Airfix Me 262 A-1a Schwalbe 1/72 Released - New Boxing Me 262B-1a released

[stevehnz]

It seems to me that Airfix maybe could look into incorporating slightly more clearance into its mating areas, we'd only be talking a thou or two but the fact that these areas are problematical could show up a lack of awareness of the practical realities here & I'm sure any cad designer worth their salt will be able to adjust the dimensions in the pertinent areas. Just sayin! 

Steve.

[bil]

On 16/09/2017 at 11:22 PM, Phantome said:

My 2c: Airfix kits are getting progressively more expensive despite not showing an equivalent progression in quality. Surface detail is still not up to par to most other manufacturers (Italeri notwithstanding) and there's still a short-run-ish feel to them, which is evident in their fit: I have not had a single new Airfix kit without significant fit problems. It's a shame because they've now had quite a number of years to improve but struggle finding one new Airfix kit that is substantially superior to that of some other manufacturer, the exceptions being those where Airfix has no competition (like the Swordfish). If you're going to charge £13 for a Me 262 which will likely have some accuracy and fit issues, why not just spend an extra £2 and get the Academy which is still the benchmark for this plane on this scale (mind you, has some fit issues too)? Or get the Revell at half price.

If the Academy Me262 is the benchmark, Airfix are shooting at an open goal!  

[invidia]

i am tempted to get the 262, but like others most of the 'new' airfix kits have fit problems, vampire didn't fit, wildcat warped parts, jet provest warped parts, hurricane 1 warped parts, bf 109, pain to fit and i built 3 at once, the only 2 kits which fitted are the be2c and the eindekker.  i find the kits nicely detailed and value for money but they need to sort the quality out.  hope the 1/48 walrus and sea fury don't have these problems.

[Denford]

On ‎16‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:22 PM, Phantome said:

My 2c: Airfix kits are getting progressively more expensive ....

Don't overlook the effect of the falling £ .

For example, the cost of my holiday to India (where the actual moulding, packing etc takes place) had to be increased because when I booked there were 100 rupees to the pound, and when I left only 80! 

I'm sure the same applies to China where the moulds are made, and probably others too eg Cartograph (I believe Italian with the strengthening Euro).

However all is not doom and gloom as although the UK prices may have risen, overseas should have fallen, or at least held firm.

[IanC]

The price issue is not a problem for me. It'll stop me buying too many.

 

I intend to get a couple of 262s. They'll look good on top of the B-17, Whitley, He 111, Lanc, Kate, Beaufighter, Stuka, Do 17 and all the other boxes in the cupboard with the 'Caution: Build One Before Adding Another' warning sign on the door.  

 

 

 

 

[fewr9fkr9595]

Been dabbling with one of these and no major shockers to be honest. 

 

The plastic is quite soft and easy to work with. Downside to this is some of the smaller bits aren't as 'crisp' as we have become used to from the east, be that czech or the rising sun...

[TEXANTOMCAT]

Some interesting comments here...I've built a lot of the new tool Airfix models -  Tiger Moth (6!) lovely, USAAF Set, RAF Resupply, Jeep, 1/48 Hurri, 1/72 Defiant (2), Lanc II, C47, 1/72 Mustang, etc etc - all of which went together pretty well.....bit of fettling maybe but are we not modellers?

 

I'd go so far as to say that the 48th Hurri is in my top three kits of all time. I think the key thing is we all want Airfix to do well if we're honest. Its a British institution and why most of us are into the hobby in the first place due to its influence in our formative years (see also Commando comics and a respectful nod to Matchbox).

 

So when something iconic doesn't live up to the rose tinted glasses...perhaps they get a tougher time of it?

 

The CAD tolerances ARE extremely tight, just a lick of paint , and I am a heathen with a hairy stick, is enough to tip things out of whack. What does make me smile is that Wingnut Wings kits are exactly the same - if you are in a slightly humid room the tolerances are so fine that things go awry. But everyone just goes - tsk those Kiwi scamps, you've gotta remember they're so precise that you need to take that into account. Airfix no such grace is given and I cant understand why.

 

After all the WW kits (and I'll be honest I've only built one - a  Snipe) are £60 a pop - thats a lot of folding indeed to me - maybe 4-5 'normal' kits. Now I'm not knocking WW their product is superb - beautifully produced and researched but eyewateringly expensive. The 'Fix - well they can knock out a really nice P-51 for six quid, and a socking great V bomber for £50 - a much wider market, from pocket money to serious modellers. 

