Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / September 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Whither Airfix...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Drew Hill - 28 May 2006 10:16 GMT
Hey all!

Got into a discussion with a firedn recently about Airfix models.
He claims that airfix is such a low quality that they ought to
just quit and get out of the business.  I countered that although
they may be lower quality thatn HaseJimiEri kits, they provide
a worthwhile opportunity for people with low abilities, low in-
come, and low expectations to get a start in modelling.  I also
pointed out that Airfix has done some rather unusual kits in
their time (Westland Scout, Bloodhound Missile, first C-130)
and should be given some respect for at least FORCING some
modellers to acquire finishing and detailing skills which they
otherwise would never gain with the top end $30 kits.

What do you guys think?  Does a company like Airfix have a
really good reason to be in the market?  Dothey need to
change their business plan? Should they dump the old kits
thus forcing either themselves or other companies to create
new molds?

Inquiring minds want to know!  :)
Enzo Matrix - 28 May 2006 10:58 GMT
Drew Hill offered me a plate of cheese and whispered:
> Hey all!
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Inquiring minds want to know!  :)

Airfix *should* stay in the business, if only to keep their 1/48 Spitfire 24
on the market!  :-D  That's a very nice kit. It is detailed enough for
newcomers to the hobby to produce a decent model from it. It is accurate
enough to satisfy experience modellers. And it provides a useful source of
Griffon engines to build MkXIVs, MkXVIIIs and MkXIXs from your favourite
late-Merlin kit!

But Airfix are by no means finished. Look at the popularity of their recent
TSR2 kit. Many modellers are looking forwards to their forthcoming Canberra
and Nimrod.

As for the older kits...  although they may have their problems with lack of
detail or hideous rivets and trenches, many of them are quite accurate in
outline. A modeller can add detail if required. A kit assembler (not that
there is anything wrong with kit assembly) can ignore the Airfix kits and
concentrate on the modern Tamigawa stuff. Everybody is happy.

Also, I don't believe that the dumping of an old mould would necessarily
force companies to create new high quality moulds of that prototype.  The
FROG Gannet hasn't been freely available for some time, yet none of the
mainstream manufacturers have seen fit to replace it with a new injection
moulded one. Some types are just a little too exotic for their own good.  As
for the old Airfix moulds that *would* sell in a new guise - well, there
*already* modern moulds of Spitfires, Bf109s and F-4s. The fact that Airfix
haven't already withdrawn their old kits shows that they must still sell.

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

e - 28 May 2006 15:04 GMT
>Drew Hill offered me a plate of cheese and whispered:
>> Hey all!
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>*already* modern moulds of Spitfires, Bf109s and F-4s. The fact that Airfix
>haven't already withdrawn their old kits shows that they must still sell.

who else would do a 1/72 bv 141 and keep it in production?
airfix kits can be as good as you want them to be.
Stephen Tontoni - 28 May 2006 18:28 GMT
Airfix isn't done, but unless they come up with some new good stuff,
they don't have much credibility any longer. Many of their older
offerings have been supplanted by newer, more complete kits with all the
bells and whistles. Latest two that come to mind for me are the Valom
TBD and the MPM Hudson. That being said, even their old stuff tended to
be scaled right and accurate in shape. According to the latest Ginter
book on the Devastator, Airfix got the cowl right; Valom missed...
40(ish?) years after the Airfix release! (I haven't really done the
pepsi challenge myself, but you get the point)

Airfix does have lots and lots of ancient stuff that they keep pumping
out. Their latest kit, the TSR-2, is supposedly a limited issue beastie;
I don't actually believe that for an instant. They'll ride the wave as
long as they can, probably long after anyone else would have. That's
Airfix business.

The last 'new' Airfix kit I picked up was the DC-3 (ex-Italeri) and I
mostly bought it for the gorgeous Canadian decals. For only US$10, it
was more than worth it. Will they keep re-selling other companies' work,
and adding decals? It was a formula that I liked.

--- Stephen
Richard Brooks - 28 May 2006 11:00 GMT
> Hey all!
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> a worthwhile opportunity for people with low abilities, low in-
> come, and low expectations to get a start in modelling.

Exactly!  Imagine some child with their face stuck up against the shop
window, looking on in awe at the boxes and at least being able to buy
one of the cheap 'in a bag' kits for a few dollars.

They'll be so enthusiastic they won't want to build it over a week or
month.  They'll want it done in a few minutes.  It'll be done relatively
badly, probably with glue on the canopy but the important thing is -
it'll be their model.  They'll probably run around the house and garden
with it in their hand pretending that it flies and it'll break.  After a
few tears it'll be forgotten as they know next week and another visit to
the model shop is not far off.

