Classic Early Spitfire Kits in 1/72... Or Thereabouts

During the peak of my teen model building years (1977 to 1979, when I was turning out roughly a model a day), the Spitfire enthusiast had a few choices. Oh, don't get me wrong, there were plenty of conversion kits out there, but for the average model builder, or the younger ones, standard kits were the only fare. Depending upon the variant you chose, you either were faced with true beauties or mediocre.

It was around this time that I discovered that each manufacturer had their own approach to the plane, with some better than others. In March of 1978, I found a number of Revell battle scene kits that usually consisted of two to three aircraft and a box that would convert into a diorama of sorts. One of these was a Battle of Britain type set that contained a Spitfire Mk.II and a Bf-109E; I know that there were three planes in the kit, I just don't recall which one was doubled. The Spitfire Mk.II really fascinated me, though to my fifteen year old brain it did not look quite right. Still, Mayport Naval Station's Hobby Shop had the kits at $1.39 each, so I walked away with two of them.
I do remember that Art's Hobby Shop had also found some of those Revell Famous Fighter Plane series models in his storage room, and he brought those out as well, marked still at $.79 a piece. Either way, I soon had a number of the Revell Spitfires, bumps and all.
Still, they looked odd. It was when I picked up another Spitfire (the old Heller Spitfire Mk.Vb) that I discovered that the Revell kit was too long (Spitfire Mk.V's were the same length as Mk.I's and II's sans propellers). Painted and displayed, however, the models didn't look so bad.
Aside from the Revell kit (which I currently do not have in my collection), the 1960's through 1970's saw a few 1/72 early Spitfire kits produced. In addition to the Revell kit, there is an earlier Frog kit that is not shown here, though its heritage can be seen in the PM Models Mk.Vb.
The eldest Spitfire in this collection is the Heller Mk.I, with dies that date back to the 1960's, followed by Hasegawa's offering from the late 60's - early 70's.

In 1975, Monogram released a SnapTite Spitfire Mk.II. This is its current incarnation.

Not shown is the packaging for the Airfix Spitfire Mk.I, released in 1978.
When you open the traditional kits and compare them side by side, you see that all three kits are fairly decent, with the Heller kit on the left, Hasegawa in the center and Airfix on the right. The Heller kit has rivets, though they aren't too bad. The Hasegawa kit is unique in that it allows the builder the option of building a very early Mk.I with flat canopy and two bladed propeller, whereas the Airfix kit is fairly simple but almost dead accurate. In fact, the Airfix kit was derived from their earlier Mk.Vb, released in the early 1970's and also very accurate.

It's when you examine the wings that you discover the big errors. While the Heller and Hasegawa kits are fairly well detailed, they botch the shape of the wings, in particular the undersides. Only the Airfix kit (right) gets it correct. In fact, the Hasegawa kit has other issues as well; what are those "strakes" on the wings? This was a problem that most Spitfire kits had at this time, failing to model the slight gull wing.

As for complexity, the Airfix kit, in addition to being the most accurate, is the simplist. The Heller kit, though, has three full sprues, though fewer parts than the Hasegawa kit (just a note; I've not included images of the canopies here; my camera was having issues taking them).


There is another issue, though, and again it involves the Heller kit. Years ago, when trying to combine parts from the Heller Mk.Vb and I, I discovered that the earlier mark was smaller. It seems that Heller's Spitfire Mk.I is actually 1/75 scale, just slightly smaller than 1/72.

So much for the traditional kits, how about the Monogram SnapTite model? Well, in its current form, it is a Revell kit, labelled 1/72, and curiously pre-painted.


The colors don't look right; that "brown" (supposed to be dark earth) looks too red, while the green is light. The plastic is molded in a color that is close to sky, though a little dark, and the markings are painted on (curiously, the plane they represent is a Mk.I, the "County of Chester", 610 Squadron, Royal Auxillary Air Force, during the Battle of Britain, 1940).
Again, the kit is labeled as a 1/72 model. It is not; it is 1/64 (see previous entry). Compared to a 1/72 kit, it is quite large.

And again, as with too many Spitfire kits, the underside is wrong.

Which model do I recommend? Aside from the Monogram/Revell SnapTite model, the only one of those classic kits that is still available is the Airfix kit, and amazingly, aside from very basic detailing and raised panel lines, still represents the Spitfire Mk.I best. With a little work, it can be made to represent all of the early "A wing" variants.