 

I'm pottering through a clutch of A Model kits at the moment. Their Spit 14 was bloody awful. Their Moths are dinky little things that with a bit (a lot) of work make up to be lovely representations of the real thing. Their Moths, £13 - Airfix Moth £5.99 - etc.... its modelling innit

 

The line is fine between an Airfix Evangelist and an Airfix Knocker... one things for certain, we'd miss em if they were gone.

Edited September 18, 2017 by TEXANTOMCAT

[Max Headroom]

I used to paint parts individually then glue them together. Now with the tight  tolerances to be found on the new wave Airfix kits, it's the other way round. I prefer it that way as I can see 'progress', namely the model taking shape, much earlier in the assembly progress and for me at least, that is a motivation to keep going. It's the process I've now adopted on other manufacturers models for the same reason.

 

To me, Airfix are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were when they released their 1/72 Spitfire IX and Hurricane IIc. If I had a general criticism about their new releases it would be a plea (begging?!) them to get their wing trailing edges thinner. In all other departments they are doing fine by me.

 

As for the 262 itself, it's not a subject for me but I'm happy to think that it will sell by the container load to eventually fund  my own person pet subject, the Boulton Paul Balliol (I can dream can't I?!)

 

Trevor

[Gerrardandrews]

Airfix Me 262 is a good tool, but has to be made a bit like a cottage industry type, soft plastic and this shows on the smaller parts, detail around cannon could be better, engine fit not the best, same type of fit as their Vampire, and with fuel tanks included, and holes in the bottom part of wing, two seater expected.

I got mine for £11, still a bit pricey , maybe £9, be about right, cockpit canopy is good, and fit of tail as well.

nice to have more, kettenkrad towing would have been nice, and gun bay open, and slats'.

Very open for Eduard to take the 1/72 262, crown .

 

[Roman Schilhart]

I received my copy last weekend at E-Day in Prague.

Close inspection reveals: Airfix rendition is a late-production aircraft (gun blisters on the nose).

Revell's 262 was an early production without blisters.

Airfix kit lacks the headrest armour and has a narrow trim tab,  indicating a Leipheim built machine.

By cutting out the trim tab (and replacing it with a broader one) and adding headrest you can build a Obertraubling version as well.

But not the Budweis version, which has square blisters, though.

 

 

 

[Black Knight]

You appear to know something about 262s.

Airfix have not done the triangular shaped vents on the rear of the engine cowlings.

Were these on all 262s or just ones with BMW or with Jumo engines?

[Seahawk]

On 18/09/2017 at 11:53 AM, Tony Oliver said:

.... some of the smaller bits aren't as 'crisp' as we have become used to from the east, be that czech or the rising sun...

 

The smaller parts aren't as crisp as Airfix themselves were delivering regularly in the 1960s: I don't believe that even now they could produce, for example, Browning .303s as fine and sharply defined as you'll find in the ancient Airfix Halifax.   I agree with you: the soft detail on the smaller parts is above all what lets Airfix kits down at the moment (though the slab-like trailing edge of the Fw 190's wing is the stuff of nightmares).  But they may improve: the trench-like surface detail and Airfix weedy prop syndrome seem behind them now.

[VMA131Marine]

29 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

 

The smaller parts aren't as crisp as Airfix themselves were delivering regularly in the 1960s: I don't believe that even now they could produce, for example, Browning .303s as fine and sharply defined as you'll find in the ancient Airfix Halifax.   I agree with you: the soft detail on the smaller parts is above all what lets Airfix kits down at the moment (though the slab-like trailing edge of the Fw 190's wing is the stuff of nightmares).  But they may improve: the trench-like surface detail and Airfix weedy prop syndrome seem behind them now.

There has been a distinct improvement in the kits tooled and molded in the UK versus those produced in India. The panel lines on the 1/48 P-40B for example are a marked improvement over those on the 1/48 Hurricane I. On the other hand, I think the, perhaps, overly emphasized surface detail may be a design choice recognising that most of these kits will be brush painted, which obliterates really fine surface details.

[fewr9fkr9595]

2 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

I think the, perhaps, overly emphasized surface detail may be a design choice recognising that most of these kits will be brush painted, which obliterates really fine surface details.

 

Do you know what, that makes the most sense of anything I've heard today! Never thought of it from that viewpoint before. 

Nice one mate. 

 

[sroubos]

I've been hearing that argument for at least eight years on new Airfix kits. I don't buy it because, on the whole, their panel lines have progressively been getting better and thinner over that time. So the are definitely trying.

