Xtrakit vampire

[Tbolt]

Yes Tbolt, that's exactly the issue. Real Vampire intakes are quite 'rounded' whereas the kit intakes are too angular and narrow. I haven't had a good look at the kit parts to be honest to see how much can be filed out to open them up. I'm sure there's some scope for that which would improve the look even if it doesn't allow for the full size opening.

No problem Dave. I think it's a fab kit TBH and definately not one for the rubbish bin!

Yes, the Hyperscale review is very complimentary (rightly so IMO) but does come to the same conclusion as me that the booms are about 1mm too short. They've done that by comparing to the CMR kit rather than reliable plans though which is a bit dodgy -the CMR T.11 kit was far from accurate from what I've seen of it. Can't comment on the single seaters though.

Airfix T.11 intakes are certainly an option as are the old Heller ones I think - luckily I have a butchered Revell version of the Heller kit to hand as I was in the process of melding it with an Aeroclub T.11 fuselage when Airfix announced theirs. I abandoned it immediately!

Using the Airfix T.11 kit as a donor might not be a bad idea as the wings and tailplane could be used as well as the intakes to produce a very accurate FB.5, assuming they could be made to fit of course.

Mark

Thanks, like I say I didn't know if there were different intakes on the vampire or not. I am quite suprised how different they look to the real thing, some things don't really bother me like if the booms are a milimetre off, but I can't live with those intakes. They don't look easy to fix - probably need some filler in there as well as some filing. Hopefully we can get some resin ones with nice seemless intakes ducts attached.

[Paul Bradley]

The pointy intakes are very much like those of the French-built version, the Mistral.

[pivokrevnik]

I am afraid the intakes are unfixable. I cut out the splitters and tried to scrape as much material of the intake sides as possible, but they still look too off. Its size, shape of the outlines, shape of the splitters, angle of the top side of the wing, it's just all off.

At least I made them bigger. In their original size they looked ridiculous, I don't know that much about early jets, but I know how many problems there were with getting enough air to the engines. All the auxiliary suck in doors etc. So a Vampire with such a small intakes would probably not even get off the ground.. :-o

All those reviews going like "there are nice parts with fine scribing, it looks like an airplane, awesome, highly reccomended" are a disgrace, the authors did not bother to even glance at a photo of the real thing.

As the intakes are a separate part, maybe there is a chance for aftermarket resin correct parts? Of course alignment with original wing and fuselage would be a problem.

By the way, I never measure kits nor compare them to any plans. Millimeters don't matter to me. However usually I like to study photos of the real thing, and then proportions and shapes become a problem.

This time, I just compared the kit to my unbuilt CMR Vampire FB.5, because I hoped to use some of the parts in the Azur build.

I was shocked: while the size and shape of wings and fuselage are more or less identical, everything else is like from a different airplane: intakes, cockpit, canopy size and shape, wheel discs (about twice the size in CMR!!) etc. Except for the intakes, where it's clearly MPM's fault, I really don't dare to say which of the producers got it all so wrong, but one of them clearly did..

[Gumbie Air Services]

Now there's a thought! We are model makers, not assemblers. I have aways thought that the FROG Swordfish was the best around, until the new Airfix kit finally arrived.

OK, just got the FROG Vampire now. I'll check it out when it arrives!

[StephenMG]

Hmm. Not really sure why the CMR kit is being held up as the standard against which others should be judged. As I said, I haven't seen their FB.5 but if their unimpressive T.11 is anything to go by then I won't be bothering any time soon. What's the point in comparing against another kit unless you know that's 100% accurate?

The MPM/Xtrakit wheel hubs sizes are good. If the CMR hubs are twice the size then chuck them straight in the rubbish bin. The overall wheel diameter may be a smidge undersized but by less than 0.5mm I'd say. Similarly the MPM canopy is good. The windscreen is spot on and the sliding hood dimensions are good, although, if I had to criticize, it could do with being 0.5mm taller by having a slightly more pronounced bulge at its apex just behind the windscreen.

So, apart from the intakes, maybe it's CMR who are the ones who got it wrong then?

As I said before, if you really want an accurate FB.5, get the Xtrakit kit and an Airfix T.11 and do a bit of modelling...oh, and rejoice in the fact that even though you've bought 2 kits, you've still only paid out half of what the CMR kit costs!