I think this was the sort of thinking behind the Airfix household ever
since their unwitting success with the advertisers model of the tractor
and plough made out of Biro's and rubber which prospective clients for
the real thing actually enjoyed building or at least giving it to their
children to play with.

>  I also
> pointed out that Airfix has done some rather unusual kits in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> thus forcing either themselves or other companies to create
> new molds?

From feedback from my mate who has been in the kit selling and making
business for some years, it would be financial death to try to gain
grounds over the metal units industry in this "I want it now and don't
even think that I want to paint or make it!" time.

The production costs for designing and making the molds are very high
indeed and if there is no real take-up on the resultant kit then you are
in big trouble.

I think their thinking is still tied to the old family
Triang/Meccano/Lesney way of doing things and that's to give good
service even after the kit is sold.  Is there a lost piece in the kit ?
 I don't know of many young hopefuls who have been turned away by Airfix ?

> Inquiring minds want to know!  :)

Although I am still mainly working in 3D graphics I still use kits like
Airfix as a good reference over plan form documentation and I do plan to
build them when I get my large shed built with bench and tools, and as
support to Airfix I've joined their club!  :-)

<http://www.airfix.com>

Richard.

Signature

  Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
<http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html>

Bruce Probst - 29 May 2006 03:54 GMT
>They'll be so enthusiastic they won't want to build it over a week or
>month.  They'll want it done in a few minutes.  It'll be done relatively
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>few tears it'll be forgotten as they know next week and another visit to
>the model shop is not far off.

Hey!  Stop digging around in my memories!

My first-ever kit ... must have been ca. 1974 ... the Airfix Gazelle
helicopter in one of the card-and-plastic "display packs" ... glued
together in approximately half-an-hour (or less), painted with my older
brother's left-over Humbrols (what do you mean, Gazelles aren't silver
and gloss green with a glossy red rotor?), a complete disaster (the
skids wouldn't stay on, the canopy had more glue and paint on it than
was left clear, and the main rotor broke off within minutes).  But it
was *fun*.  And it had me hooked.

Bruce
Melbourne, Australia
Richard Brooks - 29 May 2006 10:42 GMT
>>They'll be so enthusiastic they won't want to build it over a week or
>>month.  They'll want it done in a few minutes.  It'll be done relatively
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Bruce
> Melbourne, Australia

That's exactly it and back then, companies weren't just hard-faced money
grabbing monoliths with 'client-sponsor interface situations'.  They
seemed like an old uncle who probably made them in a dusty old garage
somewhere.  They didn't need a whole publicity unit to jump into action
to help out with a missing piece.

In fact some of that is nearer to the truth.  Steering away from plastic
for a second, just look into the history of Meccano as an example of
old-style business (starting at 'Mechanics Made Easy').

<http://www.internationalmeccanomen.org.uk/REFERENCES/Meccano/CollandHistseries/M
eccHistory1901-1981/josthist.html
>

<http://www.matchboxmemories.com/Lesney%20History/lesney_history.htm>
<http://www.hornby.com/pages/hist.aspx>

I'm hoping to make a visit and buy some of those bag sets that can be
found at the back of the (I think it's called) Model Miniatures in
Clapham, London which is a tiny little hovel with some nice surprises in
the dark corners.

Richard.

Signature

  Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
<http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html>

kim - 28 May 2006 13:01 GMT
> Hey all!
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> really good reason to be in the market?  Dothey need to
> change their business plan?

As I've posted here before, Airfix is curently sited in neither one end of
the market or the other. They are neither cheap enough to be a source of
spares nor refined enough to attract premium customers. It annoys me that
Dragon can issue a complete sprue of new parts for an already-good model
while Airfix reissues a kit that was considered incomplete even in the
1960's. Airfix is all about "marketing" these days ie: "How can we inflate
the price of this model with fancy packaging and making it a limited
edition".

> Should they dump the old kits

Not completely but they should bring them up to date by issuing new detail
parts and/or reprice them in line with the general basicness they offer.

