Jump to content


Photo

De Havilland Vampire T.11 - 1:72 Airfix

De Havilland Vampire New Airfix

  • Please log in to reply
181 replies to this topic

#101 Bill Clark

Bill Clark

    Completely Obsessed Member

  • Members
  • 5,764 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:47 PM

Bill, I agree with your rep;y to my eaarlier posting, perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  yes everyone to their own.

As a matter of interest to anyone who has the old SAM |IAC decals, I used some on a Provost the other evening, using Humbrols Decalfix and it did the biz.

I don't have any Micro stuff so can't compare.

David

FYI

IMG_0220_zps878a7854.jpg

Not bad for 30 year old decals!!!



#102 tonyp

tonyp

    New Member

  • Members
  • 147 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:58 AM

Not being an expert, am I right in assuming an Australian RAAF machine T33/35 can be made from this kit? apart from decals of course

 

In 1/48 is the classic airframes kit ok?

 

Thanks


Tony



#103 wombatair

wombatair

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:37 AM

Hi All.

 

2 x T.11 arrived Tuesday 5 Feb here in Australia on the top side of the world (TIC)  
Tuesday - Thursday.
Very impressed with initial look, so commenced that afternoon, and are now in the paint shop.
Yes the panel lines are a bit deeper than I prefer but easily fixed – I use Tamiya Grey Primer followed by a fine wet and dry sanding when dry. 
Parts go together fine – almost click into place. Light plastic grey/gray in colour.

Caution as some parts are thin and easily damaged 

My problem areas – all brought on by myself
7 grams is enough weight – I found I expanded the nose-space and pushed out the bottom fuselage making part A7 too small.
Follow step 12 in sequence – tail booms go in before fitting lower wings. (Discovered my error in time to rectify but slightly de-shaped part A5 and A6.)
Small gap along fuselage to lower wing but easily filled.
My clamps were a bit strong in some areas and depressed a few gaps in the intake /wing areas – easily filled.

Enjoying this kit so far.

Tuesday12th - Wednesday
After first primer coat, those sink marks on the flaps showed up and require more filler. 
Some extra gap filler required on lower wing to fuselage, and along boom to lower wing join.

Next step is a white undercoat for the silver and orange. Will try a touch of pink under the yellow stripes.


Today Saturday.
White undercoat looks good. Masking started.

Further 2 on order - one will be the starter kit to give it a try.


LL

 
wombatair    Location: Sydney
  •  
 

Edited by wombatair, 16 February 2013 - 12:38 AM.


#104 John B (Sc)

John B (Sc)

    Established Member

  • Members
  • 359 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 10:30 PM

What a terrific litle kit.  Well done Airfix and thanks.  Despite the very minor niggles this is a real delight - first kit in ages that has had me get right into construction without delay, inital coats of brushed undercoat aluminium paint already on, wet sanded and ready for next. Those much discussed panel lines seem to reduce fast that way to leave an nice impression of a panel break.  

 

As one who laboured through filling many a Matchbox trencher gang effort, this is lovely.  (And given how many folk seem to like heavily emphasising panels with counter shading of colours that would have an old style flight sergeant wincing, I find the panel line concern quite minimal personally! )

 

Please let's have more like this Airfix - any chance of upscaling to 1/48th, and giving us a Meteor T7 (and the rest...) to go with it?  That would leave a Hunter T7 in 1/72nd and 1/48th for next year. Fingers crossed.

 

John B



#105 stevehnz

stevehnz

    Very Obsessed Member

  • Members
  • 2,680 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 11:15 PM

I'll be keen to get my hands on this heavy panel lines not with standing ;) What is required to turn this into a Royal Navy T.22? I'm guessing from pctures I've seen not a lot, & hoping someone will be along with some decals for one before too long. :)

Steve.



#106 Wez

Wez

    I could be wrong... ...I could be right!

  • Members
  • 2,339 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:24 AM

I'll be keen to get my hands on this heavy panel lines not with standing ;) What is required to turn this into a Royal Navy T.22? I'm guessing from pctures I've seen not a lot, & hoping someone will be along with some decals for one before too long. :)

Steve.