[Homebee]

New variant announced for  October 2018 - ref. A04062 - Messerschmitt Me 262B-1a

• Scheme 1: 10./NJG 11, W.Nr 111980, Red 12 + RAF Version
• Scheme 2: Avia CS-92 Czech AF

Source: https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/shop/new-for-2018/messerschmitt-me262-b1a-1-72.html

 

V.P.

[Uncle Dick]

I noticed they bumped this in to series 4 kit now - ouch !!!!!!!!

[VMA131Marine]

It's worth pointing out that the nightfighter and trainer 2-seat Me 262's had different rear cockpit configurations. The Me 262B-1a/CS-92 trainer was dual control with a partial panel for the rear seat instructor. The Me 262B-1a/U1 nightfighter did not have the rear seat flying controls and the radar control unit sat were the instrument panel was. It will be interesting to see if Airfix account for these differences between the two versions.

[Charlie Hugo]

2 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

It's worth pointing out that the nightfighter and trainer 2-seat Me 262's had different rear cockpit configurations. The Me 262B-1a/CS-92 trainer was dual control with a partial panel for the rear seat instructor. The Me 262B-1a/U1 nightfighter did not have the rear seat flying controls and the radar control unit sat were the instrument panel was. It will be interesting to see if Airfix account for these differences between the two versions.

They do seem to be accounting for the difference in canopies, The 3d seems to show the nightfighter version.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 09/01/2018 at 9:51 PM, VMA131Marine said:

It's worth pointing out that the nightfighter and trainer 2-seat Me 262's had different rear cockpit configurations. The Me 262B-1a/CS-92 trainer was dual control with a partial panel for the rear seat instructor. The Me 262B-1a/U1 nightfighter did not have the rear seat flying controls and the radar control unit sat were the instrument panel was. It will be interesting to see if Airfix account for these differences between the two versions.

Well that's the best news I've had so far this year.....Guess which dimwitt lost one of the IP acetates for his proposed entry to the 262 GB! 

[Homebee]

More: https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/latest-airfix-kit-range-to-start-new-year

 

Quote

Messerschmitt Me262B-1a – 1/72nd scale

Computer rendered 3D image featuring the radar equipped Me 262B-1a/U1 Nightfighter

 

Released last year to the delight of Luftwaffe modellers all over the world, our new Messerschmitt Me 262 brought the latest design and manufacturing techniques to arguably the most significant aircraft to see service during WWII. As the world’s first operational jet fighter, the Me 262 was a huge leap forward in aviation technology and held the potential of allowing the Luftwaffe to wrestle back air superiority from the Allies in the skies above Europe, which ensured these dangerous aircraft were hunted mercilessly following their discovery. Had the Germans been able to unleash large numbers of these aircraft, piloted by experienced crews, just a few months earlier than they did, the air war over Europe would have claimed many more casualties and potentially prolonged the war significantly.

 

A montage of images associated with the new Me 262B-1a announcement A04062

 

The overwhelming superiority of Allied air forces, lack of suitably trained pilots and difficulties introducing this radically new technology into service all reduced the impact of the new Messerschmitt jet, to a point where it made little difference to the eventual outcome, albeit whilst highlighting the technological superiority of the German aviation industry. As the first machines were single seat aircraft, pilots first experience of jet propulsion would be their first solo flight. This would challenge even the most experienced of Luftwaffe airmen and accidents would be commonplace during the service introduction of the Me 262. For the new jet to have any impact on the air war, new and inexperienced pilots would have to fly the fighter effectively in combat and to help speed this process, the two seat Me 262B-1a trainer was developed from the original airframe, with a second rear cockpit for an instructor being added, whilst retaining operational capabilities. All of these aircraft were conversions from the existing fighter versions, even though the addition of the second cockpit and necessary fuselage alterations gave the aircraft a dramatically different appearance – from the modellers perspective, these new parts are almost as good as a new model tooling.

 

Devastatingly effective, the Me 262B-1a was also one of the best looking aircraft of WWII

 

As the twin seat Me 262 jet trainers retained much of the offensive capabilities of the earlier single seat fighters, a number of these aircraft went on to be used as interim night fighters, hoping to stem the tide of nocturnal RAF bombing operations over Germany. Equipped with the Siemens FuG 218 Neptun V airborne interception radar with its distinctive stag antler antenna arrangement on the nose, these were without doubt some of the most interesting aircraft of WWII and devastatingly effective fighters in the hands of an expert pilot. Allowing modellers to produce this handsome version of the Messerschmitt Me 262, A04062 will surely introduce many more modellers to the virtues of this historic aircraft and in this centenary year of the RAF, bring attention to one of their most feared adversaries. Scheme details included with this new release feature Me 262 B-1a/U1 ‘Red 12’ (Werknummer 111980) of NJG 11, which was captured by the British at Schleswig-Jagel airfield and was later adorned with RAF markings.