(kim)
tomcervo - 28 May 2006 14:12 GMT
Why do they keep making Spitfire kits? Because they sell. Airfix has a
niche in the starter/low price range that the high-price makers don't
serve. Their kits are also not "over-engineered"--the worst example in
that range being the recent Hasegawa Harriers. Like Monogram in the US,
Airfix makes a kit that you needn't be Shep Paine to make look like the
thing on the box.
And other companies release their old stuff in new boxes as well. It
took a master modeller to make the Hasegawa/Minicraft F-105 look as
good as it does--it being a 30 year old mold.
RobG - 28 May 2006 14:17 GMT
Their new "true" 1/72 scale armor kits like the Jeep, CCKW and the LCVP
(OK a boat) are pretty nice, but may be more on account of Heller's
involvement. Some of their old 1/76 armor kits are still respectable.
tonycynor@joimail.com - 28 May 2006 16:29 GMT
There are a number of model companies that produce crud at extremely
high prices. I think most of you know who they are.  So why should
Airfix be singled out? Just because it is "limited production" is no
reason for crud.  Like you say they do issue models of unusual types
not available else where.  The unfotunate part is you might encounter
less labor and frustration if one started out with some basswood chunks
and a decent set of patterns.

Tony
> Hey all!
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> a worthwhile opportunity for people with low abilities, low in-
> come, and low expectations to get a start in modelling.
Mad-Modeller - 29 May 2006 03:03 GMT
> Hey all!
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> a worthwhile opportunity for people with low abilities, low in-
> come, and low expectations to get a start in modelling.

I knew there was a reason I liked their stuff.

> I also
> pointed out that Airfix has done some rather unusual kits in
> their time (Westland Scout, Bloodhound Missile, first C-130)
> and should be given some respect for at least FORCING some
> modellers to acquire finishing and detailing skills which they
> otherwise would never gain with the top end $30 kits.

Amen.

> What do you guys think?  Does a company like Airfix have a
> really good reason to be in the market?  

The answer to that could be a flat, do they make money at it?  That's
cold but it is the reason they are in business.

> Do they need to
> change their business plan? Should they dump the old kits
> thus forcing either themselves or other companies to create
> new molds?

If we want people to get into modelling do we want them to spend mucho
dinero on something that they're going to futz the first time?  There
are a lot of kits out there now that cost a lot and I often wonder if
newbies don't get discouraged at, 1. the seeming myriad of parts, and,
2. the unlikely event the model will look at least as good as the one on
the boxlid.

I remember the constant chant during the late '60s and into the '70s
was, "I'd gladly pay more for a kit with better decals, better and more
detail and of the Farleigh Fruitbat that I love!"  Well, Fruitbats
aside, we have some tremendous kits out there and they do indeed cost
more.  Are we building more?

> Inquiring minds want to know!  :)

Now you have a piece of mine. ;Þ

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
SiG - 29 May 2006 07:15 GMT
>> Hey all!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Amen.

ahhhhhh...........Airfix
                                   My family still laugh about the time I
came home in tears after going into my local shop pointing at the DR1 and
saying to the woman.........'I'll have that Fokker there please !'....and
promptly got asked to leave!  well I was only 8 at the time and in them days
not many 8 year old knew language like that !

                                                                           
               Regards SiG
Chuck Ryan - 29 May 2006 09:54 GMT
> Hey all!
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Inquiring minds want to know!  :)

Like most of the other posters, I feel Airfix, Matchbox (even though, I
belive, RoG has most of their molds) do serve a couple purposes. They do
have that lower end of the price range covered for entry level builders,
experimenters and Fruitbat hunters. How many modelers would spring $15-$24
for a 1/72 anything for a paint dummy? Not me! And there are kits from those
two that I like better than Tamygawaimi offerings, as well as from R/M.
Turning out a very nice piece OOB from one of these kits is a reward in
itself but when they outplace high fallutin' detailed glamour kits, it is
like a bit of Heaven :-)

As a casual vendor, I cringe as Dad picks up Junior's first kit from a
selection of the high dollar stacks. It isn't that I think 'what a waste'
but more, as mentioned before, Junior will probably get so disgruntled by
too many parts, too fiddly a fit and watch in horror as that $20 kit goes
crashing to the floor from an accidental dropping. Would you give a 15 yr
old a Vette for his very first car?

Yes, all the improvements made in kits over the years are very nice and
welcomed by all of us whom slapped those 8-12 piece wonders together, so
long ago.  I'm glad we had to wait for them. Our skills were finally ready
for them.

--
Chuck Ryan
Springfield OH
Mechanical Menace - 01 Jun 2006 09:34 GMT
>> Hey all!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> Chuck Ryan
> Springfield OH

I've worked in a model shop and had (still have) the same thought.
I do think it is very important to have low priced kits in your
collection (being a shop) but what is also very important is (well at
least I always did) to have low priced kits that FIT.
If you want your (a) youngster to start building, you want him to like
building. Not being put off by a cheapo that can't be glued together how
hard you try.