Not a lot, all a T.22 is a T.11 built to FAA spec, the differences were largely internal (different radios, nav aids etc) so there may be some slight differences in aerial fit but that really is about it, in fact the FAA used some T.11's too (to which I'd suspect they made the necessary radio/nav aid changes to make them compatible with the rest of their fleet).

 

Wez



#107 stevehnz

stevehnz

    Very Obsessed Member

  • Members
  • 2,680 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:40 AM

Thanks Wez, sounds like my kind of conversion. ;) All the reason I need to buy the full kit as well as the starter with the NZ roundels.

Steve.



#108 John B (Sc)

John B (Sc)

    Established Member

  • Members
  • 359 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:14 AM

Aha !  Found one small error (ish) in the kit not previously mentioned here, as far as I can see.

The intake trunking has a nice little representation of the front of a compressor bladeassembly as the engine front face.

 

Fine, but the Goblin was a centrifugal compressor engine, which is why it was relatively short and fat not long and thin. The front face should consist of two ~semi circular lobes leading in to the impeller area not a simple axial compressor disc assembly. The impellers were I think rather more curved in their front side profile than typical axial,compressor blades.  Picky  - yes I know.

 

None of this matters anyway because you can't see the engine from the intakes anyway, given the intake curvature !

But if we are concerned about panel lines....   (OK, ducking now! )

 

John B


Edited by John B (Sc), 18 February 2013 - 11:15 AM.

  • Val likes this

#109 Seahawk

Seahawk

    Very Obsessed Member

  • Members
  • 2,904 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:28 PM

Aha !  Found one small error (ish) in the kit not previously mentioned here, as far as I can see.

The intake trunking has a nice little representation of the front of a compressor bladeassembly as the engine front face.

 

Fine, but the Goblin was a centrifugal compressor engine, which is why it was relatively short and fat not long and thin. The front face should consist of two ~semi circular lobes leading in to the impeller area not a simple axial compressor disc assembly. The impellers were I think rather more curved in their front side profile than typical axial,compressor blades.  Picky  - yes I know.

 

None of this matters anyway because you can't see the engine from the intakes anyway, given the intake curvature !

But if we are concerned about panel lines....   (OK, ducking now! )

 

John B

What another error?  On top of the glaring error John Aero spotted with the width of the nosewheel bulge in the cockpit floor?  And panel lines the depth of the Marianas trench?  This kit is unbuildable!


  • Val likes this

#110 Paul A H

Paul A H

    My vocabulary is absolutely big

  • Product Reviewer
  • 4,990 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:29 PM

Aha !  Found one small error (ish) in the kit not previously mentioned here, as far as I can see.
The intake trunking has a nice little representation of the front of a compressor bladeassembly as the engine front face.
 
John B


Hi John

I mentioned this aspect of the kit in my review (see post 1) :)

Paul

#111 Jonathan Mock

Jonathan Mock

    Very Obsessed Member

  • Banned
  • 4,807 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:48 PM

What another error?  On top of the glaring error John Aero spotted with the width of the nosewheel bulge in the cockpit floor?  And panel lines the depth of the Marianas trench?  This kit is unbuildable!

 

happymanonlaptop_zps0add8f99.jpg

 

;)


  • Seahawk and Basosz like this

#112 Julien

Julien

    Super Samurai Sweeper

  • Walkaround Coordinator
  • 13,442 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

Indeed! I guess what I'm trying to say is that to my inexperienced eye, the panel lines look fine, certainly a lot more refined than some other airfix 1/72 kits. This kit looks a little gem :)

I am with you Val, looks great to me.

Julien
  • Val likes this

#113 John B (Sc)

John B (Sc)

    Established Member

  • Members
  • 359 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:41 PM

Hi John

I mentioned this aspect of the kit in my review (see post 1) :)

Paul

 

Oops. Sorry Paul, didn't see it. Clot !

