Is the Airfix Avro Vulcan really that bad?

[Michael51]

I would really like to to build this kit but seem to be encountering many negative build reviews on the interweb.

Is the kit really that bad? All those CA glue stories, etc.

My modelling skills are mediocre to medium but I have enjoyed building the old Airfix Canberra B(I)6 kit and found it a pleasant kit in spite of its bad press in the few reviews I found on it.

That being said, would the intake and exhaust resin extras available from Hannants and elsewhere be considered by forum members to be mandatory, desirable or could the money be better spent elsewhere?

Thank you,

Michael

[e8n2]

A few decades back I did the Rareplanes Vulcan, and a few years after that I built the Airfix Vulcan. With the passage of time the only main problem I can remember with it was the intakes. I still have one waiting to be built one of these days, but at least this next one will have one of the aftermarket seamless intakes. I would highly recommend that.

Later,

Dave

[wyverns4]

Well, you pays your money and you makes your choices!

It is not in the same league as the Canberra, being first released in the mid 1980's, (IIRC 1986?), the Canberra 2005(?) and does have its own share of problems to be surmounted. Is it difficult? In certain areas yes, like most models. But in other areas its inherent simplicity, (remember Airfix mid 80's), makes it very straight forward.

It comes down to what you want to do. It is a model and therefore is to be built. It is a large, basic model, which with a modicum of elbow grease makes into a good facsimile of the original airframe. Being large it also makes a good mule to try new techniques on, if you so desire and thus expand on your present skill set.

Yes, there are a number of negative comments and reviews about this particular model, but there are also some positive as well. Again it comes back to what you want to do. As you have noticed with the Canberra, it received negative comments, but you enjoyed it. May it be the same with the Vulcan?

The intakes and jet cans are a particularly weak area and replacement parts are available, if you wish to spend your money. However there are a number of reviews and builds on line that utilise scratch-built methods to improve or replace these areas. There is even the possibility of fitting intake and exhaust blanking plates to hide these areas.

If, as you say, you want to build it, then why not? Enjoy the experience and by the time you finish her your modelling skills will have increased/improved.

Also, there are a number of good WIP's here which should guide you in the right direction and the collected intelligentsia of Britmodeller is always only a few strikes of the keypad away.

Crack on!

Christian, exiled to the arm pit of the globe.

[Kevin Callahan]

I think that most of the critical issues relate to the age of the kit. Raised lines, subpar intakes, not much in the way of details. Makes you wonder if, now that they have the Valiant and an upcoming Victor, whether the Airfix re-engineering team will get the Vulcan as a future project. I would buy a new one, and I've already built the old one. But until that happy day comes, replace the intakes and much of the rest is just modelling.

[perdu]

As the chaps say it is a model, why not build it?

I built it back when it was new so my friend Ed could hang the model in his shop and display the white metal bits he was marketing

I didn't like the intakes much and found the trailing edges to be massive

But when it was done it did look like a Vulcan

My advice?

Go for it

Edited May 4, 2016 by perdu

[Michael51]

Thank you for these helpful, thoughtful, erudite comments.

I will obtain the kit and build it into a fine machine.

Michael

[71chally]

I built the original boxing a few years back as the all white 617 sqn option, I thoroughly enjoyed the build which I found fairly straightforward. The undercarriage struck me as really nicely done and the decals were great, never checked it against plans but it looks like a Vulcan when completed!

My big issue with the kit is the jet pipes and exhausts, it's almost like the kit designers just gave up when they got to this area of the aircraft. This is the only area that I would spend money on aftermarket parts - if there are any. You can't see anything in the cockpit, so wouldn't spend money there.

The intakes I found fairly straightforward to make seamless with a bit of time and patience as they are inserts (unlike the Matchbox Victor) into the inner wing.

I'm currently half way through a (very) long term build of a camo one, again using the original issue of the kit, personally I would really try to source the earlier boxings rather than later ones.

Edited May 4, 2016 by 71chally

[tempestfan]

I built it back when it was new so my friend Ed ...

Would that be Ed as in Deeley ?