I know a lot of youngsters (starters) start out with a CHEAP kit, so if
they screw up, the loss ain't that big, but they get put off by the fit
and don't bother buying a second kit.

Dennis
kim - 04 Jun 2006 01:11 GMT
> >> Hey all!
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> they screw up, the loss ain't that big, but they get put off by the fit
> and don't bother buying a second kit.

We seem to have strayed a bit but IMO Airfix kits were always a perfect fit
whatever their other shortcomings. (They also took paint very well). Their
weakness today is that they are not nearly as cheap or sophisricated -
relative to the rest of the model market - as they were in the 1960's.

[Bore everyone to tears Dept]

In the 1960's I used to subscribe to Model Airplane News despite living in
the UK. It staggered me then that Americans considered Airfix as being
"pocket money priced" despite being three times as expensive as they were in
the UK. The price at the time for a typical 1/72nd A/C kit was 2/6d in the
UK and $1 or 7/6d in the USA.

(kim)
Mad-Modeller - 04 Jun 2006 04:42 GMT
> In the 1960's I used to subscribe to Model Airplane News despite living in
> the UK. It staggered me then that Americans considered Airfix as being
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> (kim)

When I started buying and building Airfix aircraft Fokker Dr.Is were
going for 29¢, P-38s,-40s,-51s for 39¢, Ansons and Beaufighters for 49¢,
Hudsons and Bostons for 89¢, B-25s for $1.09 and B-17s and B-24s for
$1.29.  When Craftmaster took over distribution we started to see some
stranger prices like the $1.63 B-17 and PBY.  The period here is
1963-66.  I'll let you figure out the shillings as it never made sense
to me. :)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Mechanical Menace - 04 Jun 2006 11:43 GMT
>> In the 1960's I used to subscribe to Model Airplane News despite
>> living in the UK. It staggered me then that Americans considered
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

I never had anything against Airfix Kits, but I always saw it as a kind of
duty for me to encourage youngsters to build models.
If I had the notion that it was a starter or parents that came in and
wanted to buy a kit for a starter, I wanted to be sure I sold them a
"GOOD" kit to start with.
Enzo Matrix - 07 Jun 2006 19:18 GMT
> IMO Airfix kits were always a
> perfect fit whatever their other shortcomings. (They also took paint
> very well). Their weakness today is that they are not nearly as cheap
> or sophisricated - relative to the rest of the model market - as they
> were in the 1960's.

I've had an interesting day!

I finally got hold of the new Airfix 1/48 Spitfire IX.  As some of you may
know ('cos I'm constantly wittering on about it) I build quite a few
Spitfires. I was very interested to see the new Airfix kit.  I have seen no
online reviews about it at all!

Well...  The first thing that strikes one on picking up the box is that it
is *very* heavy. As soon as one opens the box the reason becomes apparent.
There is a *lot* of plastic in this kit.  There are two complete wing
assemblies, which at first I found quite puzzling. It turns out that the
wing assembly from the Spitfire Vc is also included, simply because there
are a number of parts on the sprues that are needed for the MkIX.  Despite
Airfix's claims, this is not a *wholly* new kit.

Some people have commented on the sprue gates in the Airfix TSR2.  If you
thought that they were big, you want to see the ones in *this* kit.  The Vc
sprue gates are horrendously huge! The gates on the new sprues are better,
but not at all what one would expect on the 21st century. Early '70s
perhaps...  To be honest, the large gates don't really matter as long as you
cut the parts from the sprues.  The plastic has a very nice texture and cuts
easily.  Where the large gates may cause problems are for kids who tend to
tear or twist the parts off.  The plastic will definitely tear and leave a
scar.

The surface detailing on the new parts is really rather nice. The panel
lines are slightly deeper than the equivalent lines on the Hasegawa kit, but
they are by no means trenches. I like them. However, the detail parts
themselves are quite heavy and slightly crude. There are ten parts which go
to make the cockpit interior, plus a three part pilot figure. I have a feeli
ng that these parts came from the earlier Vc kit. Although they will build
into a busy looking cockpit, the parts have no finesse whatsoever. They will
be acceptable with a closed access door and canopy, but a lot of work will
be needed to display the door and canopy open (there is a seperate door part
to allow this).  I much preferred the cockpit parts from the Mk24 kit.

