Truro Model Builder Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) No, I don't see a problem with the fuselage halves. Edited November 7, 2015 by T7 Models Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I am for accuracy, just my personal liking. No need to make fed up comments as if I am a party pooper lol. I will possibly make an own thread with the comparisons later or tomorrow so not to burden this thread about the news. Cheers guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beard Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Comparison Hasegawa - Airfix Can you spot the problem ? The Airfix one does appear to be a bit deeper in the fuselage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Very interesting that this topic has started up. I picked up an Airfix F-4F-4 Wildcat yesterday from my local model shop, mainly because it offers a folded wing option, which I have not seen on a Wildcat before. My first thoughts were to try and find some Fleet Air Arm decals for it, but a search through my collection quickly revealed that this was not going to be a straight forward exercise. Royal Navy Martlets and Wildcats do not appear to cross over as one (me) would think. There are many differences and it is fast becoming a bit of a minefield. Apparently RN F4F-4's (Martlet IV) differ to US Navy F4F-4's in engine and cowling, and in late FM-2's, armament. Of course the late FM-2 was really just a licence built F4F-4, but in RN service a Martlet V, not a IV (a F4F-4). At least I think so. See what I mean! Good luck to all Martlet builders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwart Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Looks like it. If anybody here does not want there now known to be fatally flawed and unbuildable Wildcats, I'll have them! Now that the Martlet has been rubbished before it even appears, I guess I will be the only one buying it! Allan No one's saying they're unbuildable.Airfix has dropped the ball on this one,the test build they have shown looks nothing like a Martlet IV.It's poor research on their part. This is from someone who loves Airfix,i've spent hundreds of £'s this year alone on Airfix kits.All of it spent in my local model shop to support them and Airfix at the same time.(not online where i could have saved 10-15%). I will readily heap praise on Airfix when they do something right,as they consistently have been doing,but i also should be able to comment when they get something wrong.I will buy several of this kit when it's out.It's just not a IV though. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert RN Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Comparison Hasegawa - Airfix Measurements will be added later: Can you spot the problem ? No. Instead is this topic being one big tedious teasing game, let's have the facts, otherwise it becomes another monumental waste if time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I already have two Wildcat/Martlet kits, Academy and AZ, so I don't actually need another. If this had been an accurate kit I'd probably have bought it anyway (if only with the Kate) - but it didn't look right. I'm happy with the various threads that have clarified why, disappointed that it isn't readily fixable with a new canopy and a bit of filler. As for Airfix selling it as the wrong mark, that's a silly mistake they really shouldn't have made, and perhaps they'll correct before it appears on sale. Imagine them doing that with a Spitfire or a Bf109? Or, more topically, a Shackleton? If you don't see problems, enjoy sticking your plastic together. I shall go back to converting various kits into Halifaxes whilst awaiting Airfix to do a new tooling of that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch K Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Comparison Hasegawa - Airfix Measurements will be added later: Can you spot the problem ? No. I can spot that they are different, but that isn't the same as a "problem". Without accurate numerical data (actual diameters etc), either one or both could be incorrect. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 No. I can spot that they are different, but that isn't the same as a "problem". Without accurate numerical data (actual diameters etc), either one or both could be incorrect. Correct! I know the Hasagawa kit was considered to be a good kit when it was released but does that mean it's right? The only proper comparison should be to the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwart Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Not my pictures ,but many thanks to the author. Source http://imodeler.com/2015/11/scale-modelworld-new-releases-by-airfix/ Edited November 7, 2015 by Gwart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejboyd5 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Instead of the side by side pictures, why not assemble an Airfix half with a Hasegawa half so that it would be easy to see where one overlaps or falls short of the other? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JE5TAR Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Looking at the test model at Telford the new cowl is the only difference. The fuselage remains unchanged. The guys manning the stand were unaware there should be any differences. If the designers knew they've chosen to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) I will readily heap praise on Airfix when they do something right,as they consistently have been doing,but i also should be able to comment when they get something wrong.I And surely nobody is presuming to say otherwise ? Certainly not me. I do not know enough about it to be able to tell just by looking at a few pictures of the model that it is not a Martlet IV. If it says Martlet IV on the box, that works for me. If you and others say it is not accurate for a Mk IV then I accept that because you clearly have better knowledge than me. I am happy to remain in blissful ignorance. Allan Edited November 7, 2015 by Albeback52 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert RN Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) If you don't see problems, enjoy sticking your plastic together. I shall go back to converting various kits into Halifaxes whilst awaiting Airfix to do a new tooling of that. I want to know what problems others are seeing. And I don't need your permission to enjoy sticking plastic together. Edited November 7, 2015 by Albert RN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Somewhat of a sinking feeling here I confess. I think Gwart may well be correct on the evidence available so far. The Cad rendering on Airfix's page doesn't look too bad for a IV but the test shot doesn't seem to translate that so well. Those photos you posted show the difference as well as any I've seen Gwart, thanks. A pity that specifications don't seem to have translated into plastic convincingly. I can but hope that when it emerges we may find this to not be so bad or that Airfix may be persuaded to redo that sprue. