Airfix 1/48 P-51D - not that impressed

[lesthegringo]

Gents, I'm currently in the middle of an international move and am in a hotel, bored out of my brain. I am relieving this by finding the local model shops and getting a couple of kits to work on. I can't fully build as all my airbrush equipment and paints are in the container somewhere in the middle of the indian ocean, but I set myself up with some basic tools and got three kits, all 1/48.

1) The Zvezda Pe-2

2) ICM MiG-25 RBT

3) Airfix P-51D

 

Of the three, the one that disappoints is the Airfix kit. I was a little surprised to see it on sale here, and the price was very reasonable (circa 18 quid). In the box, I was very impressed by a lot of it but I have started to build it and I am now staring to wonder what the hype is about. Don't get me wrong, it is not a bad kit, especially when you factor in the price. But I have found the fit to be extremely variable, from great to downright poor, and has some silly (in my opinion) design features that lead to an over fussy build. Add to that warped parts (fuselage halves especially), very poor placement of sprue gates and ejector pins, flash, some overdone detail and a defect on one of the canopy parts.

 

I wish I was able to take pictures and upload them here, but my limited resources and those wonderful chaps at Photobucket limit what I can do here. However I would like to know if others have found the same or whether I have a friday afternoon kit

 

The biggest issue by far is the rear fuselage fit. I assembled the tailfin parts onto the fuselage halves as instructed. I did a bit of fettling and with a bit of care I was able to get an absolutely perfect fit of the fin parts to the fuselage halves, no gaps, just a nice tight seam line that could easily pass for a panel line, although the parts seemed to be ever so slightly off centre. The tailwheel cutout also seemed to be offcentre by about the same amount so I though maybe a design feature? Both were the same, and seemed to match so I just thought it a vagary of the kit. OK now, at this point, felling pretty good abut this, I noticed that there were another set of tailfins on the sprue - don't ask how I missed them, but I did. I checked the instructions and there was no mention of alternatives, but I did note that I had put the wrong ones on. I wondered whether I'd got a different variant's parts on, but a check revealed that the only apparent difference is that the riveting detail on the ones I fitted was better position wise, if a bit deeper. Hmmm, why's it there then?

 

Never mind, I thought, proceed. Radiator assembly next, which with a bit of fettling fitted together, although with some prominent ejector pin marks. The option to close the outlet door covers this, so not a huge deal but annoying. Fit to the cockpit 'tub part was good, and with judicious use of fitting and extra thin I got another great join that avoided the need for any sanding in an awkward area. 

 

So now I go to test fit the cockpit assembly into the fuselage, and start to notice the problems. Firstly, the left hand fuselage part is warped, and not by a bit. I think, with careful progressive gluing I will be able to get it to straighten up, but annoying nonetheless. Then I look at the radiator assembly, and more specifically the part of the lower rear fuselage where the radiator outlet is. If I want the fuselage seams to be good, and the profile of that feature to be flush with the fuselage sides, I have to put up with a gap between the fuselage halves around the tailwheel area. I wondered if it was me, but then started looking closer and realised that the offset tailwheel opening on the right fuselage half was poorly moulded, In addition to it being offset, there was a distinct step staring at where the centre line was, and the extra bit forward of the opening wasn't long enough. This means that filler will have to be used there, and if you didn't find it until after you installed the cockpit assembly per the instructions, you would then have to deal with that with the tailwheel leg and undercariage doors in place. 

 

Ok, thinks I, it's on the underside.... but wait. Now I'm looking at the upper rear fuselage seam rear of the canopy. Ok, you have the groove for the canopy guide, but rear of that the fuselage is held apart by the tail fin parts. This is where I started wondering if those incorrectly fitted parts was going to bite me. I started checking and cut the canopy part with the defect off the sprue in order to see if I needed to pinch the fuselage halves together to close up the gap, but when I did I found it made the fuselage too narrow. By closing up the fin parts and leaving the upper fuselage seam open and parallel, the canopy would match the profiles exactly! I can't go back and check what the fit would be like with the 'correct' parts, but I don't think that they would have improved it. So I have to leave the upper rear fuselage with a 0.5mm gap and a slightly smaller one in front of the tailwheel opening in order to keep all the profiles correct; that's not good for a brand new tool model.

