Albeback52

Thanks Jon. In a sense, you're right! Maybe I AM a closet "rivet estimator" You're first point about manufacturers striving for accuracy is certainly right on the button! I just take it for granted that they HAVE done their research!! But then, I'm really lazy so, it suits me to take that viewpoint!! My "research" such as it is tends to be limited to checking pictures of the subject. The gun turrets on the Stirling ( as indeed on other Airfix bomber kits of the era) were generally poorly executed & ANYTHING had to be better!! Even a non purist such as myself could tell that!!

Accuracy, Schmaccuracy!! I use poetic/artistic licence all the time. I'ts all part of the hobby & down to the individual! Personally, I never go looking for "inaccuracies" in model kits. I do not & never will count rivets, scribe panel lines spend hours poring over plans/drawings & comparing kit parts with same! To me, it's a complete waste of modelling time. Others clearly disagree. What does it matter? . I respect & admire the skill & patience of those who strive for total accuracy. They are far better modellers than I but, it's not for me. I try instead to get the best results out of what comes out of the box. I just want something that looks right to me! What I will NOT tolerate is people denigrating other models just because they havent "corrected" this part or replaced "that part" or, they have used the "wrong" colour or, "inaccurate" markings.. I fell victim to this latter type once before. Many years ago there was a local hobby/model exhibition. I entered an RAF Stirling. I like the Airfix Stirling.As usual, I didn't bother doing any detailed research but, I did try & at least improve the gun turrets ( always a weakness with the Airfix bomber kits). The nose turret was adapted from the Matchbox Halifax, the mid upper & rear turrets were adapted from the Airfix Lancaster parts. Now even I know that the Stirling used a different rear turret but, I figured " what the hell"! A tail turret is a tail turret & it looked a whole lot better than the kit original. Besides, to a casual glance, who'd know the difference. Big mistake! Despite generally favourable comments about the quality & standard of the build/finish, there just HAD to be one self appointed "expert" who proceeded to take the thing apart because I hadn't corrected various "inacurracies" and,I used totally inaccurate & inappropriate gun turrets! The look on his face when I told him I didn't give a damn about accuracy and was more concerned with appearance and effect was delightful. This gentleman clearly did not understand the concept of modelling as fun. He grudgingly admitted that the model WAS made to a high standard but, he "could not live with " (his words) such an "inaccurate" model! Ultimately, we are all enjoying the same hobby. Surely,how we pursue this hobby is a matter of individual taste? There is I believe, no such thing as a right or wrong approach. Only a personal approach. It would certainly be a very dull world if we were all the same! As an example of "poetic/artistic" licence, I have hopefully( photobucket permitting) attached a couple of photos of my current project - the Avro Vulcan B3! Obviously I don't modelling seriously Heaven forbid that I ever do!

In broad agreement with the posts complaining about (a) the Revell paint "mixes", ( the packaging. However, being practical, I'm willing to put up with that ( including yucky coloured plastic!!) in view of the quality & very reasonable prices.. For a long time now I've been using the following for bright coloured plastic ; black as a primer /undercoat for models requiring a natural metal finish Silver/aluminium as a primer for a white finish (found this works well on red/yellow plastic) Doubtless many of us will have our own pet methods. I don't airbrush my models so,in order to avoid unnecessary paint build up, I take extra care in priming/undercoating

Looks like Italeri is now going to have to added to my "banned" list!! Does not bode well for the forthcoming Sunderland kit!

I'm sure October 2011 was mentioned as the scheduled release date. Near enough to Christmas I guess! Personally, I'm glad it's 1/72. I wish they'd done their C-17 in 1/72 as well. I really don't like that 1/144 tiddler scale. That's what put me off buying the C-17. I've only made one exception to that rule - my Otaki 1/144 scale C5 Galaxies. At least 3 A 400s needed here methinks!! Slightly off track but, a decent C-130J in 1/72 wouldn't go amiss either together with an IL-76, AN-12 (the Roden kits seem hard to get hold of!), C-141, C-124, C-133, C-74, DC-7, C-54, Argosy, Brittania, Beverly, Hastings, Andover, York...........................!!!!!! Sorry - just my "transport of delight"" Will keep on taking the pills!

Be nice if there was one! How about it Revell? I hope none of the Far Eastern manufacturers ever decide to do one because I'd probably have to sell the flat to raise money to buy it!! Even at 1/32 the size wouldn't be too much of a problem! I guess a 1/32 Javelin is TOO much to hope for?

: I notice you didn't specify which YEAR this particular Christmas would be in!! Glad to know I'm not the only cynic out there!! I remember many years ago seeing an award winning diorama depicting a skeleton in tattered clothing lying at the foot of a rusty bus stop. It was entitled "Waiting for the Airfix Chinook to arrive". I guess that tells you how long ago THAT was!! Now, when is the 1/72 VC-10 due? (only joking folks!!!)

