Airfix 1:48 Seafire XVII

[Shar2]

As a bit of a change from building warships I pulled this kit out of the stash. What a great kit, built straight OOB with the exception of some etched seatbelts. Painted in the colours of my old squadron, 800sqn. I realise it might not be anatomically correct, but thought what the hell.

[dr_gn]

Glad to see you've not used a panel line wash.

Would the rockets be fitted with the wings folded?

[Shar2]

Thanks. Having worked on real aircraft I know you can rarely see panel lines in 1:1, and only those removed regularly can get damaged. Yes the rocket could be fitted, then the wings folded in prep for an op.

[Eric Mc]

Lovely.

I've just started on the 1/72 Airfix PRXIX and the Academy MkXIV.

Interesting to see how both companies have tackled similar subject matter.

[dr_gn]

Shar2 said:

Thanks. Having worked on real aircraft I know you can rarely see panel lines in 1:1, and only those removed regularly can get damaged. Yes the rocket could be fitted, then the wings folded in prep for an op.

I think they look good highlighted on a model if they are fine enough. Airfix seem to like trench panel lines and even though many reviewers comment on this, they invariably still add a panel line wash to their review models which just makes them look even deeper. IMO yours looks way better with no highlights.

[perdu]

Like it

lots

and I'm a founder member of the "This is a model of an aeroplane-not a model of a fizzing technical drawing" school of modelling

Did I mention I like it? Got a tad carried away there


rant over




b

[Shar2]

dr_gn said:

I think they look good highlighted on a model if they are fine enough. Airfix seem to like trench panel lines and even though many reviewers comment on this, they invariably still add a panel line wash to their review models which just makes them look even deeper. IMO yours looks way better with no highlights.

As much as I like Airfix kits, I have to agree with you. Their 1:72 aircraft suffer quite badly with very deep panel lines, which make them look like their Corgi cousins. Yet, Airfix seem to get it right with their 1:48 and larger kits, including this Seafire, whose panels were quite restrained and fine.

[dr_gn]

Shar2 said:

dr_gn said:

I think they look good highlighted on a model if they are fine enough. Airfix seem to like trench panel lines and even though many reviewers comment on this, they invariably still add a panel line wash to their review models which just makes them look even deeper. IMO yours looks way better with no highlights.

As much as I like Airfix kits, I have to agree with you. Their 1:72 aircraft suffer quite badly with very deep panel lines, which make them look like their Corgi cousins. Yet, Airfix seem to get it right with their 1:48 and larger kits, including this Seafire, whose panels were quite restrained and fine.

Probably the same process used to generate the panel lines in 1:72 and 1:48, hence they look better in the larger scale.

[SlipStream77]

Very nicely done.

The spinner looks longer than on a normal Spitfire, was there any paricular reason for that?

[Eric Mc]

What's a "normal" Spitfire?

The spinner size and shape varied quite a bit on the Spitfire almost from the very beginning. Even the MkI had three types of spinner/propellor combination.

The Griffon spitfires had the largest spinners due to the larger and more complex propellor arrangements.

[Shar2]

Eric has answered the question, but thought it might be good to show the real thing. This is the one currently on the airshow circuit.

[Eric Mc]

That one suffered a wheeels up landing last year and I'm not sure if it's back in the air yet.

[perdu]

wheels up landing or not, isnt "she" beautiful

I think the Seafire variants look especially good with Griffon engines

Oh look

hardly no technical drawing panel lines no place at all guv

[Eric Mc]

They also look good in that particular scheme.

[Shar2]

I'll be building the other one in the stash in that scheme Eric.

[Marshdweller]

That is a beautiful model! I am inclined to agree with the others, the clean look is much nicer than the battered and grimy look that lots of modellers seem to consider the only way to finish a kit.

[Shar2]

Marshdweller said:

That is a beautiful model! I am inclined to agree with the others, the clean look is much nicer than the battered and grimy look that lots of modellers seem to consider the only way to finish a kit.

Thanks for the nice comment. Unfortunately the dirty grimey look is the fad of the moment. I've entered a couple of competitions recently and some of the winners in other classes, (particularly armour), looked like they'd spent years in a scrap yard, instead of being an operational machine.

[perdu]

Quite!!!!!


I put my SAR Wessex on the table at my local club

it scored 17 out of 25

"oh it was too clean and shiney"

On a Helicopter that is kept washed and polished because of potential corrosion from sea water?


Taught me a lesson, bugger competitions these days

(2 points for being on a base!)


signed Disappointed of the West Mids

[Eric Mc]

I don't officially enter competitions - even though every month the club does hold one and any model I bring along is automatically included.


a) I don't want to get competitive with my modelling

b) I'm not good enough to win.

[Shar2]

perdu said:

Quite!!!!!


I put my SAR Wessex on the table at my local club

it scored 17 out of 25

"oh it was too clean and shiney"

On a Helicopter that is kept washed and polished because of potential corrosion from sea water?

That's basically why my USS Olymipa didn't get better than a third at Newbury. The 1st and 2nd in the class were heavily weathered, whereas my ship, (note, it's a museum ship still extant in the US), was far too clean. I still might enter competitions, will just see how I feel on the day. Next show is Yate.