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Can you spot the problem ? When I opened the box after buying the anxiously awaited F4F Wildcat, I didn't have that flash of euphoria one normally has when opening a new kit. I looked at the fuselage and had a "sense" that something wasn't right. I remember thinking that it reminded me of the F3F...but no specifics. I still don't know why I had that feeling. I've been following all the threads here on BM where this kit is being discussed, but I can't say that I really understand all of the issues. The open canopy issue I understand, but that's a limitation of injection moulding in 1:72 scale. I have a Falcon vacuform, and we'll see how that fits. The fuselage shapes - man, there are so many subtle curvatures blending into each other. It is very difficult to discuss them, let alone get it all right in plastic. I'll continue to follow the discussions, and maybe it will become clearer to me. I hope for the best, as the quality of the moulding seems exquisite. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) I have the Hasegawa and Airfix kits and the fuselage profiles of the two match extremely well. The only major difference is that the Airfix kit fuselage lower profile is slightly deeper than the Hasegawa forward of the cockpit rear bulkhead. The discrepancy is very small at the rear cockpit bulkhead and increases to about 1mm (about the thickness of the Airfix plastic) at the edge of the gear well opening. I can put the kit fuselages up against each other so that the tailwheel, cockpit opening, rudder post, and horizontal stabiliser locations are virtually identical between the two kits. The Airfix kit is certainly wider than the Hasegawa, but to me, the Hasegawa looks slightly undernourished rather than the Airfix being fat. That said, I don't know which is right without having accurate measurements and they could certainly both be wrong, with the true width dimensions lying somewhere in between those of the two kits. It's been stated that Airfix has missed the increased fuselage length behind the firewall that is characteristic of the Wright powered Martlet IV but I haven't found any evidence that this length on the Martlet IV was different. Reliable published dimensions would help because I can't really see any differences in the pictures I can find on the web. It doesn't make a lot of sense from a design and manufacturing point of view that the dimensions would be different either as this would require major redesign of the structure in that area. I have the wingspan of the F4F-4 as 11.58m, which is 6.33 inches in 1/72 scale. The Airfix kit matched this exactly, the Hasegawa measures 6.214 inches (or 11.36m in scale). The difference is 1.5mm per side, which is all in the fuselage as the Airfix and Hasegawa wings have nearly identical span. I'm therefore tempted to conclude that the Airfix fuselage width is accurate and the Hasegawa is too narrow. The Hasegawa kit was released in 1994, and at the time it certainly was the best F4F-4 kit available. I get the feeling that the Airfix is the more accurate of the two in some areas. Edited November 8, 2015 by VMA131Marine 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight_Flyer Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I'm no Wildcat/Martlet expert either and after reading the comments, not really sure if there is a problem or not. If there is an expert out there who understands the issues and can provide evidence, is it worth sending the information to Airfix? Is it possible Airfix may not be aware of the "errors" or perhaps the "expert" they have on the project has unknowingly made the mistakes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I have the Hasegawa and Airfix kits and the fuselage profiles of the two match extremely well... I have the wingspan of the F4F-4 as 11.58m, which is 6.33 inches in 1/72 scale. The Airfix kit matched this exactly, the Hasegawa measures 6.214 inches (or 11.36m in scale). The difference is 1.5mm per side, which is all in the fuselage as the Airfix and Hasegawa wings have nearly identical span. I'm therefore tempted to conclude that the Airfix fuselage width is accurate and the Hasegawa is too narrow. The Hasegawa kit was released in 1994, and at the time it certainly was the best F4F-4 kit available. I get the feeling that the Airfix is the more accurate of the two in some areas. Other than Gwart's photos which show the cowl shape and forward fuselage details match the Martlet II rather IV you're the first person to offer any evidence we can work from. Thank you. I was initially happy to read Airfix were releasing a Martlet as it suits my favoured modelling genre but this thread has proved a roller-coaster of will I won't I buy this kit thoughts. At the moment I'm waiting to see what decal options are included before making a final decision - Martlet II equals a sale. Martlet IV equals it getting left on the shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwart Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert RN Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 It looks like they channeled the Academy kit and made it even a bit worse ... I did ask them that. There was some eye rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Thank you again Gwart. This I can understand. So the kit is a Martlet II and, with modification to fill the wing fold lines, can be a good starting point for a Martlet III or, with further modification, even a V. Most certainly not, however, a IV. As I said before the decal options will decide this one for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Thanks Gwart, that pretty displays it. The front cowling (especially the front cowl rings) of the R-1820 versions are shorter and for the same portion the fuselage part behind the cowling is longer as to retain the overall length. Also the diameter for the 1820 cowlings is bigger than for the 1830 versions, same with the cowling front opening. Meanwhile I measured the kits at the 'trailing edge' of the cowling. Airfix is 21.5 mms and Hase has 19.9 mms there ... that makes 1.6 mm difference. At the second vertical panel line behind the cockpit the Airfix width' has 20.5 and the Hase 18.5 mm, this is 2 mm difference there. The truth could actually lie in between both tho the Hase is still closer IMO. But the Airfix also misses the slight kink seen from the side between the upper front fuselage line and the cowling which is visible in photos. Edit: The lengths are very close: Airfix 112.4 mm and Hase 115.5 mm, both measured from cowl front to trailing edge tip of the rudder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Thank you again Gwart. This I can understand. So the kit is a Martlet II and, with modification to fill the wing fold lines, can be a good starting point for a Martlet III or, with further modification, even a V. The currently available F4F-4 is a better starting point for the FM-1/Wildcat V: just remove all traces of the outer pair of machine guns and you're done. Doesn't make that canopy look any better though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerine_sedge Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 But the Airfix also misses the slight kink seen from the side between the upper front fuselage line and the cowling which is visible in photos. I'd wait and see what it looks like in the flesh. The angle of that photo might be hiding the kink a little. 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