Some Notes About Scales

So, perhaps you're wondering, why 1/72? Why not something else, say 1/50 or 1/100, something nice and round perhaps. Well, I've given this a lot of thought myself, and I think we have the English to blame for this wonderful (there, I said it) scale. Yes, I really do think it is the best scale for my model building.
In my personal collection, I try to stay as close as possible, allowing some deviations, usually within 10% larger or smaller. The reason is that there are still some older kits out there that might not be exactly 1/72. Very occasionally, I stray beyond that 10% limit.
The first model company that made 1/72 aircraft was Skybirds out of the UK. Their models were wooden, with little bits of metal detailing. They began production in the early 1930's. As to why they chose such an odd scale is subject of some debate. A normal English standard ruler is divide into fractions based on a logical procession; 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc. 1/72 is 1/6 of an inch equals 1 foot. It doesn't make sense to most; why that scale?
Well, it so happens that there were rulers a foot (sorry; had to) that used 1/6" measurements, and these were normally used by typesetters. You see, 1/6" is an English Pica, the standard measure in typography. The folks at A.J. Holladay & Company simply used that measurement to create a model scale that would allow the average person of limited means the ability to build up a nice little collection at low costs, and yet make the models just large enough to be easy to build.
FROG Models, which started out making flying model airplanes, soon got into the business. They had discovered that the same process that they used for creating the propellers on their flying models (casting them from cellulose acetate) could be used for making model airplanes as well. They followed Skybird's example and chose 1/72 for their FROG Penguin line, which ran until the late 1940's.
By the 1950's, both FROG (which had gotten back into the game, though they dropped "Penguin") and a new company, Airfix, began in earnest to produce models in constant 1/72, or as close as they could get (there were a few kits that strayed into odd scales).
On this side of the pond (that is to say, here in the US), the predominant scale was 1/48, which works out to 1/4 inch equals 1 foot. Easy scale for the average builder. Until the advent of styrene models, it held a strong grasp on the market. However, World War II would introduce a challenger; the Department of War wanted recognition models in 1/72. Some companies (including Hawk) would make plastic recognition models, some of which would evolve into kits.
There was another scale, though, that could have eclipsed 1/72 for compactness. A typical World War II fighter plane in 1/48 scale has a span of between 8 and 11 inches (about 200 to 275mm). For someone living in a small house or apartment, a few kits would soon take up a lot of space, and larger multi-engined aircraft could be huge. But, in the 1930's, A.C. Gilbert introduced S scale model trains, which used the scale of 3/16 of an inch equals 1 foot. This was 1/64 scale.
1/64 scale did not catch on as a model airplane scale, though. Some of the early injection molded airplanes over here, namely the Revell B-25B/C and the Monogram B-25H, were close. Revell had a real tendency to produce "box scale" models which worked out to a variety of scales, none of them constant, and a few of their later models were again very close (the Douglas Skyrocket, the X-15 and the Douglas X-3 come to mind). One American company, though, chose to make kits in 1/64, and chose to say so. That was the Lindberg Line.
In the late 1950's, they introduced a series of bombers in 1/64; B-17, B-58, Ju-88, and an He-111. On the side of the boxes, they proudly proclaimed that the scale was 3/16"=1'.
And that was it.
Lindberg would then begin producing models in more standardized scales, with a good number of 1/72 models being tooled in the mid-1960's.
That wasn't the end for 1/64 scale model aircraft here in the states.
In 1975, Monogram, known mainly for their 1/48 kits (though they did have a nice selection of 1/72 models) produced a series of 1/64 Snap-Tite model airplane kits; a Spitfire Mk.II, a P-51D, a P-40E and a Bf-109G. Why they chose this scale is a mystery to me. Perhaps they chose it as a compromise. There was already a standard box that size, allowing the models to be small, but not so small as to be difficult for the target audience, very young model builders. Regardless, it was the last hoorah for 1/64 scale model airplanes. In the US, 1/48 would soon take over as the most common scale for "serious" model builders. Elsewhere, 1/72 would remain as popular as ever.
One more note; a company out of Israel known as Starfix has a random production run. From time to time, they produce a Messeschmitt Bf-109 and a Spitfire that are frequently labelled 1/48. I'm not certain of what scale they are, but I somehow suspect that they might be closer to 1/64.