I've never come around to actually build one, but have some half-dozen of various issues stacked away. The good thing is that the Vulcan seems to have sold really well over the three decades since its initial release in 1984 (I think; the Canberra 6 Michael referred to apparently is the old 1973 tool as AFAIK Airfix never got round to doing a new tool fishbowl variant in 1/72), and seems to be around in good quantity on the 2nd hand market. This may enable you to get an early release, where the fit might be just that bit better because the tool was fresh. No idea how recent production kits look, but with those you probably won't have to invest in decals - in contrast to the initial Palitoy release which likely came with yellow varnish fresh from the factory, and the thick and usually misprinted stuff from the Humbrol era.

As the others said, the vast acreage of the wings may be a good canvas to try something new, maybe scribe the surface detail for the first time ?

I 'd say as long as the tool is still good enough to mould decent kits with, Airfix will not invest in a replacement, especially as there may not be money in abundance at Hornby presently.

[wyverns4]

Thank you for these helpful, thoughtful, erudite comments.

I will obtain the kit and build it into a fine machine.

Michael

That's the spirit!

Crack on and have fun!

Christian, exiled to africa

[perdu]

Would that be Ed as in Deeley ?

I've never come around to actually build one, but have some half-dozen of various issues stacked away. The good thing is that the Vulcan seems to have sold really well over the three decades since its initial release in 1984 (I think; the Canberra 6 Michael referred to apparently is the old 1973 tool as AFAIK Airfix never got round to doing a new tool fishbowl variant in 1/72), and seems to be around in good quantity on the 2nd hand market. This may enable you to get an early release, where the fit might be just that bit better because the tool was fresh. No idea how recent production kits look, but with those you probably won't have to invest in decals - in contrast to the initial Palitoy release which likely came with yellow varnish fresh from the factory, and the thick and usually misprinted stuff from the Humbrol era.

As the others said, the vast acreage of the wings may be a good canvas to try something new, maybe scribe the surface detail for the first time ?

I 'd say as long as the tool is still good enough to mould decent kits with, Airfix will not invest in a replacement, especially as there may not be money in abundance at Hornby presently.

Yes it is Eddie D

He still pops into 'club' occasionally, nice man

[Seahawk]

Yes it is Eddie D

He still pops into 'club' occasionally, nice man

Very nice man. And his son. Please let him know that he and his shop are not forgotten.

[perdu]

Wilco though he knows we miss him and the shop

I've told him enough times

[AnonymousAA72]

No, it's not as bad as some make out.....in addition to the pointers above, I would suggest getting hold of an early issue of the kit, later examples have some poorly moulded smaller parts, where the tools are certainly showing their age.

Of course the down side of that is that the decals In some of the earlier incarnations are pretty poor.....

I would certainly suggest reading some of the build articles on the web, and in magazines. Plenty of tips and pointers there.....

[Tim T]

No, it's not as bad as some make out.....in addition to the pointers above, I would suggest getting hold of an early issue of the kit, later examples have some poorly moulded smaller parts, where the tools are certainly showing their age.

Of course the down side of that is that the decals In some of the earlier incarnations are pretty poor.....

I would certainly suggest reading some of the build articles on the web, and in magazines. Plenty of tips and pointers there.....

Bill is being too modest. He has written some extremely good articles on building the Vulcan. They are well worth reading.

[AnonymousAA72]

Bill is being too modest. He has written some extremely good articles on building the Vulcan. They are well worth reading.

Thanks for that Tim! Nice of you to say so. Some readers/ modellers on here may not have access to the relevant magazines now, but as the Vulcan is such a popular subject there are plenty of on-line builds as well.....

[Dave Fleming]

No, it's not as bad as some make out.....in addition to the pointers above, I would suggest getting hold of an early issue of the kit, later examples have some poorly moulded smaller parts, where the tools are certainly showing their ..

I wonder how much of that is down to the plastic Airfix use these days and the moulding process as against the actual tooling

[Michael51]

My thanks again for these very helpful comments.

They are most appreciated.