The spinner and airscrew are abysmal! The spinner is greatly oversized. The
propellor blades look like four breadknives!  Just awful. I suppose that the
blades could be reshaped, but I'm afraid that the only alternative with the
spinner is to buy a new one from Ultracast - which also solves the blade
problem.

The fuselage seems to be of scale length and has two alternative upper
cowlings - one for the Rolls-Royce engined MkIX and one for the Packard
engined MkXVI. A MkXVI *can* be built from the kit, but only in full
fuselage guise.

Obviously, I haven't built this kit yet, nor will I be doing so in the
future (sounds ominous, I know, but see later). However, I have done a quick
dry fit. The parts fit very well. As I've mentioned before, the fuselage
seems accurate. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the wings.

The planform is great. There are four sets of wingtips (standard, factory
clipped, field clipped and extended). There are three types of gunbay
covers. But the problem doesn't lie with the planform, it lies with the
cross section. The Spitfire wing was a triumph of engineering design. The
cross section and incidence change constantly along the span of the wing.
The tips actually have *negative* incidence. It is very important to capture
this feature - Airfix have tried valiantly to do so, but have just missed
the mark.

The wing on the earlier Vc was dreadful - it looked like a plank of wood! I
had a number of concerns about the wing on this new kit when I saw pictures
of the test shots on the Airfix website. It didn't look quite right but I
couldn't quite put my finger on the problem. Now that I have seen it, I know
what the problem is. The wing roots are far too deep. Not as deep as those
on the Academy MkXIV, but deeper than they should be, and it is quite
noticeable. The flaps are seperate items and the trailing edges are about
three scale inches thick! This thickness is shared by the tailplanes and
alternative rudders. There is detail in the wheel wells, but it is crude.
There is no detail whatsoever in the radiators, although the cooling flap is
moulded in the open position. The wing simply lacks the finesse that a
Spitfire wing should have.

As for the undercarriage doors...  I simply don't want to think about them.
Horrid!

The decals are nicely printed and in perfect register (unlike the decals in
the Mk24 kit!). They are very glossy indeed, but should look good under a
coat of flat varnish. I can't speak to the thickness of them.  There is a
lot of stencil data, which is good to see. The decal placement guide is on a
seperate sheet from the instructions and is printed in full colour on very
high quality paper.

I am neither impressed nor disappointed with the kit. It is a very
workmanlike kit and is ideal for a newcomer to the hobby. They will get
something that looks very like a Spitfire out of it. The problem for me is
that it is just not quite accurate enough to make it into the line-up with
the rest of the Spitfires on my display shelf. I could live with the
dreadful spinner and thick trailing edges - a visit to the Ultracast website
and an hour's work with file and wet & dry paper would solve both problems
adequately - but I'm afraid that I can't live with the far-too-thick wing. I
was looking forward to the forthcoming 70th anniversary composite kit which
features this MkIX, a Mk24 and a sepcial edition MkI, but now I think I'll
give it a miss. I'll stick with the Tamiya kit for MkIs and MkVs and the
Hasegawa kit for MkIXs. I know that the Hasegawa kit has problems
lengthwise, but they don't detract from the appearance nearly as much as the
thick wing does from the Airfix kit.

All-in-all, it is not a *bad* kit. It just seems to be a retrograde step
from the Mk24, which is one of my favourite kits. I think it is an ideal kit
for those just starting out in the hobby, who may not be quite as anal about
the wing as I am. The problem is that it costs eleven quid. Is that the sort
of "pocket-money" price range that a kid starting out could afford?

As I said above, I'm not going to actually build it - at least not as a
MkIX. I have a number of Mk24 kits that I bought as parts-only at a
knock-down price. The fuselage on the new MkIX is very nice, so I am going
to combine it with a Mk24 to build a Mk21. Sadly the wing roots on the two
kits are totally different so I'm going to have to do a nifty bit of cutting
to take the wing roots and nose from the Mk24 and graft them onto the MkIX
fuselage. But hey... I'm supposed to be a modeller, aren't I?  I'm looking
forward to the build now...

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

William H. Shuey - 08 Jun 2006 05:02 GMT
> I've had an interesting day!
>
> I finally got hold of the new Airfix 1/48 Spitfire IX.  As some
> of you may know ('cos I'm constantly wittering on about it) I
> build quite a few Spitfires.

>  (review clipped)

What this all boils down to is we still have no definitive late Merlin
Spitfires in 1/48 scale, after all these years. I'm 68 and I have a
hunch I'll be dead and gone before we ever see one.