Edited April 18, 2014 by StephenMG

[pivokrevnik]

Hmm. Not really sure why the CMR kit is being held up as the standard against which others should be judged. As I said, I haven't seen their FB.5 but if their unimpressive T.11 is anything to go by then I won't be bothering any time soon. What's the point in comparing against another kit unless you know that's 100% accurate?

You are reading between the lines something which is not there. I compared it to CMR because I had it available at home and I thought about using some of its parts, that's all. I don't think it's some golden standard and I clearly stated I made no assumptions - I don't know which of the kits is wrong, I was just puzzled by the sheer difference. You apparently know better.

As for the "bit of modelling" - hic Rhodus, hic salta.

p.s. apart from the intakes, the gun ports are also wrong, real ones have round aft sides, MPM ones are square.

Anyway, I am close to finishing the kit, so I will post some photos, it should speak better than words.

[mrobeson]

All those reviews going like "there are nice parts with fine scribing, it looks like an airplane, awesome, highly reccomended" are a disgrace, the authors did not bother to even glance at a photo of the real thing.

That's a pretty strong way to look at it. Calling them a disgrace. For a lot of people, close enough is fine for a kit, especially if it goes together well. We could all have that argument again about "close enough" and "must be perfect" building, but no need to rehash it. For a lot of reviewers, they look at what's in the box, and how the kit is molded/what's readily apparent. Unless they're really passionate about a subject or have a bunch of references on it, then they'll dig deeper on it.

[Paul Bradley]

If a reviewer isn't going to compare against photos and plans, then what's the point of doing a review? Anyone can say "nice panel lines, etc., etc." I can do that without even looking at a kit....

Not knowing anything about the aircraft is not an excuse - the reviewer shouldn't take on a kit unless he's prepared to do some research! I did 200 reviews for IPMS/USA and every kit I looked at the same way - against plans and photos to look for obvious mistakes, because it was my job to do so. It isn't fair to readers to skimp on this step - the reviewer got the kit for free (most of the time) whereas the reader has to buy his.

Regardless of the approach of the reader, the reviewer should assume that his reader is a "must be perfect" builder. Then it's up to the individual reader to take what he wants from the review.

[Rabbit Leader]

Funnily enough.. I purchased my kit after reading glowing comments from modellers on this forum.

I think we were all excited by our first impressions, however now that the rose tinted glasses have been taken off - we are starting to notice a few faults with this kit.

I think once a pair of aftermarket resin intakes are available, I will build my kit. My initial dreams of creating an entire batch of Vampires however, will not use this kit as a starting point.

There is still room for Airfix to come into the market with the ultimate 1/72, 1/48 and 1/24 (wow!!) kits.. although I would like them to put out a Single seat Venom first.

Cheers.. Dave.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Rabbit Leader

[Paul Bradley]

I recently acquired an AModel Mk.6 - I haven't seen this one mentioned here - what are opinions on it?

[mrobeson]

If a reviewer isn't going to compare against photos and plans, then what's the point of doing a review? Anyone can say "nice panel lines, etc., etc." I can do that without even looking at a kit....

Not knowing anything about the aircraft is not an excuse - the reviewer shouldn't take on a kit unless he's prepared to do some research! I did 200 reviews for IPMS/USA and every kit I looked at the same way - against plans and photos to look for obvious mistakes, because it was my job to do so. It isn't fair to readers to skimp on this step - the reviewer got the kit for free (most of the time) whereas the reader has to buy his.

Regardless of the approach of the reader, the reviewer should assume that his reader is a "must be perfect" builder. Then it's up to the individual reader to take what he wants from the review.

That's great for you, I've done a bunch of reviews as well. If something is glaring, I'll point it out. In-box reviews don't need to be surgical dissections though. If they do everything to the "must be perfect" builder, every kit would be fit for the bin. The "must be perfect" builder probably isn't the majority of the model-purchasing crowd, so you do we aim for?

[venomvixen]

If your going to start comparing every kit to plans and photo's you first have to find photo's that

show what you want and reliable plan's.

"Reliable" plans be the hard bit as most of those floating about for a great many aeroplanes are not,

as noted by most independent observers, reliable at all. the recent threads about Trumpies Whirlwind being a good example.

