des échappements ): 729,5 mm.

So which is it? 738.6 mm or 729.5 mm?

Isn't that worrisome that two accounts from the SAME source don't agree by half an inch? Perhaps it isn't an easy figure to gather from the source?

In any case the best real-life measurement I got was the spinner, and the spinner here is something over 25 inches (or 635 mm), since it already measures that off-center:



I would say 6 mm (1/4") per side is not unreasonable given the hub that stands in the way, hence 647 mm instead of the quoted 635...

As for the Tamiya 1/32 spinner, all I had to go on is the following:

Tamiya au 1:32 =>19,5mm : 624 mm.

And now Edgar: Tamiya's is 19.72mm. : 631 mm.

I'll boil it down to the following:

-The Eduard kit looks correct in this area.

-The Tamiya kit looks completely wrong in this area.

This is what I'll do: I'll get both kits, instead of relying on third parties who can't agree with one another, assemble them without paint, and then match them at the exact same angle, side by side and with real-life photos, and you'll decide who wins.

It'll be the battle of 1/48th vs 1/32...

With the two kits of the same subject, the differences should be quite eye-opening, and it just might reveal that dry measurements just don't quite cover how big the difference is...

I'll probably get the 1/32 kit first, and will start with that against real life photos.

After all, Tamiya did make their 1/48th Il-2 canopy 1/53 scale in cross-section (ask Flying Heritage if they think that figure is wrong: I'll bet they, and all existing Il-2s, never saw the Tamiya team with tape measure in hand...).

And let's remember whose side Roy Sutherland's opinion was on the last time I pointed out here numerous gross Spitfire kit errors:

Airfix Spitfire Mk XII issues October 24 2012, 11:41 AM

"Usual disclaimer: This is a discussion of kit accuracy. If this type of stuff irritates you, you might want to bail out now.

That said, they (Airfix) kind of dropped the ball on the Spit XII and Seafire 17. They used some very detailed, but ultimately inaccurate drawings to base the kit on. The real problem is the fuselage. The rear fuselage is too deep and there is something strange about the nose."

Of course Tamiya's 1/32 Mk IX is not on the same level of utter grossness as that was, but just remember who had your best interests at heart last time measurements and counter-measurements were flying... Now that real quaterscale Spitfire kits are actually coming out, they'll have to share space with the "Hunchback of Notre-Dame"...

Mine is nearly done, so at least you'll know how to clear two-three-years from your building schedule to correct it...

Gaston

Gaston I have the 32nd scale Tamiya kit and it looks fine to me.

And I also have the Airfix Spit Mk XII, that also looks fine to me.

I can't mistake them for anything other than Spitfires.

I have had both kits for two years like yourself, but mine haven't been started yet.

Two years on a kit, I'm hoping that it is the magnum opus of Spitfire kits in any scale.........