The following is one of over 5,000 great modeling articles created through iModeler.

iModeler Review: Airfix 1/48 Spitfire P.R. XIX

March 3, 2013 in Reviews

Martin asked me a couple weeks ago if I would do the first “formal” (i.e., commissioned”) review for iModeler, of the new Airfix 1/48 Spitfire P.R. XIX. Saying “yes” was easy and within a week the box showed up here at l’Chateau du Chat.

There are basically two things to be said about the kit: 1) it is a very easy build; the hardest part is waiting for the paint to dry to proceed to the next step, and 2) it’s the best Spitfire kit Airfix has done since the Spitfire 22/24/Seafire 47 kits. I had it together and ready for painting in a matter of days in the midst of making last minute changes for my editor on my current book project.

The kit is logically thought out in terms of production design, and fits so well I didn’t use any seam filler or putty anywhere. While the full suite of cameras is provided as part of the interior detail, the only way you’ll see them is to open up the hatches. While Airfix provides the seperate hatches, they didn’t mold the fuselage halves with them open (which would have been easy to do and would allow a modeler the easy choice of open or closed – my one complaint on this), which leaves one with the option of carving the hatch open, with all the associated opportunities for “operator error” in getting the opening right. I chose not to do that, though I did assemble the cameras to see how they would fit inside the fuselage, and they fit just fine.

Airfix doesn’t provide seat belts or decal instruments for the panel. I used some of my dwindling supply of lead foil from wine bottles to make some seat belts, and used Aeroscale instrument decals for the panel. Since there is no side flap on the cockpit of the P.R. XIX (the cockpit was pressurized), you’re not going to see a lot of detail inside, and what the kit provides is more than enough with some judicious painting.

Since I had received a set of the new Xtradecals sheet for the P.R. XIX, I chose to use them for purposes of the review. The kit decals are fine, but these are better. Certain folks who visit here regularly will be happy to know that the one foreign operator that is provided on that sheet is the Turkish Air Force, for P.R.XIX “6553”. I think that at least one of the World War II options may be for one of the first 25 P.R. XIXs that were unpressurized and did have the cockpit side flap; you should do your research before doing one of these options – you will also need 4-spoke wheel hubs, since the 3-spoke hubs were post-war only. You would also need to cut off the pressurization intake below the exhausts on the left cowling. I chose to do the most colorful of the post-war versions, the airplane from 504 Squadron at RAF Benson, circa 1949-50. The sheet also provides PS890, which flew the last RAF sortie from Seletar, Singapore, in 1955. If you have the contra-rotating props from the Seafire 46/47 kit, you could use these markings to do this airplane as it was modified at Planes of Fame in 1998-2002 for an attempt at the World Time-to-Climb Record, which was planned to be accomplished on the Spitfire’s 70th anniversary in 2005 (though not done after the airplane was sold to The Fighter Collection where it can now be found at Duxford). I might do this at some time in the future.

I painted the interior with Xtracrylix “RAF Interior Grey-Green,” and painted the exterior with Xtracrylix “PRU Blue,” after pre-shading the panel lines with flat black to give “depth” to the monochromatic scheme.

Airfix provides wingwalk markings and other stencils for the Swedish option, but strangely does not do so for the RAF version, so I used a sheet of Lifelike Decals Spitfire stencils here.

While the kit canopy is clear, the only way to pose it open is to use the option which has the rear glass molded inside the canopy glass, which doesn’t look too realistic to me, but is an option if you have no alternative. I used a sliding canopy section from a Falcon vacuform canopy.

Overall the kit is very nice and provides a type heretofore not done by a mainstream kit manufacturer. It is obvious from the fact it has a Spitfire XIV prop instead of the correct larger-diamater P.R. XIX prop (something only the seriously-anal Spit boffin will agonize over), that Airfix is planning a Spitfire XIV. I test-fitted a Spitfire 22/24 wing to this kit’s fuselage and the fit was perfect, so a Spitfire 21/Seafire 45 will be possible once the Spitfire XIV is released (now that the 22/24 has been re-released).

There are no difficulties in assembly of this kit and it would be acceptable for a beginner to do for a first “serious” kit since the painting and markings are also simple.

As a final note, after completing the model, I learned that the Spitfire XIX does not have a framed sliding hood – it’s just clear plastic, like the Malcolm hood for a P-51B. So do not paint the sliding frame or the rear section of glass when you do yours. (he said, dipping his sliding canopy in 409 cleaner to take off the acrylic paint).

I am definitely looking forward to “things to come.”