The comments about the Canberra got me looking at the boxes of the three I have obtained. Two describe it as a "BAC CANBERRA B (I)6". The third, and earlier boxing has a "NEW" flash in the top left hand corner and simply describes the kit as "BAC CANBERRA".

That box sits on my shelf as as pleasant reminder of a time long ago, before mobile 'phones, texting and Playstations, when a young chap could really leave the planet using only his imagination and no chemicals

Michael

[stever219]

What they said!

The outer trailing edges are thick and squared off: the inners are far sharper, so I attacked mine with the biggest sweetheart file I could find and the spent days polishing out the scars! The tailpipes are a crude facsimile of the Olympus 300 units, lacking finesse and the inner pipes of the real jet. Freightdog do two (IIRC) Olympus 200 units as fitted to most early B. 2s which really improve this area.

As others have said the intakes can be attacked with filler and a roll (or several) of wet 'n' dry to produce a decent result.

Garza did a very good job on the bomb bay on here last year (should be in "Work in progress" somewhere) which could give you some ideas. The rest of his thread could also give you some very useful ideas.

If you fancy doing one in anti-flash white you could experiment with gently abrading the paint to reveal the raised surface detail beneath rather than scribing, but I don't think that'd work too well on the transfers; speaking of which there are a number of sheets available (Modeldecal sheets 70 & 71 come highly recommended if you can find decent, per-loved examples).

Build it, enjoy it. When it's done, even straight from the box, it's big and impressive and you'll develop your modelling abilities along the way.

[Julien]

If you can find an earlier boxing rather than a later boxing it would be better. Time has not been kind to the moulds.

JUlien

[Michael51]

Thanks chaps,

I have been searching evil bay without too much success for some time and have instead purchased the latest version from Hannants, along with the exhausts and anti-flash decal sheet that they have in stock. Their shipping costs to Australia can seem high but it is generally cheaper than taking the ebay route.

I have noted the cautions and advisories about recent molds but this seemed the better route to take.

Speaking of V bombers, the best price on a Valiant that I could find ended up being Sprue Brothers so that is on the way too.

Thank you again for all the well informed and constructive comments. A very pleasant forum indeed.

Michael

[Alan P]

Thank you for these helpful, thoughtful, erudite comments.

I will obtain the kit and build it into a fine machine.

Michael

Fantastic attitude! With that approach you should be able to make a beautiful Vulcan from a block of driftwood.

Wishing you all the best with your build, and for what it's worth, I found it a straightforward build and it looks great when finished.

[AnonymousAA72]

I wonder how much of that is down to the plastic Airfix use these days and the moulding process as against the actual tooling

Yes, that's very possible...the last 'new' version I bought had wheels that were useless. Luckily I had some in the spares box from an old " in flight" build.

[Eric Mc]

I built it back in 1984 and was very appreciative of it at the time as there were no alternatives in 1/72 other than the Rareplanes vacform..

Nowadays modellers get into a froth when they encounter issues we took for granted back in the "old days" - such as less than perfect fit and raised panel lines.

For its time, it was a very decent kit and until someone brings out a modern CAD based moulding in 1/72, it's still a worthwhile model to build.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Eric Mc

[Michael51]

Good point.

I recently built an Italeri Stirling and kept thinking all the time how much more fun the Airfix version had been before I 'grew up' and was made aware of accuracy, fit and recessed line issues.

Airfix, the fifties and the sixties, what a time.

[Shane]

Well, you pays your money and you makes your choices!

It is not in the same league as the Canberra, being first released in the mid 1980's, (IIRC 1986?), the Canberra 2005(?) and does have its own share of problems to be surmounted. Is it difficult? In certain areas yes, like most models. But in other areas its inherent simplicity, (remember Airfix mid 80's), makes it very straight forward.

Airfix B(I)6 was released in 1973, not 2005 which makes it a good deal older than the Vulcan released in 1983.

However, 32 year error of fact notwithstanding, I agree with the rest of your post. Build the damned thing - good experiences frequently come from models that actually require a bit of actual effort.

Shane