Is the Airfix Avro Vulcan really that bad?

[NAVY870]

I have the Rareplanes (I think) vac in the stash as well as a half knackered Airfix kit.

I keep looking at the two of them with foolish ideas of cross kitting.

[Lawnguylander]

I have the Rareplanes (I think) vac in the stash as well as a half knackered Airfix kit.

I keep looking at the two of them with foolish ideas of cross kitting.

The Rareplanes kit is pants with regards to the underside- The actual Vulcan underside is relatively flat, (nacelles not withstanding) whereas the Rareplanes kit undulates in cross section in a shape that mirrors the topside.

[NAVY870]

The Rareplanes kit is pants with regards to the underside- The actual Vulcan underside is relatively flat, (nacelles not withstanding) whereas the Rareplanes kit undulates in cross section in a shape that mirrors the topside.

So thats a no then.

[Neil Lambess]

The main problem I've always had with the Airfix kit is the way the wings blend into the Centre fuselage (or don't blend to be more accurate ) all the Vacform are much better in this respect with one piece upper wings and capture the subtly complex area much better than he Airfix kit can without a lot of filler and sanding ....having said that .the kit still looks like a Vulcan tho ! FWIW The old NOVA vacform gets the best look to my eyes capturing the very subtle "hump"above the intakes just right

[Learstang]

I had a relatively early moulding of the Vulcan that I never got around to building and is now sadly lost to the sands of time. It sounds like I might try to find another one. I do have a question - I know of the Freightdog sets, and I suspect Freightdog are up to their usual standards (very good), but does anyone know about the Wolfpack correction sets? They seem quite extensive.

Regards,

Jason

[71chally]

Not seen that Wolfpack set before, will definitely look out for that, if only to correct those jet pipes.

I guess the aftermarket parts are worth it if you want to build a really good rendition of the Vulcan.

As I mentioned earlier, I built (and half way through) the first boxing of the kit, the one with the photo of the completed model sat on blueprints style box.

I didn't encounter any major fit issues and impressed by how well the lines of the wing are captured. The undercarriage was well detailed and decals were really good with excellent colour density and register. It was just a shame with the jet pipes as these look completely 'unfinished' and are wrong in shape.

[Fifer54]

Good point.

. . . 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.

Sums up my current modelling exactly! I know so much about accuracy, fit, etc, that I find the fun has left my modelling kit assembly . . .

Oh, for the days of building a Spitfire in an hour . . .

[AnonymousAA72]

The main problem I've always had with the Airfix kit is the way the wings blend into the Centre fuselage (or don't blend to be more accurate ) all the Vacform are much better in this respect with one piece upper wings and capture the subtly complex area much better than he Airfix kit can without a lot of filler and sanding ....having said that .the kit still looks like a Vulcan tho ! FWIW The old NOVA vacform gets the best look to my eyes capturing the very subtle "hump"above the intakes just right

The wing to fuselage joint can be an issue on the Airfix kit, best solution is to glue the upper half on to the already constructed fuselage, thereby eliminating any gaps. Then add the lower half, with any necessary adjustment to that. Works really well.

[wyverns4]

Thanks Shane, my mistake I assumed it was the 1/48 model and not the classic and now rare 1/72 version.

Christian, exiled to africa

[STRAT'71]

I have built two of these over the years, and have a good stash should I want more.

After returning to modelling just after the Falklands war, I built a Matchbox Sea Harrier (very basic) and the Rareplanes vacform Victor. The Victor was a very complicated build, but even if I do say so myself, turned out rather well.

When the Airfix Vulcan came it was like manna from heaven, and after the Victor, was a piece of cake. Yes, it required some filling and sanding, but nothing daunting.

I am not a fan of panel lines, and so removed them. Looks so much more realistic. All this panel line exaggeration these days looks so toylike.

[PhantomBigStu]

I attempted it earlier in the year and I would say yes, having had a nightmare getting the freightdog pipes to fit my copy. I then attached the wings and they didn't fit either, definitly recommend fitting the wing halves first, so they fit at the fuselage join, then filling where the gaps are between them.