A Couple of Hawk Sea Birds

Some of the first models I built were by Hawk Models out of Chicago, Illinois. This company had a proud heritage, starting with solid wood and balsa models in the 1930's, mainly in 1/48 scale. They were one of the first companies that embraced plastic injection molded models, starting with recognition models during World War II, in the then accepted standard of 1/72. They would return to 1/48 models in the 1950's, but did have a small number of 1/72 kits, some of which could be traced back to dies used for those early recognition models. In the mid-1960's, Hawk produced its last 1/72 scale aircraft, four very simple kits designed to be somewhat accurate but very easy to build; a Spitfire Mk. 22, a Mitsubishi A6M-5 Zeke, a Messerschmitt Bf-109G (actually a Bf-109F) and a Grumman F4F Wildcat, though in actuality it was an Eastern Aircraft FM-2. By the early 1970's, though, Hawk was doing poorly as interest in plastic model building waned in this country, and soon Hawk was acquired by Testors, another Illinois based hobby company, first as a subsidiary but soon disappearing altogether. Currently, the remnants of Hawks models are split between Testors and a new Hawk Models, a division of J. Lloyd International, a toy manufacturer who also owns Lindberg Models, another childhood favorite.
Both of these models are Hawk in origin, an F4U-1 Corsair and the FM-2 Wildcat, with the latter being an original Hawk kit from 1967, whilst the Corsair is a recent Testors reissue.
The FM-2 is the simplest of the two, scarcely a dozen parts including the stand. It normally comes with no interior, basically a hollow kit. Landing gear weren't included with this series of kits, though it is certainly possible to build them if one so desires. I chose to keep the model as simple as possible, the only changes being made were to cobble together a simple cockpit for an Airfix pilot.

There is also no molded engine detail. I could have opened up the cowling and added one, but instead chose not to.

As for the markings. I wanted to have it represent a late war Wildcat VI for the Fleet Air Arm, though the markings are basically just representative and not for any particular aircraft. The color scheme is overall glossy sea blue (Testors Acryl), the decals from the spares box. A couple of decals did not take well and silvered around the edges. Oh well, that happens with older decals. This model was completed on the 22nd of April, 2010, with a build that lasted really only a few hours.
(A quick note about the Testors Acryl Dark Sea Blue. I brush paint my models; I could airbrush, but prefer that my Paasche be used for my artwork. For some reason, this color has a tendency to bubble up in some places. It might be the age of that bottle, certainly a few years old. The Wildcat, sadly, has a few more bubbles than I care for.)
The Corsair is straight from the box, a Testors release from dies that quite probably date back to those recognition models of World War II. This model is a real mix bag; it has recessed panel lines but a flat deck for a cockpit, the pilot being just shoulders and a head. Engine detail is lacking but the landing gear look nice.


This model is painted for late war, again overall glossy sea blue. Markings are for VF-84, USS Bunker Hill, early 1945. A very simple model, no modifications were made; kit was build late Decmber, 2007.
Perhaps these aren't the most detailed or well painted models, but for me, they were great fun to build.