A reasonable comment. We all have our own individual approaches. Mine is to make the best job I can just by using what comes out of the box. Accuracy or otherwise is of little concern. It's the quality of the finished article that matters to me. Doubtless this approach will not sit well with some ( I have even been accused of not being a "real" modeller even though I am not sure what a "real modeller" is?). However, as the above quote suggests, who is to say whether I am right or wrong? I do not & never have spent valuable modelling time looking for inaccuracies to correct - especially as many of them will not even be obvious in the first place. Probably it's because I'm fundamentally lazy! I don't think it makes me a worse modeller! Actually, I think that's getting off track slightly! My apologies folks!

I built all 3 of the Fujimi Cutlasses. These were excellent little kits of a rather neglected aeroplane. The only fit problems I encountered were joining the fuselage sections but, these were minor. I leave it to the rivet counters & purists to comment on accuracy or otherwise. Personally, I have no interest in looking for faults. These models looked every inch a Cutlass & it's just a pity they haven't been re-released in recent years ( to my knowledge). Unfortunately, I really don't see any other manufacturer willing to take this on. Too busy producing endless boring F-16s, F-18s, Spitfires, Mustangs, BF-109s .........................................(yawns!) Come on Revell!! How about a 1/32 Cutlass?

You've done a beautiful job Tom. I don't know where the accuracy freaks are coming from but, I sometimes wonder if some of them go out of their way to find fault with a kit! Probably a rivet out of place here & the wings are 0.05 mm too wide there! The fit IS a problem & I wonder at the necessity of breaking the fuselage into 3 sections. Doubtless the length of the fuselage had something to do with it!! I have one in my stash. Built one already & I agree it certainly looks spectacular when built. I wonder though how many WILL get finished due to appalling fit of the parts? Still, I enjoyed building it. It certainly didn't turn into a chore like that wretched 1/72 TSR 2!! When I finally get around to building it, it's going to be in the B A "Landor" scheme. All white is just a mite too dull for me I'm afraid! Well done Sir!

Accuracy, schmaccuracy! Are any of the alleged inaccuracies in these kits obvious without a forensic examination of the real subject & hours of valuable modelling time wasted by poring over plans, drawings etc?? If not, then I suggest they aren't worth bothering about). So far I've built 3 Anigrand kits. No real problems with casting flaws & they went together pretty well. Good enough for me. I let other people bother about "accuracy" I sometimes feel that if I paid heed to every self appointed "expert" who declared that this kit or that kit was "inaccurate", I'd never get anything built at all. I can guarantee that nobody who has seen the models will know whether they are accurate or otherwise so, I am not inclined either to make corrections that aren't going to be noticed. The only thing that really stops me buying most of these kits is the price

Make this the second time! I've built 3 so far. Very few casting flaws in any of them & parts fitted together pretty well. I don't believe in wasting valuable time by searching for nits to pick or, counting rivets so I accept the bits as accurate! As long as they look like the original subject - that's good enough for me.

Try Halfords Acrylic Ford Polar Grey. I know the colours are produced by Xtracolour but, I stopped using these paints long ago. Partly because of poor colour density but mostly because I prefer paint that doesn't take several days to dry

I'd take the hooror stories with a very large pinch of salt Darwin. I suspect the story tellers are juist playing to their audience. True, the fit of the kit parts is less than marvellous but, there's nothing a bit of effort can't cure. The finished article is spectacular & well worth it! I've built 2 of those kits before. Space of course is the biggest problem. I ended up giving both away to friends.

I'm afraid my initial excitement at the prospect of a NEW Vulcan kit sort of faded when I saw the tiny scale and, a pretty big price for a pretty small model. Sorry - this one will not be landing on my workbench! I might pay that for a 1/144 scale model but, I don't really like 1/144 either. Still, that's just me. I guess if it was 1/72 the price would be unaffordable - given the current extortionate prices for Far Eastern produced kits. Still, perhaps the bean counters at Airfix might just decide that there was money to be made out of updating/remoulding the existing Vulcan B2.

Woooooooops!!! Typo - in previous post!! My last comment should read FAR eastern produced kits.................................!!!!!!! !!!! Too much Guinness last night!!

Totally agree Andrew ! However, they still have to turn a profit so, I suspect that by charging (say - £16.99) for the Phantom, they(Revell) are asking a price that their marketing people say their customers ( most of whom are in Europe & the UK possibly) will pay. In other words - sheer volume of sales at a low price will STILL turn a profit? Why else could they afford to ask a very reasonable £19.99 for a 1/32 AR-196 or BAE Hawk? Obviously, I'm speculating - I know nothing about marketing. But, if you want another example, Revell 1/32 Typhoon - £49.99, Trumpeter 1/32 Typhoon - £99.99!! I know which I'll buy! I know from experience that the recent Revell 1/32 kits have been waling off the shelves but, they are hardly selling any of the Fart Eastern produced kits. As an aside, The current RRP of the Trumpeter 1/32 F-105D kits is now around the £90 mark. I got one ( re boxed & re issued by Hobby craft) for £42.99 in a local model shop recently. It's the same kit - just different decals!