 

V.P.

[yarvelling]

On 17/09/2017 at 09:58, SimonT said:

I want Airfix to do well, as a British company, who make British subjects.

 

That said, if it's an awful kit then I'm not spending my hard earned cash knowingly, on rubbish, that would just be silly.

 

I've bought a few Airfix kits recently, all in 48th, such as the new Ju-87 and Hurricane. I'm not very far through the Hurricane (just getting the cockpit together) but construction is almost complete on the Stuka and the fit was Tamiya good. Care needs to be taken when painting, I avoid painting any mating areas as the tolerances on the kit are that small that a layer of paint hinders the fit. To me this isn't a problem, I just plan the build accordingly and is part of my enjoyment.

 

Thats what I wonder, are most people "painters" rather than "builders"? Is that why it frustrates people more if fit of a kit is a problem, as it holds up the process of which you prefer more, the laying down of colours and finishing?

 

I enjoy fixing things (I do it in real life too) so those sorts of issues don't tend to bother me so much and offer me a sense of achievement.

 

With regards to the 262, I saw some go for £13.50 at the Farnborough IPMS yesterday and some for a few quid cheaper. I personally think that's expensive for a 1/72 kit of a fighter, but people were rushing to buy them so what do I know?!  I saw (and should have bought, but I already have one) Tamiya's 1/48 262 for £15. Now don't get me wrong, that's a bargain for that kit, but it just seemed pertinent on the price argument.

 

I obviously have read horror stories of fit and QC on Airfix new kits, even the kits I've taken a risk on (Hurricane & Stuka) but I've not experienced these problems and I'm in no way a "quality modeller" (as was most evident from the show yesterday, some of the work was just incredible) so I have to just judge for myself as and when I get a kit.

 

I want to build a Spitfire lineage, so I'm after a reasonably priced 1/48 Airfix Mk I, as to me, it looks good, the reviews I've seen are mostly positive and other than the Tamiya kit it's pretty much the only one around.  When it comes to a Mk IX, I'm not even contemplating Airfix, I'll get an Eduard Profipack. So I'm not a fanboy you see.

 

Disclaimer: This is in no way a aggressive post nor opinionated, it is a genuine thought and question.

 

Bit late to this party.... but I agree.... The fit on their 1/48 JU87 was superb - it was exemplary, and as was that of the Hurricane.... it just fell together!  And after a period of not doing any modelling at all for the past 6 months, I've recently started back up with the Airfix Dambuster and found it to be a superb fit (even though the fuselage halves were twisted like bananas), and have picked up again the Airfix ME-262 and given it a coat of primer that it has been waiting for for months!  It went together well - although the engine nacelles did need a little fettling to make them fit well - not too much though, as with the originals, the fit wasn't exactly what you'd call 'perfect'... 😉  
I like these new Airfix kits, though I wish they'd reduce the number of sprue contact points.... especially on finely described items like pitot tubes, machine guns, and aerial masts...the heavy sprue gate will too often snap the item required!  😕 
But overall, no problems with the 262 in question - it's now awaiting a camo spray-job, and the Dambuster likewise... 🙂

[Modelraynz]

Got my kit recently - is it normal the fuselauge  wants to pop apart? As in takes some slight squeezing  to get the fuselauge pins interlocking, though i cant see visible warping, feels like CA will be necessary!

[fewr9fkr9595]

3 minutes ago, Modelraynz said:

Got my kit recently - is it normal the fuselauge  wants to pop apart? As in takes some slight squeezing  to get the fuselauge pins interlocking, though i cant see visible warping, feels like CA will be necessary!

Didn’t have that problem with mine from what I remember? 

You sure something isn’t fouling somewhere or you perhaps have a build up of paint from doing the interior? 

[Modelraynz]

8 hours ago, Tony Oliver said:

Didn’t have that problem with mine from what I remember? 

You sure something isn’t fouling somewhere or you perhaps have a build up of paint from doing the interior? 

Unfortunately  is from dryfitying minus interior!  Been good reading the thread tho, will have to be very careful with mating surfaces it seems!!! 

 

Small detail parts have been a bit of a dissapointer with the new releases re:  lack of crispness, am liking the pabel lines though these days!

Edited May 14, 2018 by Modelraynz