But First, Let's Talk Spitfires

My favorite (make that favourite) airplane of all time is the Supermarine Spitfire.
All marks.
And there are a lot of them.
I first fell in love with the Spitfire in 1978, after seeing one at an air show where a few P-47's, my favorite plane up until that point, were gathered. It was dainty, a little sports car of an airplane. It was done in typical RAF day fighter camouflage (dark green, ocean grey upper surfaces, medium sea grey under), replete with invasion stripes. It changed my world.
I had known, up to that point, that the Spitfire was a veritable chameleon, starting off with a two bladed propeller, ending with counter-rotating props, developing a bubble canopy, wing redesigned late war... by the time it ended production it was a wholly different aircraft! I had built a few of them and so was somewhat familiar with the plane (the first one I actually built was the classic Airfix Mk. IXc, late winter 1977. I was actually given the MPC Profile series version of this kit in 1972, but never built it due to the fact that it had German markings by mistake!).
When the Spitfire Madness took to my blood, I sought to build every major variant in 1/72. The problem was, not every version was made in injection molded form. One of my first attempts was a conversion of the very easily obtained Airfix Mk. IXc into an early Spitfire Mk. I, with a two bladed prop.
Suffice to say, horrid results.
Within a week, though, I discovered a plethora a Spitfire variants, available at the nearest hobby shop (Art's) as well as the one at the naval base. Not long after, I managed to cobble together about a dozen kits (they were so inexpensive back then). Pleased as punch I was!
From that experience, I learnt a few things about the kits that were available back then and in the intervening years -
1. If you want to model a Spitfire Mk. I (or a simple conversion to a II), the absolute best kit is still the Airfix model. Yes, Tamiya makes a nice one with recessed panel lines and a very nice interior, but they managed to botch a portion of the profile. Airfix's is still dead on, though far simpler.
2. Amongst classic model kits, there was only one readily available Mk. II kit; Revell. They almost got the underside of the wings right but the plane has length problems (fuselage is as long as a Mk. IX, stretched in a couple of places), longish landing gear and a somewhat squashed canopy (something it shares with the recent Hobby Boss Spits). Frog made a Mk. II/Mk. Va early on, but was pretty scarce during my heyday of building.
3. Back in the day, the best Mk. IX model was the KP Kopro kit, from Czechoslovakia. But it was a fairly uncommon sub-variant; an LF Mk. IXe. Converting it into a usable Mk. IXc (a more common variant) was pretty taxing.
5. Just because a kit is newer doesn't mean they get it right. Most modern manufacturers like to tout things like detailed interiors, wheel wells and a plethora of parts. Yet they still manage to botch certain aspects of the Spitfire's appearance, namely the slight gull wing appearance of the underside. Personally, I've not built many of the newer kits that have come along since the mid-1980's, but I have seen others as built and have read from some pretty reliable sources the shortcomings.
6. Why am I fretting over such details? This is supposed to be fun! Still, I want for them to look right. There are a few "core" kits from which many of the other variants can be built. It just takes a bit of ingenuity.
I have a few Spit kits in the stash already, though I think I know which one is going to be built first.
The classic Airfix Mk. IXc, bumps and all.

A Modest Start

I have a number of blogs, because I have many interests and hobbies. My oldest hobby is model building, namely model aircraft and quite often in 1/72, give or take.
Now, prior to my building model airplanes, I did have a disastrous start in model building at the age of six with the Revell "Atomic Space Explorer Solaris" around 1969; sad, so sad.
After we moved back to Florida, and within a mile of an airport, my interest moved to airplanes, and I wanted to build one. My first model airplane was Lindberg's "Strategic Strafer", a P-47D in around 1/80 scale. It didn't go that well, but it was a start. Over the next few years, I would build a model or two (my family was not financial well off), again mostly 1/72, and I can even name them still. My serious period, though, began in 1975, when my best friend Craig and I began a small scale arms race.
Most of those early "serious" attempts are comical in retrospect; gloss paint that appeared to have been applied with a trowel, decals not quite aligned, totally wrong colors. Beginning in spring of 1977, my interests turned to prototypical appearance, real scale modeling. I discovered the Pactra and Humbrol lines of paint, as well as Polly S acrylics. I learned how to fill seams, and researched the aircraft's appearance for the markings and camouflage being applied.
After the death of Craig's mother in early December, 1977, and his subsequent (and I might add immediate) moving away, I found it necessary to sooth my broken heart the best way I knew how, with my model building. By the end of 1978, I had built so many model aircraft that I ran out of shelf space; we resorted to mounting them on pegboards in my bedroom.
My bedroom looked like an aircraft recognition training room.
By that point, I had built models in several scales, but the vast majority were still 1/72 and most of those RAF/Fleet Air Arm.
I slowly moved away from model building as other interests (read: girls) began to take precedent. The next few years saw the vast bulk of my collection slowly lost until none survived.
Over the next couple of decades, I would occasionally build airplanes, though the bulk of my hobbies were other models.
And I missed my model airplanes.
Slowly, over the past few years, I've begun building airplanes again. It is like embracing an old friend. Now, don't get me wrong, I have been building other models and even have a very large space model collection. But model spacecraft tend to be exacting in appearance; they have to look pristine, clean. Model ship building is demanding in other ways. Model airplanes, on the other hand, can be either exacting or just fun. Don't rig the antenna wire on a 1/72 F4U-1 and nobody will notice. Forget to rig a model of the HMS Bounty, and it's kind of hard to miss.
So, I build for fun these days. Sure, there will be spacecraft and ships listed here, as well as some armor. But the model airplanes are for fun.
And I plan on sharing in my experience right here.