The review I did of the Cyberhobby abomination...... sorry thing that vaguely resembled a Sea Venom, has been noted by some as

an example of the so called "perfect" review. I did compare it to reliable plans, cross referenced with photo's to point out the many errors and

checked back with references to the manuals and airframe. Everything the "must be perfect" builder could have wished for.

And guess what? it was a total pain in the bum to write, took half of forever to do and was probably utterly worthless to anyone not half as rabid

about the aircraft as I am (though I have been told I'm responsible for the woeful sales of it in Oz)

I agree that reviewers should give an honest appraisal of a kit without fear nor favour but to demand that every review be a rivet counters delight is

pointless, uneconomical (in the case of printed publications) and once again over inflates the idea of the "perfect builder"

Perfect builders, rivet counters JMN's or whatever name we have this week are a very very small percentage of this hobby and not a lot of the great unwashed give a fat rats what we think.

For the record I dont intend to get one of these Vamp's (yet) I have a very serviceable Heller kit, a Frog example thats going to get a major once over and

a couple of CMR's FB.31's. A truly delightful little kit if there ever was one.

[mrobeson]

For the record I dont intend to get one of these Vamp's (yet) I have a very serviceable Heller kit, a Frog example thats going to get a major once over and

a couple of CMR's FB.31's. A truly delightful little kit if there ever was one.

Are the CMR kits that nice? I'm probably only going to do one 1/72 Vampire/Venom, and CMR has the most options available, including the Sea Vampire.

[venomvixen]

Astoundingly well detailed, and they nailed the differences between the variants.

My will stay in the box for a while longer, they are so nice I dont want to bollock them up.

[mrobeson]

Astoundingly well detailed, and they nailed the differences between the variants.

My will stay in the box for a while longer, they are so nice I dont want to bollock them up.

Great to hear. They're pricy, but if they're that nice of kits, they're probably worth it

[Truro Model Builder]

If your going to start comparing every kit to plans and photo's you first have to find photo's that

show what you want and reliable plan's.

"Reliable" plans be the hard bit as most of those floating about for a great many aeroplanes are not,

as noted by most independent observers, reliable at all. the recent threads about Trumpies Whirlwind being a good example.

The review I did of the Cyberhobby abomination...... sorry thing that vaguely resembled a Sea Venom, has been noted by some as

an example of the so called "perfect" review. I did compare it to reliable plans, cross referenced with photo's to point out the many errors and

checked back with references to the manuals and airframe. Everything the "must be perfect" builder could have wished for.

And guess what? it was a total pain in the bum to write, took half of forever to do and was probably utterly worthless to anyone not half as rabid

about the aircraft as I am (though I have been told I'm responsible for the woeful sales of it in Oz)

I agree that reviewers should give an honest appraisal of a kit without fear nor favour but to demand that every review be a rivet counters delight is

pointless, uneconomical (in the case of printed publications) and once again over inflates the idea of the "perfect builder"

Perfect builders, rivet counters JMN's or whatever name we have this week are a very very small percentage of this hobby and not a lot of the great unwashed give a fat rats what we think.

For the record I dont intend to get one of these Vamp's (yet) I have a very serviceable Heller kit, a Frog example thats going to get a major once over and

a couple of CMR's FB.31's. A truly delightful little kit if there ever was one.

Nicely said, Danni.

And at the other end of the spectrum is the guy who wants to build a (insert name here) because his dad/other relative used to fly/service one. To use Danni's term, they certainly don't give a fat rats if the fuselage is 2mm too short or the wings have just a little too much anhedral.

Personally, I will build one to go with my Airfix T.11, overlook the differences and patiently wait for a single seat Venom to join them.

[Test Graham]

I've still got a Monogram Bearcat waiting on the "too nice to bugger up" shelf. Is 40 years long enough?

[Giorgio N]

Ha anyone tried to use the Airfix or Heller intakes on this kit ?

[Tbolt]

Nicely said, Danni.

And at the other end of the spectrum is the guy who wants to build a (insert name here) because his dad/other relative used to fly/service one. To use Danni's term, they certainly don't give a fat rats if the fuselage is 2mm too short or the wings have just a little too much anhedral.

Personally, I will build one to go with my Airfix T.11, overlook the differences and patiently wait for a single seat Venom to join them.

