Jump to content

1/48 - Curtiss P-40B Warhawk & Tomahawk Mk.II by Airfix - released - new Tomahawk Mk.II boxing in June 2024


Homebee

Recommended Posts

Do you ever get the impression that if by some magic you were able to shrink a real aircraft down to 1/72 or 1/48 scale (with a corresponding decrease in weight) and displayed it as the test shot for a new kit the internet would still be full of comments criticising its accuracy?

I certainly do! I don't know where they find the energy...

But since the internet has always revealed in startling clarity just how mad, bad, deluded and sad much of humanity really is, we shouldn't be surprised at such goings on in our little bit of it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go......

Did Airfix already screw the Pooch on the new P-40B?

better than the new Star Wars film :)

Jonners

Well, at least I got the OP to change the title of the thread to something a bit less over the top. :whistle:

Edited by VMA131Marine
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face it - The internet "discussion" over the "accuracy" of CAD renders of a soon-to-be-released model is now as much a part of the "Releasing a New Kit" process, as seeing those red multi-pointed "NEW" stars over the top of silhouettes used to be back in the printed catalogue era.

The internet has democratised opinionated stupidity - we can all look like fools on a global scale now! :)

But, by heck, it aint half enjoyable. He he he :)

Jonners

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P-40 served with commonwealth airforces as well as the U.S.

A North African based P-40 with desert camouflage and the menacing shark-mouth 'grin' will make a very attrcative model. I am looking forward to its releae next year. I think it will be popular on both sides of the pond.

Edited by Richard B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet has democratised opinionated stupidity - we can all look like fools on a global scale now! :)

Never a truer word said. Even the wisest of words are lost in the babble. Not that I contribute much in the way of wise words. I stopped contributing to most of the forums I once visited because I finally realised I had nothing useful to add to most discussions and when I did it soon disappeared in the scrum. I stick to this forum mostly and one other.

It's far too soon to make definitive statements about the kit least of all based on the CAD. Not that it will stop anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone come to a conclusion about the over/undersized/correctly/incorrectly shaped undernose rearend profile?

I'm wondering if it is both right & wrong...

The Airfix team did much research on the Duxford P-40C but are releasing a P-40B.

At first glance they are pretty identical save for internal changes , oh yeah - and provision of an underfuselage drop tank in the C.

Could this explain the very slightly differnt profiles being argued about. It has been suggested on the Network54 thread but has been pretty much ignored thus far as I suspect it's not 'controversial enough' compared to saying either Airfix or the restorers got it wrong.

I can't see why the extra pipework and carriage points wouldnt need a few extra cm of depth on the fairing but then I'm not going on record as saying I'm a P-40 expert and I don't have the necessary photos, cutaways or engineering diagrams handy to say either way.

Maybe it's right, maybe not. Just thought I would drop it in that the B is not just a C in a new dress.

....

Me cause trouble?...never (well not too often!) :)

Edited by dpm1did1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, for one, will definitely be buying at least one. I think that a natural marking option would be Dennis Copping's (?) P-40 discovered in the Sahara not that long ago. A nice memorial to a sad end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The belly faring profile did not change beween B and C model...in fact, as best as I can determine, the main belly faring profile from wing web 2( start of the wing fuel tank bay) back did not change for the entire P 40 line all the way to the N model....the only change is in that front belly faring (that the area forward of the fuel tanks to the radiator faring)..and all the long nose has that same shape front faring save for minor changes for fuselage gun shell casing ejection or collection

take that Hyperscale.post with a grain of salt .. there is a lot of half correct speculation going on there..

It is true that the restorations out there due not have truly correct lower radiator cowl in some cases that forward belling fairing I just referred to....And Airfix is aware of this..

Edited by HBBates
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to hear, and hopefully the 'find a fault' brigade elsewhere will eventually agree.

I bought it because therebare instances where such external installations have affected the visuals (eg P-47) and I have read some heated 'it is correct/trashed' arguments that don't actually go any further than 'it doesnt match photo/drawing X'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I've read a discussion on another site, and I am a bit concerned.

Tail wheel opening too far forward? Rear fuselage shape?

http://imodeler.com/2015/11/scale-modelworld-new-releases-by-airfix/

http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/P40%20%20plans%201.GIF

I've looked at drawings and other scale models, and the tail wheel opening looks to start just around the horizontal stab.

Someone at the mold making plant has some explaining to do. Hopefully Airfix looks into a fix for this. It may be worth a new fuselage tool as I think that this would be a great earner for Airfix for a long time.

Hopefully someone with contacts at Airfix can ask some questions before the kit is released.

Edited by Av8fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a discussion on another site, and I am a bit concerned.

Tail wheel opening too far forward? Rear fuselage shape?

http://imodeler.com/2015/11/scale-modelworld-new-releases-by-airfix/

http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/P40%20%20plans%201.GIF

I've looked at drawings and other scale models, and the tail wheel opening looks to start just around the horizontal stab.

Someone at the mold making plant has some explaining to do. Hopefully Airfix looks into a fix for this. It may be worth a new fuselage tool as I think that this would be a great earner for Airfix for a long time.

Hopefully someone with contacts at Airfix can ask some questions before the kit is released.

The tail wheel opening is definitely too far forward, as are the holes for the fuselage lift tube. These won't be too hard to fix if Airfix doesn't make changes to the parts shown in your linked image from SMW, but there is no reason they should be wrong in the first place. The 1/72 kit got both of these details correct.