:lol: I'll drink to that one!! Well, maybe not drink!! Too much Guinness yesterday. I'm all for diversity - provided everyone agrees with me!! Of course, Nigel Bunker is absolutely right but there has to come a point when people throw up their hands in despair & say "Jeez, not another f****** Spitfire!!" In all honesty Nigel, if your hypothetical company DID offer the first releases you mention then I'm afraid I wouldn't be one of your customers - why? Every one of these hypothetical subjects has already been done to death! However, that's just me. ( No offence by the way! ) Now, if you were to offer a B-52, Vulcan B1, Victor B1, B-47,DC-6, DC-7, C-17,C-141,C-124, Lockheed Electra ( The L-188 type!!), Twin Pioneer,Brittania, C-123 to name but few & ALL to 1/72 ( none of this 1/144 nonsense)...................................!!!!!!!! Not that I ask much!! :lol: Yes, I know I'm fantasising now!!

Spitfires???? Pah!! (yawns!) :lol: Let's keep this one going! Livens up a dull Sunday morning!! :lol:

Couldn't agree more. I'd rather have a more basic kit at at an affordable price. The Revell F/A 18D is a good example. It has everything I would need or want in a kit & I could get nearly four for the price of a Hasegawa kit ( which may be 4 times the price but, is it 4 times as nice?). I can certainly also echo your sentiments re ebay. Ironically, I have 3 Revell 1/48th Phantoms in my stash. They are ex - Hasegawa & the UK retail price was £16.99 each when I bought them. Compare THAT with the UK price of the Hasegawa originals!

Well done!! A comment like this is LONG overdue!! :lol: The mere mention of yet another Spitfire ( or P-51/P-47/BF109/FW-190 ETC !) is enough to send me on a trip to Yawnorama city! I fully appreciate its history & its vital role in war but, as a modelling subject, I find it as dull & tedious as the equally overdone F-16! I am proud to say that throughout my long modelling career, not one Spitfire has ever darkened my shelves. Fighters with twirly bits at the front are boring!! Remember the saying? ; "Fighter pilots make movies, Bomber pilots make history!!" :lol: I fully expect now to find myself besieged by Spit -o-philes & consaigned to to The Tower to face torture most horrible for my blasphemy!!

Yep!! I can certainly relate to your second paragraph. Not only is my pay frozen, I only work part time so , my budget is a tad limited. I don't have a huge stash but,I try to get the most out of them. I certainly don't mind paying £17 - £20 for a Revell (Ex Hasegawa by the way!) F4 Phantom or, Revell 1/48 F/A18D but, I refuse point blank to be ripped off by Hasegawa et al to the tune of 3 - 4 times the price for a kit which is not 3 - times as nice!! I'm content with a basic kit at a low price. To get more mileage out of some of my stash, I've branched out into the "what if" field. Largely because of the largely uninspiring & unimaginative new kit releases that are on offer. I make exception for the forthcoming Airfix Valiant and Revell's Halifax & Airbus A-400. Endless F-16s, Spitfires & Mustangs simply induce yawn factor 10!

A sad state of affairs indeed!! Obviously, I don't know your circumstances but, I'm reminded of a friend of mine whose wife ( she's a lovely girl really!) would always have a go at him every time he he came in with another addition to his stash!! ( How many do you need?. Not another one? etc etc!! ). Well, she has a large assortment of handbags (strange things women!!). She made the mistake of buying another one recently to which my friends reply was ; " And just how many hand bags do YOU need?" He's had no trouble since!! Anyway - good luck in your quest.!

And thank Italeri for the Heinkel HE - 111Z, ME-321/232, SM81...!! I'm not particularly a W W 2 fan but, I like these because they are what I would call "slightly off beat" subjects. Splendid kits all of them & at bargain basement prices. I don't necessarily agree that the price of Hasegawa will force other prices up. Quite the reverse - I think it will encourage other manufacturers to produce similar subjects at far more reasonable prices. For example, the Revell Lancaster £14.99 compared to Hasegawa at £39 +!! . If sales of far eastern kits are ( as has been alluded to previously on this forum) dropping rapidly, I suggest the the manufacturers may be looking to their UK distributors & their mark ups. As I understand it, there is only 1 UK distributor for kits imported from the far east- perhaps someone can confirm/correct me? Seems they are operating a cosy monopoly here.