Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.


Gold Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

314 Excellent

About Denford

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Wandsworth: the birthplace of Airfix kits

Recent Profile Visitors

2,664 profile views
  1. The FAA Museum Phantom was LIDAR'd so I'd expect the glazing between the canopies to be correct and the drawings wrong....
  2. Only when they've got proven sales figures to justify it, then perhaps another 2 years to tool.....
  3. Does anyone KNOW FOR SURE that the pictures of the sprues are of the final production version or an just an early rendering. There were sprues for the P-51 at Telford - yes 9 months ago - and the designer told me that there was still a lot of work to do on them, yet at a casual glance the seemed quite OK.
  4. My hope is a Vc / Xll which would have many common parts, even if this were not quite so in full scale! Quite a lot of postings on this elsewhere, especially the basic fuselage used! Ooops: drifting a little of thread!
  5. My italics, but perhaps this explains why they haven't (and are unlikely to tool for a while) a Spitfire XlV
  6. Airfix perhaps?
  7. Or was it repainted?
  8. Remember too that plans, like models from them, can have accurate and inaccurate parts/areas
  9. I don't think it has yet been mentioned (though could be wrong): - Further variants on the 1/24 Mosquito. I understand it has been designed to allow for this, so by definition a realistic future release. - Don't think anybody has yet mentioned up/down scaling existing subjects. Apparently not as easy as it sounds and of course, always subject to software compatability. Don't see any of the earlier subjects such as Sea Venom, Seafire XVll as likely: more so Meteor 8 and Sea Fury.
  10. A lot of correspondence (including some from myself!) on postage, wheels, C-130 improvements, packaging etc. But has anyone actually tried it with the Tamiya kit?
  11. Here I have to both agree and disagree! Any kit can be 'enhanced' by the addition of other features: here, poseable flaps, slats and control surfaces, hinged canopy (like Revell), super detailed cockpit, external stores, removable panels to reveal armament, engines, nose camera etc. Each adds to the cost, so potentially fewer buyers. Who will redress this by buying more because these features are included? I suggest very few. Not many would buy it over the opposition because these of features, when it is the most accurate and cheapest! First the flaps, normally only used for take off and landing. The RAF had penalties for those who taxied with flaps down, because of the risk of damage from objects in the propeller wake. Less of a hazard for jets, but still not good practice. I stand to be corrected, but I can't think of any other 1/72 kit (excepting the P-51 as a special case) supplied with separate flaps. Leading edge slats. As most modellers build for ground standing, there must be provision for this if they are always open on the ground. Essential for SB2C Helldiver (mechanically linked) and A-4B which seems their 'natural' position when parked. For a few others 'more often than not' eg F-86D. For the 262 'optional'. However, logically, there must always be provision for 'in flight' too. I don't know how Airfix dealt with this on the A-4, but for the 262 there's a problem. There'd have to be two sets: one with a little spacer to stand them proud and another without. The latter must fit and fit well. Long, thin narrow: somebody somewhere will have one warped, bent, flashed or otherwise mis-shapen (maybe the slot not quite deep enough) and scream blue murder over Airfix' lack of quality control. So best leave it off if it isn't essential. Wisely, in my view, Airfix have gone for the simplest, plain vanilla option. Ideal for paring with a P-51D as Dog Fight Double (for younger modellers) and surely a 2 seat version to follow. Let the likes of Eduard or Quickboost provide accessories.
  12. I don't agree: to make flaps and slats separate costs money ie increases the price of the kit to (in my opinion) no great advantage. A quick search through my available photos showed very few intact machines with either deployed. Off hand I can't think of any other Messerschmitt kit with separate slats. As for the flaps, and in particular those associated with the radiators, a case could be made for them to be separate on the Bf109. Here they are often seen 'open' yet as far I know no kit has these deployable either! Ironically the original Airfix 262 did have 'deployable' flaps, but only between the engines and fuselage! The virtue of the Airfix kit is/will be that it is cheap, simple (good when aimed at the younger market) and above all accurate. The sprue layout suggests a 2 seat follow on.
  13. This has strayed somewhat from the original topic (Me 262) but: - It's not Airfix who are in 'trouble' but the parent company Hornby Hobbies. - Airfix have released fewer kits because they released two large kits (Victor and B-17) last year. Some designers left the company too. I think if there had been a 'take over' we would have heard of it.
  14. There a lead time between 'Go Ahead' and 'Release': probably at least 2 years for Dornier and Whitley. The 'Go Ahead' for the Dornier definitely predates the 'Accuracy first' policy. I spoke with the designer who confirmed that he had made 'amendments' (the radius of the fuselage to wing fairing) on the basis of the 'wreckage'. Not sure about the Whitley, but I became aware of the 'Accuracy first' policy at a presentation by Simon Owen in August? 2015. Yes, I heard him say it, so it's not '...reported as having said...'. He also said (this time words to the effect) 'there are many subjects we would like to tool, but can't'. But let's step back: there are many, many subjects that Airfix could tool and for which there is enough 'verifiably accurate data'. - Those already tooled but inaccurate or with worn out moulds. Fairey Battle and until this morning, Wellington! - Those in their range that are, well adequate, with other examples (and not always readily available) elsewhere and none up to Airfix's current standards. Dauntless with perforated dive brakes, Avenger with folding wings, Boston\Havoc, 2 Seat Hunter, Merlin Halifax, P-38, P-39 and many more. - Those they have never tooled and for which there is no quality kit readily available, or perhaps not available at all. Me410, P-51B\C, Beaufort, Venom/Sea Venom, Twin Mustang, PB4Y-2 Privateer and many more. With so many subjects to choose from, why produce something that cannot be of assured accuracy when there are so many that can? Yet there are ongoing requests for Wellesley, Whirlwind, Stirling, Hornet, Do217, 'Sally' and again many, many more. Likewise, there's no need to enter the 'grey area'. F6F: Eduard's rendering is unlikely to be surpassed at its price. P-47: Tamiya's rendering is supposedly one of the best 1/72 kits, to which the usual response is 'that Airfix's line up wouldn't be complete without one'! Finally Spitfires. I have to assume that Airfix know their business and market better than those of us who make BM postings. Yes; I'd love to see a Spitfire Vc\Xll 'part-common kit' for want of a better phrase. With limited capacity (like everyone else) something else would have to be sacrificed. Almost all the above (plus a 1/72 Sea Fury) are on my wants list, so which would I choose for the chop.....? Regards, Airfix fan.
  15. Like this, really like this because you've given the sources of verifiable information. Wish all such posts did the same!