 

At least we agree - and I've checekd more sources today - it definitely is wrong for a Goblin

 

John B


Edited by John B (Sc), 18 February 2013 - 07:43 PM.


#114 John Aero

John Aero

    Very Obsessed Member

  • Gold Member
  • 1,794 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:08 PM

The New Airfix Vampire T.11 is a little sweetie. I fits my researched drawings and apart from the odd nosewheel bay bulge in the cockpit floor It's a Well done Airfix. and by the way the little Heller/Airfix FB.5 covers the wings very closely. sand of the raised lines and a little rescribing and the two will sit together at the OCU splendidly.  Buy with no total confidence.   John


Edited by John Aero, 18 February 2013 - 08:10 PM.

  • Enzo Matrix likes this

#115 Wez

Wez

    I could be wrong... ...I could be right!

  • Members
  • 2,339 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:14 PM

The New Airfix Vampire T.11 is a little sweetie. I fits my researched drawings and apart from the odd nosewheel bay bulge in the cockpit floor It's a Well done Airfix. and by the way the little Heller/Airfix FB.5 covers the wings very closely. sand of the raised lines and a little rescribing and the two will sit together at the OCU splendidly.  Buy with no total confidence.   John

That's all the approval I need (good job 'cause I've already bought three)!

 

C'mon Xtradecal, where's the decal sheets?

 

Wez


Edited by Wez, 18 February 2013 - 08:15 PM.


#116 Enzo Matrix

Enzo Matrix

    Format? I have no format. I am a renegade, lost on the Net.

  • Members
  • 5,889 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:17 PM

Buy with no total confidence.

That's good enough for me!
  • Val likes this

#117 stevehnz

stevehnz

    Very Obsessed Member

  • Members
  • 2,680 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:56 AM


At least we agree - and I've checekd more sources today - it definitely is wrong for a Goblin

 

John B

 

This was discussed over at ATF forum & the thought, supported by link  & link was that is was nearer correct rather than wrong, & certainly sufficient given the scale & location.

Steve.



#118 John B (Sc)

John B (Sc)

    Established Member

  • Members
  • 359 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:39 PM

This was discussed over at ATF forum & the thought, supported by link  & link was that is was nearer correct rather than wrong, & certainly sufficient given the scale & location.

Steve.

 

Thanks. It was, largely, a joke, following the panel lines furore, since. like John Adams, I think it's a wee cracker.  (*sigh*)

I agree, it doesn't matter because you can't see it  - I said that in my tongue-in-cheek comments too.

 

'More than sufficient given scale and location' - also agree.  A blank piece woudl have made as much sense though; I suppose in that sense the small moulding given is nearer correct.  

That impeller turbine at the front of the Goblin is a rather finely shaped scroll shape though, isn't it... !

 

John B



#119 Dave Fleming

Dave Fleming

    Completely Obsessed Member

  • Members
  • 6,267 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:07 PM

There is a BIG problem with this kit - I haven't got one yet!

 

The shop I went to on Sunday was sold out! Oh well, it can wait a few more days......



#120 stevehnz

stevehnz

    Very Obsessed Member

  • Members
  • 2,680 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:51 AM

Thanks. It was, largely, a joke, following the panel lines furore, since. like John Adams, I think it's a wee cracker.  (*sigh*)

I agree, it doesn't matter because you can't see it  - I said that in my tongue-in-cheek comments too.

 

'More than sufficient given scale and location' - also agree.  A blank piece woudl have made as much sense though; I suppose in that sense the small moulding given is nearer correct.  

That impeller turbine at the front of the Goblin is a rather finely shaped scroll shape though, isn't it... !

 

John B

 

 

Hi John, try using more smilies/emoticons. Its helps us literal types to appreciate the humour/irony/sarcasm. (delete as applicable) :D ;)

You're right about the shape of the Goblin impeller, must have been a hell of a thing to machine & it'd be a bugga to mold accurately in 1/72 too :P

Steve


  • John B (Sc) likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: De Havilland Vampire, New Airfix