                        Bill Shuey
Pip Moss - 08 Jun 2006 18:41 GMT
>> I've had an interesting day!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Bill Shuey

I had very good luck with the ICM Mk.XVI in spite of all the reported
quality control issues. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg, so adding
Ultracast replacements for wheels, elevators, prop etc. won't break the
bank.

Pip Moss
Enzo Matrix - 08 Jun 2006 19:12 GMT
RPip Moss sniggered evilly behind my back:

>>> I've had an interesting day!
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Ultracast replacements for wheels, elevators, prop etc. won't break
> the bank.

What is the surface detail like on the kit? The Italeri model is supposed to
be a remould of the ICM kit with the nose shape problems cured.

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

William H. Shuey - 08 Jun 2006 19:22 GMT
> > I had very good luck with the ICM Mk.XVI in spite of all the reported
> > quality control issues. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg, so adding
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> What is the surface detail like on the kit? The Italeri model is supposed to
> be a remould of the ICM kit with the nose shape problems cured.

Enzo:

    This goes against what I have heard about the Italeri kit. I was told
it was a re-pop of the Occidental kit, not ICM. There is quite a
difference!

                    Bill Shuey
Enzo Matrix - 08 Jun 2006 19:45 GMT
RWilliam H. Shuey sniggered evilly behind my back:

>>> I had very good luck with the ICM Mk.XVI in spite of all the
>>> reported quality control issues. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> it was a re-pop of the Occidental kit, not ICM. There is quite a
> difference!

Oops!  You are right!

So does that make the Italeri kit a viable base for a decent model or not?

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Pip Moss - 08 Jun 2006 21:25 GMT
> RWilliam H. Shuey sniggered evilly behind my back:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> So does that make the Italeri kit a viable base for a decent model or not?

From everything I've seen and read, the ICM is a better bet for accuracy.
Surface detail is satisfactory for me, but I don't pretend to speak for
anyone else. It is a somewhat harder build, and you're likely to have
sinkmarks in wheels etc. Again, you'll probably want to replace any of that
stuff with Ultracast parts anyway.
tomcervo - 09 Jun 2006 15:46 GMT
> >>>> I had very good luck with the ICM Mk.XVI in spite of all the
> >>>> reported quality control issues. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg,

The new boxes are said to be better than those early releases, but the
accuracy in all castings is measurably the best. The parts are there
for any VIII/IX non-bubble canopy.
BTW, the new Revell IX/XVI is the Hasegawa IX.
Pip Moss - 09 Jun 2006 21:17 GMT
>>>>>> I had very good luck with the ICM Mk.XVI in spite of all the
>>>>>> reported quality control issues. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for any VIII/IX non-bubble canopy.
> BTW, the new Revell IX/XVI is the Hasegawa IX.

Actually I wrote that. Also, ICM does/did produce a bubble-top Mk.XVI.
That's what I built.
Pip Moss
Enzo Matrix - 09 Jun 2006 21:52 GMT
>>>>>>> I had very good luck with the ICM Mk.XVI in spite of all the
>>>>>>> reported quality control issues. It doesn't cost an arm and a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Actually I wrote that. Also, ICM does/did produce a bubble-top Mk.XVI.
> That's what I built.

I think I'll try one of those for myself.

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Woody Yeung - 24 Sep 2006 09:45 GMT
Aeroclub has a nose correction for the Occidental kit.  You can also use
a Tamiya Spitfire with stuff from Aeroclub to make a Mk IX in addition
to the 3 modern Mk IX kits available.  They also have a fuselage
correction kit for the Hasegawa Spit Mk. IX.

The ICM kit is the best out of the box.  I have all of these and the
Aeroclub correction sets.  I think the ICM kit is the way to go.  I'm
currently working on an ICM kit and got several others in boxes.  The
Occidental kit is not really that bad either.  I can live with the shape
as is, unlike the Hasegawa kit which just doesn't look right.

Woody

> RWilliam H. Shuey sniggered evilly behind my back:
>>>> I had very good luck with the ICM Mk.XVI in spite of all the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> So does that make the Italeri kit a viable base for a decent model or not?
tomcervo - 25 Sep 2006 04:55 GMT
> Aeroclub has a nose correction for the Occidental kit.  You can also use
> a Tamiya Spitfire with stuff from Aeroclub to make a Mk IX in addition
> to the 3 modern Mk IX kits available.

But where TF is the Tamiya Spitfire IX?
Don Stauffer - 29 May 2006 14:51 GMT
> Hey all!
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Inquiring minds want to know!  :)

Like most companies, I think Airfix has produced some GOOD kits as well
 as bad ones.  I can think of a few companies that produce far worse
kits than Airfix.