I don't see any real problems with the shape, though there is a panel line below the horizontal stab that shouldn't be there and the engraved access panel locations in that area don't appear quite right. I'm still pretty confident in saying this will be the best 1/48 P-40B kit ever, but I these unforced errors are disappointing.

Edited by VMA131Marine
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, for one, will definitely be buying at least one. I think that a natural marking option would be Dennis Copping's (?) P-40 discovered in the Sahara not that long ago. A nice memorial to a sad end.

Except that Copping's was a Kittyhawk, not a Tomahawk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was so pleased to see at Telford that Airfix are bringing out a new early P-40. Then I got home and went on line... normally I am not what some call a rivet counter-but when I saw how Airfix have messed up parts of the new P-40 (pointed out on another forum with really good pictures of the new sprues compared to the 72 scale version).

I thought I ask the members of the forum how this mess could have occurred when Airfix used LIDAR on the Duxford aircraft. Looking at pictures of the Duxford P-40 even I can see the lifting tube hole is miles too forward as is the tailwheel opening and access panels in the tail are in the wrong place. How did they get it right on the recent 72nd scale offering and then wrong on this one?

My interest in this is mostly academic. As a psychologist I am interested how Airfix managed to ignore the data they had previously collected and then turned in to plastic. Someone must have seen the problems and then either not said anything or have been ignored.

And yes, I have asked Airfix directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I thought I ask the members of the forum how this mess could have occurred when Airfix used LIDAR on the Duxford aircraft"

So maybe it isn't wrong and the older kit was? Would it not make more sense to compare the new mould against the airframe it was scanned from, rather than an earlier mould which might in itself be inaccurate?

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I thought I ask the members of the forum how this mess could have occurred when Airfix used LIDAR on the Duxford aircraft"

So maybe it isn't wrong and the older kit was? Would it not make more sense to compare the new mould against the airframe it was scanned from, rather than an earlier mould which might in itself be inaccurate?

John

The "older" Airfix mould is very very recent (2012). As I said, looking at the actual aircraft that was scanned the errors can be seen.

Note that the lifting tube is just forward of the tail bulkhead and the opening for the tail gear doors just aft (both on the real aircraft and on the 72 scale kit but not on the 48th version...

Edited by Van
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Van,

regarding how these things happen, check the HS or ARC forum, I read the other day about how the Revell chief designer "dug in" and refused any corrections untill it was too late and the 1/32 109G-6 kit was knowingly released with uncorrect cowling.

Vedran

The milimeter brigade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don't care what the nay-sayers are up to...that looks a good kit to me and I may well get one.

I don't have the love that a lot of people have for the Monogram kit - I have found it a grim build and have eventually binned every effort I've completed. I like the Academy kit although it has minor niggles.

All said...easily the best looking of the family (likewise the early Allison P-51's for me).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, still no riveting.... Why news Airfix seen as twenty years old moulds (I compare all Airfix WW II kits with Eduard late Merlin Powered Spits...).

well, bear in mind Eduard didn't get that riveting right.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234986185-148-airfix-new-tool-spitfire-mki-x4382-from-no602-squadron-completed-on-31-10-at-1150-pm/page-2#entry2102051

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234986185-148-airfix-new-tool-spitfire-mki-x4382-from-no602-squadron-completed-on-31-10-at-1150-pm/page-2#entry2104958

they riveted the leading edges of the wings, the real thing is flush riveted, and as the skinning is thicker here, they are filled and rubbed down, and are nearly invisible 1:1

the rest of the wing is flush riveted, but the thinner skiing means they show more as 'dishing' in the skin.

Where drag was not such a problem, on the rear fuselage, raised rivets were still used, and the panels are lap jointed.

Eduard have been influenced by the modelling trend to have 'rivets as holes' which is not really accurate. And the leading edges need filling.

I agree that Eduard's panelling and fine surface detail are better though, Airfix plastic seems to be a bit 'rubbery' and not like taking really sharp edged, meaning trailing edges of wings are a bit thick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, still no riveting.... Why news Airfix seen as twenty years old moulds (I compare all Airfix WW II kits with Eduard late Merlin Powered Spits...).

De gustibus non est disputandum. I don't feel riveting is necessary. On the other hand I don't like the way Eduard made the option of closed canopy in their Spitfires. But if the boss says "who now makes closed canopies" it makes such canopies in Spitfires quite time-consuming. You don't understand lack of rivets, I don't understand this strange/senseless (cross out unnecessary word), We can't do anything with it just to live.

And the photos show quite nice model. Maybe one day I'll buy one...when my eyes won't be able to work with the Royal Scale and I'll have to change my scale to "Blind Men" or "Even Blinder Men" sclaes :hobbyhorse::pilot::coolio:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, still no riveting.... Why news Airfix seen as twenty years old moulds (I compare all Airfix WW II kits with Eduard late Merlin Powered Spits...).

Why - the real thing is flush riveted anyway?

As for depicting rivets like pin holes it's nothing like the real thing - if the stressed skin pulls against a rivet it doesn't result in a pinhole, it results in a wider depression with the rivet in the middle.

Scale those pinholes up and we'd be taking the aircraft in for re-skinning!

Personally, I don't like this fad for putting rivets over everything, lots of aircraft have domed-headed rivets which nobody seems to be in a rush to reproduce yet as soon as they get a kit its out with the pounce wheel to put holes in places where on the real thing could be mush head, domed, hi-lock, Cherry-max rivets or spot welds, Jo-Bolts or Huck Fasteners.

Horses for courses I know.

I like what I see, I'll be getting one.

Wez

Edited by Wez
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...