 

On the wings, I found I had to shave off the locating 'pins' (they are actually a mating ring and recess) in order to make sure the leading edges lined up properly, otherwise the top would be pushed rearward by a small amount, not huge but enough to make the gun inserts not fit nicely. While on the subject of the wings who on earth was in charge of sprue gate placement? Why put a sprue gate on the trailing edge where the flap will go on a concave surface that makes an acute angle with the wing upper surface? It is a right pain to get rid of the gate nub, and I can bet that more than one modeller will be left with unsightly marks on the rear edge of the wing as a result.

 

The fit of the wing leading edge insert to the fuselage is also not great, at least on one side until I realised that the locating pin on the lower front fuselage join pushes one half forward plus there needs to be a tiny bit removed from part C01. It's all within the realms of what you would consider basic modelling skills, but really other companies like Eduard and the like would have nailed it better, I think.

 

Why are there two sink marks each on the tip of all four prop blades? Oh, and they are warped; I have never seen that on any model before

 

As I said, I cannot complete my model yet as I don't have all my stuff with me. When I do, some plasticard to space that rear fuselage plus some other filling and a nice paint job will result in a nice model. Yes the Airfix P-51D is a nice kit with nice details and will be accurate especially in stuff like the wheelbays. Yes, it also has some nice touches like the way the windscreen has part of the fuselage with it to ease assembly, and those canopy parts that were not defective are lovely and clear and smooth. But I can't help feeling that they have overcomplicated parts of it and as a result introduced some silly problems. The Tamiya kit is not perfect, but for a similar price I would struggle to justify buying the Airfix offering over it, especially if you are not prepared to work around the fit issues. The inaccurate wheelbay? I've yet to see anyone who looks at my models bend down to look underneath to check.

 

A last word. The ICM MiG-25 and the Zvezda Pe-2 are revelations, comparatively. Ok, I know about the nose inaccuracy of the MiG version I have, but the sheer quality of the parts, the superb fit and the levels of details are of another order. I am really really enjoying putting these two together and can't wait to see what they look like painted. Oh, and if you get a chance, take a look at the Yahu Models instrument panels, they make the Eduard versions look amateurish and flat

 

Sorry for the ramble!

 

Les

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by lesthegringo
Spelling as usual

[janneman36]

Hello Les, no ramble but i understand what you mean...

I had some warped flaps, i already corrected this whit a heat gun as the plastic is very soft to be easely heated and straiten out the two!

The gap in the upper fuselage is in my opinion a design flaw as i have it and another modeller that i know and so a replicated issue...

The thing is if you put the vertical stabilizers in place in the correct way they are perfectly lined up with the fuselage side.

This vertical stabilizer is offset to correct torque in real life and is correctly done on the model but when you mate it up it creates the gap!

Most of us probably tend to sand it flat but that must be avoided as the vertical stabilizer will be ruined this way, just fill the gap..

The rest of my model fits very well and the most ejector marks will not be seen when put together..

Nevertheless i must share your opinion on the issues you name...

Also i must say it is not a deal breaker for me as i almost shake it together with ease and the cockpit section is a very  nice design with good detail!

 

Cheers, Jan

 

[Silver Fox]

I got the gap as well but had no warping or visible sink marks. Other than that I had no fit issues or problems.

[Rob G]

I have enough P-51s from various other companies that I'm not in need of the Airfix kit, so I've yet to see it. I may order one just to see if its faults are replicated in the batch that arrived Down Under. Or I may not. Given my experience with the Airfix Jet Provost, I have no reason to doubt your findings!

 

I concur with your praise for Yahu - I have their 1/72 Tiger Moth and Mosquito panels and they are exquisite.

[RODH2]

I don't think i'd be building a Zvezda Pe-2 in a hotel room, myself.....but then I can't walk and chew gum.  

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, lesthegringo said:

I wondered whether I'd got a different variant's parts on, but a check revealed that the only apparent difference is that the riveting detail on the ones I fitted was better position wise, if a bit deeper. Hmmm, why's it there then?

 

can't find the exact details,  one is the very first fin fillet,  then the more common one.  There is a difference.