I think the market will take care of itself.  There are brands that I an
d many others will not buy at all.  I suspect those firms will fall out
of the market. Airfix has been around long enough that it MUST be
attracting repeat buyers.
e - 29 May 2006 18:00 GMT
>> Hey all!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>of the market. Airfix has been around long enough that it MUST be
>attracting repeat buyers.

many don't like lindberg kits, but i've found that they can
be built as nicely as you want. i built a do335 with open
panels and the engines from their ju 88 kit. it was easy to
scratch enough detail to make it look really good.
i removed the rivets, filled seams, scribed lines and built
a chunk of autobahn from balsa sheet.
this was in 1972, it got many favorable comments and is
still extant in a house in ma. i saw it last year and it
held up.
total cost then must have been $5.
airfix kits had similar bashing done. most are gone and i
wish i had them back.
if you want a shake and bake oob wonder kit, you pay for it.
with a dismally small selection of what I like.
maiesm72@netscape.com - 30 May 2006 01:10 GMT
You don't even have to go for a shake and bake kit.

The built and painted models from MRC under the Easy Model label are
really quite well done. Shapes and details are just right and each
subject is offered in one of five color schemes. Some, such as the F4F
Wildcat, even offer different variants such as the FM-2. Priced in what
now is just about pocket money for kids, they are flying off of the
shelves. The sales people tell me that age range for these models is
accross the board.

This is a new trend that may be important to the retailers. More
models, but no after market sales such as paint, tools, decals and the
like. I already have a couple to convert and use different markings,
but I don't see that happening very often.

Ready-made models are not a new idea. Many Frog Penguin kits were
available as built models. Monogram and, more recently, Revell have
offered pre-painted kits. Diecast models have reached high levels of
accuracy and detail.

Will this trend make a dent on sales? Only time will tell.

Tom
e - 30 May 2006 04:17 GMT
>You don't even have to go for a shake and bake kit.
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Tom

i hope i don't live to see it become the norm.
how much less creativity can we encourage in the young?
Richard Brooks - 30 May 2006 09:44 GMT
> You don't even have to go for a shake and bake kit.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> like. I already have a couple to convert and use different markings,
> but I don't see that happening very often.

But isn't the whole idea to learn hand-eye coordination for one thing.
In the UK they'd be re-badged under the "I can't be arsed" label and
sold alongside video games that have already been finished for you so
the hardest part is putting your name in.

The market in pre-made objects is already being saturated as my mate has
already finished a commission from (I think) Matchbox for Warburton's
Hurricane and already, even after more ideas for commissions coming in
from his bosses, they're talking of making several tens of thousands
just to dump half of them or melt them down again.

[snipped]

Hopefully it's a trend to get kids out and about running around and
getting some of that fat off!

> Will this trend make a dent on sales? Only time will tell.
>
> Tom

The pre-made metal models are making a dent in kit sales but then again
the enthusiasm for new metal models is tapering off.  Hopefully there'll
be a backlash and the next generation of kids will be taught that
hand-eye coordination and other skills are a good thing and there'll be
a mold making kit to make your own plastic injection items!  :-)

Richard.

Signature

  Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
<http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html>

Gray Ghost - 31 May 2006 03:35 GMT
Richard Brooks <richardbrooks@vickers-supermarine.com> wrote in news:6Y-
dnRA-rJIRm-HZRVny2Q@bt.com:

>> You don't even have to go for a shake and bake kit.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Richard.

To be honest some of them, look do look nice. However, I have such a large
stash of unbuilts that i would feel look a dork buying a prebuilt rather
than finishing something. About the only exception i'm considering is some
of the 1/144 stuff as there is some items for which there is no kit and for
soem of the dio ideas I have German halftracks and/or softskins would be
nice. I did find a guy in England I think that makes 1/144 minatures that
are kits or unpainted at least. Other than that I just couldn't do it.

My son bought some prepainted 1/144 airplanes but I think he had mixed
feelings about it.

Frank
e - 31 May 2006 04:21 GMT
>Richard Brooks <richardbrooks@vickers-supermarine.com> wrote in news:6Y-
>dnRA-rJIRm-HZRVny2Q@bt.com:
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
>Frank

i would love a prebuilt 1/48 or larger p-51. i promised ny
neighbor one, and i really hate them. i don't want to build
one.
bill b, got one on the block?
Mad-Modeller - 01 Jun 2006 04:39 GMT
> >Richard Brooks <richardbrooks@vickers-supermarine.com> wrote in news:6Y-
> >dnRA-rJIRm-HZRVny2Q@bt.com:
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> one.
> bill b, got one on the block?

