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. :)

Denford

Gold Member
  • Content count

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

267 Excellent

About Denford

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 29/08/37

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wandsworth: the birthplace of Airfix kits

Recent Profile Visitors

2,534 profile views
  1. Hardly know where to start, but perhaps to ask why does it always have to be AIRFIX who are required to produce such 'no hopers'. Nobody ever suggests that of Revell, Academy, Italeri, Hasegawa, Trumpeter ... Seriously though, Trumpeter did give a Sea Hornet (I'll not comment on the quality) so perhaps you should contact them: in Chinese of course and if you don't speak/write it then be prepared to pay someone to do this for you. I did this in Korean to Academy. Secondly, as I don't know how enter to link the earlier discussion on this, it was started early March (10th ?)and is currently 'just about' on page 4 of Cold War and yes you've guessed it is 'When will Airfix give us a Scimitar ? '. There seems to be a general belief that if a subject is 'cool', 'iconic', 'charismatic', 'fills a gap in history', 'no line up would be complete without it', 'even the wife's cat would have bought it', then kit manufacturers (usually Airfix) are under a serious moral obligation to tool that subject. Another tenet is that if enough people contact the manufacturer (again usually Airfix) they will tool it. Hornby are struggling and have better things to do than answer multiple requests for 'no hopers'. True they do issue suggestion slips at Telford and elsewhere but how much of this is a PR exercise I don't know. So go back to the earlier thread and read of the Scimitar's undistinguished history, low profile, lack of colour schemes and above all the tooling difficulties. Forget about comparisons with the TSR2 with most of the same attributes: the Airfix that tooled it went bankrupt! Forget comparisons with the Swift: several colour schemes, served home and abroad, and there are even aftermarket parts. But did the base kit make money? We know there was a tool breakage: perhaps a gipsy's warning? To digress to tooling: the absence of a new tooled Buccaneer is often lamented - why is nobody listening ie listening to me - is it, I suggest, in part due to tooling difficulties or rather making a quality tooling at an acceptable price.
  2. Add F9F- Panther/Cougar to the list. I think it was the US Government rather than USAF who made the limitations
  3. What interests me is not the colour (or should it be color) but that the Spitfire shadows all show 4 cannon......
  4. The Tamiya canopy has separate side panels, presumably to allow the teardrops to be moulded: this would be impracticable with a one piece canopy. Therefore it ought to be possible to remove the blown side panels from either of the above and fit them to the Tamiya canopy. That the full canopy was originally meant for Matchbox, Hasegawa or anyone else shouldn't really matter. If anyone from Attack Squadron or perhaps Quickboost is reading this, could they please consider tooling replacement side panels. A canopy with the astrodome, for the very last versions, is another matter. We'll have to see what KP and/or SH come up with.
  5. If anyone has tried this, could they post their opinion please. Also does anyone recognise / know the location of the PRXVl used with this conversion on the big H website. Finally the same pictures show the bulged side panels to good advantage: does anyone know where they and/or full canopy be sourced. The Tamiya kit (or at least my BlV) has only teardrop sides.
  6. The Stirling plans were destroyed in the '70's: something to do with the space needed in relation to the 'troubles'. I forget the precise details (given at a presentation by Simon Owen, Airfix's researcher). Did they use them for their earlier Stirling? I doubt it; in those days any 'plans' were acceptable, perhaps from Aircraft of the Fighting Powers. Also I understand their Stirling has some errors (others may be able to be more precise) which would prove the original plans weren't used. Regarding the Whitley. I understand there is a fuselage extant, and perhaps with it sufficient data to make a creditable tooling. But why, oh why does it always have to be Airfix who have to make the new tooling? Nobody calls on Revell of Germany to make a T-33, Ar234 or Me 410.
  7. I repeat myself. Are there any extant examples or manufacturers working drawings? If not, Airfix won't touch it, though others may.
  8. Under their present policy Airfix will never retool the Stirling: there is no extant example and no surviving drawings.
  9. This is roughly equivalent to saying 'why do we need Griffon Spitfires'...
  10. Can't say other than that's the answer Airfix gave! Remember Airfix have only some 5 designers, one of whom is concerned with preparing instructions and maybe the decals, box design etc as well. Can't recall the exact range of their duties, but they would have been the obvious choice for the PDF work too. That said, whoever did make the PDF's of the instructions would have had to break off from whatever they were doing to do that. Given Hornby's current situation I imagine Airfix and everybody else in the group are being worked pretty hard and so do not have much 'slack'! Or of course Airfix (and for that matter any other part of the group) may have contracted the work out.
  11. It's not a case of 'somebody listening'. The matter has been raised at several Airfix presentations and the response has always been the same. It's on our list of 'things to do' but just a case of 'getting round to it' with so much else to do. I hope it's realisation hasn't impacted on their core business of making top quality models.
  12. Thanks for your interest in my post: however PE is the only practical way (and not an easy way at that) to represent the airbrakes. Skybirds '86 wants you to bend them 'the hardest part of the build'. So no kit without airbrakes and no airbrakes without a kit.... I submit that the Scimitar isn't that well known, so not that many will write in and not many would be sold. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see one but don't think I will. Rather than tool a 'chancy', difficult and not well known type there are still many, many other 'easier' types long overdue for (re)tooling by Airfix or anyone else. Beaufort has already been mentioned, Wellington (one of Airfix's first), Boston/Havoc series or reverting to FAA an Attacker or Sea Venom?
  13. Try this link http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/whatsnew.php Hope I've done it correctly: if not then you should be able to get it via a Google search. The Scimitar section has a review of available kits and so should answer your second paragraph.
  14. Away back there was a posting saying that wingtip tanks of the ESCI/Italeri kit were way too far back.
  15. I don' t know how long to keep this thread going as it covers so many well-worn themes. Firstly there are many, many subjects that Airfix could (re)tool. Like anyone else they are limited in output and for every subject chosen, another must be discounted. I'm quite weary of reading that they failed to tool such and such a subject and somebody got in first: there's really plenty for everyone especially as standards are improving. There is now promise of a Spey Phantom: should this have been discounted in favour of a Hunter? Secondly the choice of subject. Over the years Airfix have developed criteria and learnt what sells: I'm not sure if today they would issue a Spitfire Xll or Sea Vixen. The Swift and Javelin: perhaps they didn't sell and lessons have been learnt. Filling a gap in the market: three times as many Firebrands were built as Scimitars were built yet nobody has ever asked for the former. The fact that somebody asks for such and such an aircraft, that it fills a gap, is iconic or whatever else, doesn't mean that it will sell. If it really was so important, why haven't Academy, Trumpeter, Revell, Italeri or anyone else tooled it? Finally I'll go back to my original posting on the difficulty of tooling: I'll not repeat it except to say good luck to anyone who tries.