Raven Morpheus

Whatever. To be fair you initially did make a reasonable point. Can't say that for the others, 3 posts talking about yoghurt, starfix and silly companies, before I made the fanboy comment. And again - I haven't said explicitly that it's not as good a kit as the Trumpeter kit. That's wasn't what I said initially and that's not what I've been trying to say. But like the fact that I've repeatedly stated I don't build ground parked aircraft, and you've all carried on talking about ground parked aircraft, you've all continued to read what you wanted to into my comments about the fact that Trumpeter gave us flaps/ailerons that were separate whilst Airfix have not. I am simply highlighting the point that a company 12 years ago managed to do it, whilst Airfix haven't, when actually they probably could have. And I'm sorry but you have personally attacked me. I made a generalisation directed at no one person in particular. Like I said, I want the most accurate/detailed/feature packed (again insert your own term) kit I can get, like I'm sure we all do, and for me that means having options like positionable flaps/ailerons. I don't believe Airfix have quite given us that kit. End of, unless you or anyone else want to carry on arguing about my opinion.

No not all. I made my point 5 hours ago and I'm perfectly happy. I could have left it at that. It seems to me though that perhaps I hit on a raw nerve, because I dared to criticise the kit for not having certain parts it should have had. Certainly caused gingerbob, Plasto and yourself to go on and on criticising, deriding and mocking my point each time I have tried to make it clearer to you. Didn't it? And I will stand up for myself in such circumstances. At the end of the day we both want the most accurate kit we can get, do we not? That's why you've all been checking it against drawings. That's why I was expecting positionable flaps/ailerons to be included.

Me give it a rest? I'm not the one deriding and mocking people for having an opinion. I made 1 single comment, and then a reply expanding on my point, initially, trying to make a perfectly reasonable point, and all of a sudden, you and your buddies here have jumped on my opinion and attacked it. Was there any need to mock my point - considering you've all had your scale drawings out to find fault with the kit also? And don't tell me that's not what you've all been doing. Why is my concern over a lack of a few separate key detail parts less valid than your concern over the shape of x y and z parts? Yeah, I can see it now, it explicitly says I think it's worse. After all I've used those exact words haven't I... If I wanted to say it's worse I would have. I haven't. Please do keep arguing with me to the contrary though.

I wasn't expecting anything to be honest. I would however like to see some new reasonable sized kits (lets say 12" in the case of a Star Destroyer) at a reasonable price. I bought the Bandai Millennium Falcon for just that reason - it's 9" vs 18" and was reasonably priced (I think I paid £35 for mine). Just lately where some of these kits (not just Star Wars) are coming out it seems like, those of us at the lower end of the market in terms of budget shall we say, are being pushed out of the market.

When Airfix have given us a kit that doesn't have options their other more recent new tool kits have, let alone a competitors kit that was made 12 years ago, and people start deriding and mocking me for having an opinion about that - what do you expect me to call such people?! And please - show me where I have explicitly said or implied it is a worse kit? Actually don't bother, you won't be able to, because I haven't. I have said however that it lacks features a kit made 12 years ago gave us and that their own recent new tool kits have, and that to the non-rivet counter both kits look like a P-40 when built. And are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that a kit that doesn't have the features a kit 12 years ago had, that previous new kits in the last 5 years by the same company had, is progress? Seriously? Really? You're telling me the Trumpeter kit lacks a good cockpit, well the Airfix kit lacks positionable ailerons and flaps. As for building the model I want to build - I can't really, because the model I would love to build in 1/48 of a P-40B doesn't exist yet. And as I said, I don't build planes in a parked on the ground state. And I guess you've never seen a P-40B take off, if you did you'd see (although not always) the flaps down, on the run down the runway - oh wait a minute, that's on the ground isn't it! They're also used in landings. Again - we don't all build planes as though they're parked on the ground. Sheesh, you make 1 comment about a couple of things you find unsatisfactory with a kit and the fanboys come out to rip you to pieces. I could just as easily point out that none of what you lot have mentioned, getting out your scale drawings and all, matters, because the kit is so accurate, and deride and mock you all for pointing out the issues you have...

[sigh] Another massive (Star Wars) kit with a massive price tag.

And yet at the same time it's not as accurate, detailed, feature packed (whatever term you want to use) as a kit made 12 years ago because you can't pose all the control surfaces. And at the end of the day, to the non-rivet counter, which I'd argue is most of the people who make models, both kits look like a P-40. They'd be making even more if they produced kits to the standard the likes of Hasegawa and Tamiya do. There is no reason they cannot. And there is no reason why we, when we see a new tool kit, shouldn't be expecting them to do so. Given that this kit is a new tool kit, given that their "new tool" Spitfire and Hurricane kits come with poseable ailerons, this kit, as Tbolt said, feels like a step backwards. That's all I was getting at. If you're perfectly happy with it then fine, I'm not because I think Airfix could have gone that one or two steps further with it.

I see we've got the Airfix fanboys in. The point I'm trying to make here is that Airfix have not moved the hobby forward by producing a kit that is lacking in what should these days be considered basic options. And just what is wrong with having, and expecting to have, those options present? Or is expecting to have such options to be derided in the same way as painting on the sprue? It's like their decision to produce a new P-51 - how many of those have we got already, and what will Airfix bring to the table to better what's out there already - nothing is my bet if this P-40 is anything to go by.

So they've given us all of those options, and yet couldn't give us separate parts for flaps and ailerons?! Doesn't it bother anyone that a kit from 12 years ago, despite it's inaccuracies, still looked, to the non-rivet counter, like a P-40 and at the same time still gave us modellers some nice options to use for displaying the model that a brand new kit does not have?

Reading this thread there seems to be quite a few inaccuracies on this new Airfix kit. It's not a deal breaker as such, but we're talking about a kit, in the same scale, for a comparable price, made 12 years ago, having more options than a brand new kit! I may not build it with the flaps down or the ailerons in an off-level position, but at least the option would be there to do so if they were provided as separate parts. I build my aircraft in the air (mostly), but even so on landings and take-offs flaps are used, and they're also used in combat (for tighter turns) so there's plenty of argument that it's appropriate to have them down - we don't all build parked aircraft.

Got mine today and had a brief look at it and the instructions. I can't understand Airfix's (and other companies) logic sometimes - they give us (what seem to be) positionable rudder and elevator parts, or at least they are separate, but the ailerons/flaps are all moulded into the wing sections!! Trumpeter's kit from over 10 years ago has positionable ailerons and flaps (from the looks of it), they are at least separate, so why is it Airfix seem unable to do that?

Probably. Just amazed me when I came across it in a video by Phil Flory, he also explains the reasons why certain things happen and shows you - I haven't seen it anywhere else, but I've not really been looking for it. Easier imo to just use matt varnish.

I'm not pimping for Phil or anything but he's got a tutorial video on his site that shows that you can use gloss varnish and get a matt finish without adding anything to the gloss varnish...

FYI Klear in the UK is not the same formula as it used to be, with just the milky colour and perfume added. Plenty of people have found it to be not as good as it was before it was made milky and plenty of people have experienced similar issues as I have (either that or I've read a lot of threads by the same person all over the internet) - the orange peel problem is even noted on Swanny's models page about using Klear - http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html. That is why people are now buying the US version - because it works like the UK version did before it was changed to the milky scented variety. Watch this if you want some reliable info about Klear (I think Phil Flory also did another video about using Klear but I can't find it at this time, it might be in the tutorials section of his website, which is members only) -

French Polish defence? Is that something you use whilst playing with a wooden chess set?