No those things don't really bother me on models, like if the booms are not quite the right length. I realise curves and profiles are sometimes hard to get right on a model, but these intakes look so off - I don't expect them to necessarily be perfect, but they look nothing like the really thing, quite how people get these sort of things like this wrong on a model baffles me.

[pivokrevnik]

I am surprised how many people show a total all or nothing mentality. I mean, I was told you British are a people of moderation )

Yet it seems anybody who dares to critic and refuses the point of view like "it looks okay to me from two meters away", is immediately tossed into the must-be-perfect hardcore-modelling rivet-counting club.

The errors we are talking above are really a matter of general shapes, they don't need a scientific approach to discover. All the reviewer would have to do is to type something like "DH Vampire walkaround" in Google images and choose from hundreds of photos. It's an investment of 15 minutes.

Thats what I, an average modeller, do before I ever utter a word about any kit. I expect the same from reviewers - is it too much?

Oh, almost forgot, and actually clip the parts from the sprues and glue them together. You can't tell much from staring at the sprues.

Therefore the so called inbox "reviews" are mostly not reviews at all, it's cheap, poorly disguised advertisement, which only benefits the manufacturers and the "reviewer", and perhaps the magazine publishers who need to fill pages with easy content.

I mean, imagine "ingarage reviews" of cars or "inshelf reviews" of books. Something like, I never read the book, but I highly reccomend it, there is a nice cover, font seems readable, there are chapters, table of content and stuff, this must be excellent!

Edited April 21, 2014 by pivokrevnik

[Test Graham]

For me, the key function of a review is to guide me as to whether or not I should buy it. The quality of the tooling is one feature, but generally difficult to tell from a photo of the runners. The number of parts and their fineness should be a guide. Beyond that, it is the shape and accuracy that matter. Fit I can usually cope with myself, but it's nice to know if there might be a struggle. Given that very few kits are now of subjects that are not otherwise available, this becomes a matter this kit being better or not than the others on the market (or sitting on my shelf already). If the reviewer is unable or unwilling to include facts or comparisons that make this clear, then the review is of little use to me. A modeller who'd never seen/bought anything on the type before might well have a different approach.

[Neil Lambess]

No those things don't really bother me on models, like if the booms are not quite the right length. I realise curves and profiles are sometimes hard to get right on a model, but these intakes look so off - I don't expect them to necessarily be perfect, but they look nothing like the really thing, quite how people get these sort of things like this wrong on a model baffles me.

a lot of it is kit engineers , (and in some cases reviewers) who dont know how to read plans and 3-views correctly .

classic examples include Spitfire wing tip shapes (a 3 view drawing/plan will include the wings dihedral , so the kit part laid flat on top of it should always be longer and a slightly different shape to the drawing .....the same goes for Scimitar and Harrier tail planes , which due to their steep anahedral should be much longer than the drawings when laid over them ..... i think it was Matchbox who made a classic error on their beaufighter tailplanes , by totally misreading a well known plan in the manner ive just described , making them far to short..... (they matched the plan exactly tho ! )

[Neil Lambess]

I recently acquired an AModel Mk.6 - I haven't seen this one mentioned here - what are opinions on it?

it needs a bit of work, the bullets in front of the rudders are a VERY odd shape , ( im still trying to figure out an easy fix for that so havent really studied my kit much further....) i think the wing chords also off , (IIRC a few years back somebody (John Adams??? ) mentioned that the published wing chord , is taken from an internal structural point inside the fuselage and not where it visibly starts by the air intakes , leading to errors in some well known plans )

Edited April 20, 2014 by Neil Lambess 01

[Tbolt]

a lot of it is kit engineers , (and in some cases reviewers) who dont know how to read plans and 3-views correctly .

classic examples include Spitfire wing tip shapes (a 3 view drawing/plan will include the wings dihedral , so the kit part laid flat on top of it should always be longer and a slightly different shape to the drawing .....the same goes for Scimitar and Harrier tail planes , which due to their steep anahedral should be much longer than the drawings when laid over them ..... i think it was Matchbox who made a classic error on their beaufighter tailplanes , by totally misreading a well known plan in the manner ive just described , making them far to short..... (they matched the plan exactly tho ! )

It amazes me how that can happen. I don't quite know what has gone wrong in this case though, the intakes don't look like any drawings I've seen or the real thing.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Tbolt

[Paul Bradley]

Cheers, Neil - confirms what I thought.