Also having not built the MB/revell victor I ask, is it that bad? wouldn't mind giving it a go, not least as the airfix victor is outside my budget so I'd be rather hesitant to try it even if as an xmas present

[Radar]

Michael,

Everything is relative, the Airfix Vulcan is not a bad model, although not a Tamigawa "shake'n'bake it doesn't look bad when a bit of time and effort is taken with it. I remember they furor in the modeling world when we finally got a mainstream manufacturer producing a V Bomber in 1:72 scale, it was like the clamor after the two Shackletons were announced last year.

I was very very fortunate to buy a FROG 1:96th Scale Vulcan B Mk.1A last Sunday at the NEC Toy Fair. I've wanted one for 50 years and finally got one for £10, bargain. The vendor started off at £100 but when the damaged box was opened 7 of the 18 very small wheels were missing as was a small part of the stand! I managed to get him down to a tenner (after telling him it was practically worthless, naughty me). On looking inside the box when I got home memories came flooding back as to the type of models we used to build in the 1960's and we thought they were dead good then!

So my point is, if the kit is all you can get of that particular aircraft and you are happy that you are finally going to get to build a model of your favorite aircraft then go for it and enjoy it.

Boy, are we spoiled today with super precision drop together seamless kits, go ahead build it warts and all and enjoy it.

Happy Days

[dadgaddad]

You need to talk to robvulcan he's built about 40 million of 'em.

[Junchan]

A friend of mine has turned an Airfix Vulcan kit into a real masterpiece. He used after parts such as Two Mikes resin and Flightpath PE, but I think he used some kind of magic.

Check the link below to see how he worked on this project.

http://nabe3saviation.web.fc2.com/modelVul.html

Jun in Tokyo

https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums

[Jonny]

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

Oh how I miss those says ... Ordering this 'n that from ED Models in advance of an Airshow with every confidence that they'd be there with whatever I'd ordered with a smile and cheery greeting - Mum, dad & son there making one feel wanted, welcome and respected.

What Seahawk - and others - said. No way are the Deeley family or their shop forgotten ... just very much missed.

Sorry to rant. Time passes, we all get older, I suppose, and I'm sorry to go off-topic.

Sort of back on-topic, I bought one or two of the original Airfix Vulcan kits when they were first released. I first saw one as a half-completed example on an IPMS table at a modelling exhibition at Wembly. It looked fantastic then and with care it can still do so. I've one of my original purchases in the loft, too. One day I'll take it down and build it. So it isn't 100% accurate. So what? What kit is? I'm getting rather tired of rivet-counters / panel line know-all's / 0.01cm dimensional measurement "experts" rubbishing new kits, including **very** new ones, almost or even before they get into the shops. The question us ... DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHAT IT'S MEANT TO REPRESENT?

[Michael51]

A friend of mine has turned an Airfix Vulcan kit into a real masterpiece. He used after parts such as Two Mikes resin and Flightpath PE, but I think he used some kind of magic.

Check the link below to see how he worked on this project.

http://nabe3saviation.web.fc2.com/modelVul.html

Jun in Tokyo

https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums

Well, what a remarkable build.

_________

As far as the comments on this topic go, for me, there are some very informative observations, about '"accuracy" compared with "ímpression".

Being more inclined - and limited to - impression over accuracy, I will go into fifties / sixties mode and enjoy.

That question from Johnny ""DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHAT IT'S MEANT TO REPRESENT? " sums it up for me.

Michael

[71chally]

Superb build indeed. Shows that the jet pipes can be corrected with the minimum of cost, and very effectively!

[AnonymousAA72]

A friend of mine has turned an Airfix Vulcan kit into a real masterpiece. He used after parts such as Two Mikes resin and Flightpath PE, but I think he used some kind of magic.

Check the link below to see how he worked on this project.

http://nabe3saviation.web.fc2.com/modelVul.html

Jun in Tokyo

https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums

A very talented modeller indeed......

[Michael51]

Apologies in advance if this post is in the wrong section.

Is there an unambiguous and definitive source illustrating the differences between the 'white' early Mk 2 and later, camouflaged 'squared fin' Vulcans?