 

3 hours ago, lesthegringo said:

The inaccurate wheelbay? I've yet to see anyone who looks at my models bend down to look underneath to check.

because it's visible in any  low frontal view.

 

Not a total deal breaker,  and was standard for P-51 kits to have the rear wall of the well follow the door outline.

 

A lot seems to be that while the design and research is top notch, the tool making and moulding and plastcit used is not.

 

HTH

 

[Seahawk]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

A lot seems to be that while the design and research is top notch, the tool making and moulding and plastcit used is not.

Sadly as accurate a summary of where Airfix currently are as anyone could wish for, IMHO.  The vision is superb, the execution often average or even poor.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Seahawk

[Calum]

Funnily enough I have had  pretty much the exact opposite experience when building the Airfix mustang.

 

I think it's a fantastic kit that fits really well. I had mine assembled in about 6-8 hours with hardly any filler. 

 

The only niggles I found were:

• tiny sink marks on the horizontal fins and on the prop blades ;
• the join along vertical fin inserts needed filling and re-scribing;
• the horizontal fins had tiny gaps; and
• A bit of fettling was needed to get a good fit for the gun inserts

Of these the gun inserts took the longest time to fix, about 5mins each side.

 

Apart from that it's as good as most new tool kits out there IMHO. I did take a fair bit care to clean up the sprue attachment points and dry fit things first. Most of the . I also like the plastic. It glues well and is easy to work with. 

You can see my build below. I've been quite pedantic on the build trying to pick out every tiny thing I found wrong. But I think they are all pretty minor.

 

I'm no Airfix fanboy I've only ever built the 1/48 Lightning (x 2), 1/48 Mk 22 Spitfire and 1/48 Hurricane MK 1. Of these the Lightning and Mk 22 were considered Airfix's hide water mark in 1/48 prior to this latest resurgence . I thought they were OK but not great, certainly nowhere near Hasegawa etc. The Mk1 Hurricane from last year was a marked improvement on bot those but it did have one little fit issue (again I managed to solve it easily) .The Mustang is better still, it's by far the best Airfix kit I've built.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Calum

[72modeler]

16 hours ago, janneman36 said:

Hello Les, no ramble but i understand what you mean...

I had some warped flaps, i already corrected this whit a heat gun as the plastic is very soft to be easely heated and straiten out the two!

The gap in the upper fuselage is in my opinion a design flaw as i have it and another modeller that i know and so a replicated issue...

The thing is if you put the vertical stabilizers in place in the correct way they are perfectly lined up with the fuselage side.

This vertical stabilizer is offset to correct torque in real life and is correctly done on the model but when you mate it up it creates the gap!

Most of us probably tend to sand it flat but that must be avoided as the vertical stabilizer will be ruined this way, just fill the gap..

The rest of my model fits very well and the most ejector marks will not be seen when put together..

Nevertheless i must share your opinion on the issues you name...

Also i must say it is not a deal breaker for me as i almost shake it together with ease and the cockpit section is a very  nice design with good detail!

 

Cheers, Jan

 

You are correct about the P-51D fin offset- the fin was angled one degree from the centerline. There were two different styles of dorsal fin fairings (DFF's) fitted to P-51D/K's. One is known as the 'swayback' and has a slightly curved surface from the top of the fuselage to the LE of the fin; the other has a straight surface. 1/48 is not my scale, but I do have the Airfix kit to be built as a tribute; I haven't taken the parts out of the box yet, nor have I taped the big bits together, so I can't really comment on the issues that you and Les experienced in your builds. I know there are good drawings of both fin fairings; I'll see if I can find them and whether or not the types were devoted to one or both NAA plants.

Mike

[ocatlub]

They look to me to have have gone out of thier way to be different for no real reason. Why they did not  do as Revell and Tamiya with different tail planes, it would have been easier and simpler to build. As it is now I have built two up to the painting stage and both the have a lean to the right at the top of the fin, and the horizontal surfaces are in the same direction . Twisting the rear of the tail in front of the horiziontal surfaces effect the desired result. Also if the mould joint line not removed where the horizintal surfaces socket in the the tail plane will not fit. There are other areas of bad fit, also why Airfix put all the heavy rivets on what should be a filled finished wing?