IanC Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited September 30, 2015 by VMA131Marine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 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 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B. Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) 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 October 8, 2015 by Richard B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 And - we can have that "whats the colour behind the quarter lights?" discussion all-over-again Jonnuis 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noelh Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 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 More sharing options...
dpm1did1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) 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 October 8, 2015 by dpm1did1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tail-Dragon Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 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 More sharing options...
HBBates Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) 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 October 10, 2015 by HBBates 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpm1did1 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Av8fan Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) 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 November 8, 2015 by Av8fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) 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 November 8, 2015 by VMA131Marine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Van Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 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 More sharing options...
John Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 "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 More sharing options...
Van Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) "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 November 8, 2015 by Van Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlanceHR Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Homebee Posted January 27, 2016 Author Share Posted January 27, 2016 Source: http://www.primeportal.net/models/thomas_voigt10/airfix/ V.P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyC Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 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). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted January 30, 2016 Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Source: http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Ausstellungen/Nuernberg2016/Bilder_AT/Bilder_AT_1.htmV.P. Edited January 31, 2016 by Homebee 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robvd Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I just hope it will be August soon. So that I can add this one to my collection 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCZ Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 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...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 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 More sharing options...
DominikS Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 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 January 31, 2016 by Wez 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now