Is it more a matter of just rounding out the fin of the Airfix Vulcan to produce an earlier version or am I rather on the wrong track?

I probably am on the wrong track but a search of the interweb, and books has so far failed to clarify things.

Any advice from Forum members would be most appreciated.

Michael

[AnonymousAA72]

Apologies in advance if this post is in the wrong section.

Is there an unambiguous and definitive source illustrating the differences between the 'white' early Mk 2 and later, camouflaged 'squared fin' Vulcans?

Is it more a matter of just rounding out the fin of the Airfix Vulcan to produce an earlier version or am I rather on the wrong track?

I probably am on the wrong track but a search of the interweb, and books has so far failed to clarify things.

Any advice from Forum members would be most appreciated.

Michael

It's a long story, and a bit more involved than that, but you are essentially right regarding the fin tips. Other changes included the 'thimble' nose and differences between Olympus 200 and 300 engine exhausts, the plates under the exhausts and cooling equipment in the tail 'pod'.

The Vulcan is we'll covered in book form, with greater detail, which books have you looked at?

This link may help.....http://studysupport.info/vulcanbomber/

Edited May 27, 2016 by Bill Clark

[Michael51]

Bill,

That site you suggested holds a lot more information than I have gathered so far. Thank you for the lead.

The books I have looked at so far do not really go into the technical differences: Tim McLelland's "Britain's Cold War Bombers"and the Osprey title by Andrew Brookes, "Vulcan Units of the Cold War".

I have ordered "Vulcan Boys" and "Vulcan 607"by Tony Blackman and Rowland White respectively but do not anticipate much on technical changes from these.

Having spent the last fifty years exploring the aircraft of World War II, particularly those of Bomber Command, I am surprised that works on the so-called Cold War period appears so thin - unless I have been looking in the wrong place, which as your suggested site on the Vulcan shows, I am quite capable of doing.

Regards,

Michael

[AnonymousAA72]

Bill,

That site you suggested holds a lot more information than I have gathered so far. Thank you for the lead.

The books I have looked at so far do not really go into the technical differences: Tim McLelland's "Britain's Cold War Bombers"and the Osprey title by Andrew Brookes, "Vulcan Units of the Cold War".

I have ordered "Vulcan Boys" and "Vulcan 607"by Tony Blackman and Rowland White respectively but do not anticipate much on technical changes from these.

Having spent the last fifty years exploring the aircraft of World War II, particularly those of Bomber Command, I am surprised that works on the so-called Cold War period appears so thin - unless I have been looking in the wrong place, which as your suggested site on the Vulcan shows, I am quite capable of doing.

Regards,

Michael

Tim McLelland/Laming's Vulcan Story

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-Story-Tim-Laming/dp/0304358452

is very good, and should be added to your list.

Also Wings of Fame vol.3

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wings-of-Fame-volume-3-softback-Vulcan-B-25-New-Copy-/151400781489

Likewise worth digging out the relevant Warpaint

http://www.bookworldws.co.uk/warpaint-30avro-vulcan-p-6848.html

and Linewrights Aeroguide

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780946958054/Aeroguide-Avro-Vulcan-Roger-Chesneau-094695805X/plp

For modellers (by modellers!) they will give an insight into airframe and camouflage changes for differing roles ... I

Edited May 28, 2016 by Bill Clark

[Michael51]

Thank you Bill,

I appreciate your help.

Have followed up with orders for Laming, Aeroguide and Warpaint publications.

Michael

[Michael51]

Having received most of the sources mentioned in the previous post plus some others, I seek confirmation of the location of the ALQ-101 ECM pod mounting on the starboard wing of Vulcan XM607

The nearest I can tell, it is just outboard, by about four feet, of the large undercarriage door. Referring to the best illustration I can find, which is on page 28 of the Warpaint publication, that seems to be the spot.

How does this reconcile with the photo on page 29, which shows it on the port side?

I assume the latter has been produced in reverse.

Michael

[71chally]

My understanding is that the pod was carried on the stb'd side on the standard pylon position, and that the pylon itself was slightly shallower than the port pylon.