11 additional images. Click to enlarge

People who liked this article:
Profile photo of EditorEditorGuestGuest

16 responses to iModeler Review: Airfix 1/48 Spitfire P.R. XIX

  1. Magic! Great review/build/pics. Nice one Tom 🙂

  2. TC, that’s a really nice job. Looks like a good kit, and you gotta love RAF PR blue!

  3. Very nice work on this new Airfix kit, Tom.
    I can definately see a Swedish S31 for me sometime soon… 🙂

  4. Other than an uneducated appreciation for their lovely, graceful lines, I don’t know spit about Spits, but this is a lovely example.

    BTW, if you’re running low on lead foil, all you need to do is drink more French wines…. not sure if it’s real lead but does seem the same. 😉

  5. Very nice Tom. That makes me want one.

  6. Hi Tom,
    If anyone had any doubts about the quality of Airfix’s ‘new era’ kits, your build of this fantastic model should remove them. It looks absolutely perfect. The cowl profile & wing planform are spot on. Mine won’t be in its box for long, that’s for sure. Congratulations..

  7. That looks great, Tom. Airfix really has secured their place back among the kit manufacturers, haven’t they? I’ve built several of their “new” kits, and I think that they’re great.

    • Airfix is most definitely “back,” and fulfilling the kind of role they played when I first discovered them 50+ years ago: models that allow you to have fun building them (that are now quite accurate, back then they were “close enough” for we who knew nothing), that you can build your skills with, that even advanced modelers can have fun with.

  8. As a true afficionado of the Spitfire curves (see my other site ), I can only add that the new Airfix Mk. XIX model looks and feels very much like a Griffon Spit – I’d say even more so than their earlier 1/72 Mk. XIX offering. An yes please take note it’s an entirely subjective judgement… – but a judgement nonetheless :).

  9. Hi Tom,
    You said on your built report :
    “It is obvious from the fact it has a Spitfire XIV prop instead of the correct larger-diamater P.R. XIX prop ”
    Is it a solution ( to get much closer view for Mk XIX propeller) to use the Barracuda resin propeller set for Airfix Spitfire 22/24? İs there any difference between the spinner and propeller of XIX and 22/24 versions?

  10. No, thats as wrong as can be.

    The Mk.XIV/XIX used the Griffon 65 which was geared to accommodate a Rotol R19/5F5/1 10′ 5″ Prop because the gear-stroke of the earlier Griffon Spits was insufficient for the R14/5F5/2 11′ prop.

    The 22 and 24 were driven by the Griffon 61 and the gear-stroke was increased by 4 inches to provide ground clearance for the larger prop.

    Additionally, the Barracudacast (ex-Cooper) Griffon prop won’t fit the new XIX, the spinner is to large in diameter, the front face of the Griffon Spitfire cowl is 28″ in diameter, the Airfix 22/24 kits measure out correctly, the PR.XIX is 1″ smaller, not enough to be noticable but it means an overlap if you try to use the current Barracudacast parts.

    • Brett Green used the blades, not the spinner on his kit/ Before it got changed to a Griffon-85 with contraprop (from a Shackleton) when PS-890 was out at Chino, it had its original Griffon with a larger diameter prop than did the Spit XIV that came over from The Fighter Collection. That according to Steve Hinton who hadn’t realized it till he sat in the XIV after sitting in PS890 and realizing the horizon was different.

  11. Whatever was fitted to PS890 is irrelevant, the configuration was non-standard and not what was used in service.

    Initially a ‘service’ PR.XIX had a Griffon 65, updated to the Griffon 66 when the cockpit blower was added for the pressurised version, both engines were specifically geared to drive a 10′ 5″ prop, exactly as per the XIV.

    The Griffon 61 and 11′ prop was the desired combination as the prop had been designed to make the most of the Griffons power however the ground clearance limitations made fitting the 11′ prop to the earlier Griffon variants unfeasible, it was the introduction of the revised 22/24 pattern wing and longer stroke undercarriage that provided greater ground clearance and allowed the 11′ prop to be used.

    There was no ‘PR.XIX’ specific prop and it certainly wasn’t the same as the prop fitted to the 22/24 series.

  12. I think the Airfix product range has come on in leaps & bounds recently. It looks like a great kit & a really nice build of yours by the way. Your PR.XIX review has certainly certainly cemented the kit into my wish-list.

  13. I love these “new era” Airfix 1:48 Spitfires but have one reservation about them – why oh why does Airfix insist on using the “trap the prop between the fuselage halves” method of construction? It makes rubbing down the fuselage joint much more difficult and adds extra masking work before spraying; much better to have used the “hang it on a moulded spigot” type used by other makers – the prop can then be the last item to be added to the finished model. The problem can be got round easily using a length of sprue, but better if it had been designed that way. Otherwise great.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.