Nope, not in those sizes. :)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Richard Brooks - 31 May 2006 06:41 GMT
> Richard Brooks <richardbrooks@vickers-supermarine.com> wrote in news:6Y-
> dnRA-rJIRm-HZRVny2Q@bt.com:
[snipped]
>>The pre-made metal models are making a dent in kit sales but then again
>>the enthusiasm for new metal models is tapering off.  Hopefully there'll
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> My son bought some prepainted 1/144 airplanes but I think he had mixed
> feelings about it.

I must had at least one of the early metal ones that came out for the
film, The Battle Of Britain as I find bits of an Me109 when I'm
gardening.  Please don't tell me that they are rare collectors items!

Richard.

Signature

  Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
<http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html>

kim - 31 May 2006 15:06 GMT
> > Richard Brooks <richardbrooks@vickers-supermarine.com> wrote in news:6Y-
> > dnRA-rJIRm-HZRVny2Q@bt.com:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> film, The Battle Of Britain as I find bits of an Me109 when I'm
> gardening.  Please don't tell me that they are rare collectors items!

They've been reissued countless times since destroying any collectors value
they might have had. The same is true for the armoured vehicles from the
same period.

(kim)
Mad-Modeller - 01 Jun 2006 04:39 GMT
I've bought a few of the Model Power Mini-Planes.  One was the DH
Mosquito and I decided to go with my own paint job.  Stripping the paint
off reveals how much of the plane is actually plastic.  Currently it's
in overall Sea Grey Medium awaiting its Dark green camo.  Finding decals
close to the right size is a bit challenging for a 1/120th model.  I
find using some of the littler pieces off my 1/72nd sheets covers some
ground toward the goal.

It's such a sharp little model I've been thinking of other schemes I
could do.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
e - 01 Jun 2006 22:04 GMT
>Status: N
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

post a pic, i have no clue what they look like.
Mad-Modeller - 03 Jun 2006 05:36 GMT
Well, I took some but the son put them on a 700mb disc and my computer
can't read it.  Once we upgrade the CD reader I'll be able to post them.
Hey, maybe by then I'll have the finished pics too. ;)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Ingo Degenhardt - 31 May 2006 04:35 GMT
Airfix is alright with me - I made the EE Lightning, which I liked
very much to build.
I made the Bucc, that was a hard but the only one in 1/48.
The future will see me doing the following:
Jaguar GR 1 and GR 3
Sea Harrier FRS.1 and FA2
Harrier GR3
Super Etendard
Does anyone else (except Heller) make any of these in 48?
Ok - I am going to use some aftermarkets on all of them for
improvement, but I do not drop those kits just because their tooling
is not state-of-the-art and it will be quite a lot of work to achieve
a good-looking model.
Yes, and my Nimrod is pre-ordered :-)
I might do the Canberra as well.
And I think there is a lot that Airfix can do - just think of
Scimitar, Javelin, Gannet, Swift, Sea Vixen...(48)

Ingo

>Got into a discussion with a firedn recently about Airfix models.
>He claims that airfix is such a low quality that they ought to
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Inquiring minds want to know!  :)

*time is an enemy*
kim - 31 May 2006 15:10 GMT
> Airfix is alright with me - I made the EE Lightning, which I liked
> very much to build.

If ever a kit needed a silver finish it is the Lightning. I had a magazine
cover shot of a Lightning F6 on my coffee table for many years. A rival firm
did one in silver but it was only 100th scale. Likewise the MiG 21.

(kim)
maiesm72@netscape.com - 04 Jun 2006 04:26 GMT
There are two Corgi 1/72 diecast models that I just couldn't pass up:

B-17G "Nine-O-Nine"
B-24J "Dragon and His Tail"

I have the B-24 and it is awesome. Panel lines and a litle heavy handed
detailing aside, it has a prime place in my collection.

I am waiting for the B-17 with crew. It shall be placed next to the
B-24, giving me both of the Collings aircraft that I have flown and
flown in (both on one weekend) in the markings that they carried at the
time.

"Dragon and His Tail" has been the subject of a great deal of
conversation here and elsewhere, the final word being that the painting
appeared only on the right side. "Nine-O-Nine", however is one that I
would like to build. Anyone know of a source for 1/72 decals?

Tom
> > Airfix is alright with me - I made the EE Lightning, which I liked
> > very much to build.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> (kim)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.