Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


Gold Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

517 Excellent

About Denford

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 08/29/1937

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Wandsworth: the birthplace of Airfix kits

Recent Profile Visitors

3,218 profile views
  1. Denford

    1/48 Spitfire XIV

    Are you sure that the 18 had under-fuselage camera openings 19 style? I think there was a fuel tank in the position where the cameras would have been. There's an earlier posting here on in the 'Rumourmonger' suggesting that the cameras 'qualifying' it to be an FR18 were the oblique ones high up in the fuselage.
  2. Denford

    1/48 Spitfire XIV

    At Telford I heard Airfix being asked this question, and though I forget the exact reply (I'm strictly 1/72 so was not too concerned) the answer 'negative' in that it wasn't just the fuselage halves that would need changing, there was the internal detail as well. The sprue layout confirms this. None of this rules a high back longer-term, but I suspect very much longer. I am sure High Back would have been considered early on: there must have been good reasons, very good reasons (which we will probably never know) why it was dropped.
  3. They were actually meant to operate from escort vessels: destroyers, though others may know better. Certainly not carriers.
  4. If it's merely background music (rather than songs) there is always the Dam Busters March.
  5. Whatever happened to Kendall Model Company? No trace or links on the Internet. How I regret not getting their 1/72 wingfold set for the Hasegawa Avenger, and to add insult to injury it is prominently displayed on their Detailing Set which I did manage to find! Attempts to persuade Wolfpack to issue one for the Hasegawa kit foundered on my lack of Korean. My two Korean acquaintances (whom I do not know that well) are both female. Not wishing to in any way appear sexist, I would first have to explain what a 'folding wing' was before seeking their assistance in preparing a message in Korean, which they have already done on another matter. My only hope is that Airfix might re-tool it, but they would have to establish the elusive second-seat details. Alas the example at Yeovilton has been modified in that area. My only comfort is that, at Telford, they agreed that it was a credible choice to retool. I live in hope.
  6. Can anyone explain to me how the pilot gets into the cockpit, especially as some sources refer to it operating from forest clearings? Maybe Tarzan flew it.
  7. For whatever reasons, in UK Airfix sell direct to Retailers. Elsewhere they sell to Wholesalers, who then sell on to Retailers. There's nothing to stop you, or anyone else, buying directly from Airfix (in UK) or retailer such as Hannants. You would have, of course, to pay postage and any customs and other duties that the destination country chooses to levy on imports. Whether this would be cheaper (it probably would) to buy from a 'local' source depends on the country. You might have to wait longer too.
  8. My italics, but I heard Airfix at Telford explaining that the internal details are different for high and low backs. This gives difficulties in merely providing different fuselages. I'm sure Airfix have considered 'all options' and whatever reasons made the choice which we now see.
  9. Or perhaps it shows the difficulty accurately predicting the demand. Or maybe the production run had to be split into two or more parts. Over production (which clearly happened in the past) results for immoveable stock, which has to be cleared at 'uneconomic' prices. Or maybe the shipment had to be divided, one part arriving more or less on time, the other later. The fact that they haven't 'figured it out by now shows' that either a) They lack a magic wand and/or b) The solution is nowhere as easy as some would have us believe.
  10. You are quite right: I should have said Cosford, not Telford! Must have been dreaming of the show there: only 5 months to go.
  11. And it occurs to me that there could be another very simple reason why Airfix may have been measuring the Mosquito at Telford. Measurements and possibly some design for the 1/24 Mosquito was undertaken by the original Airfix at Wandsworth, where I live. In those days it was all 'pencil and paper', even if it was (supposedly) converted to digital for the definitive tooling. Now the original designs must have been made in the early 80's before they went into receivership. In the intervening period, 30+ years and with 2? changes of ownership, it would be remarkable if one or two things could no longer be found. No hard-drive back ups in those days! So Airfix may have been doing nothing more 'sinister' than measuring up to replace missing data. But why Telford and not de H' Heritage centre? Because they had 'other' unspecified reason(s) to be at Telford, and so took the opportunity to do Mosquito measurements there, rather than make a separate journey elsewhere. It was Napoleon who said 'Never ascribe to Conspiracy that which can be explained by Incompetence'. I'm not suggesting that Airfix were in any way Incompetent (in fact quite the reverse) but it does provide a very simple explanation for why they were doing something that they seemingly did not need to do.
  12. The data for the 1/24 model may not have been quite as good as you believe. Then there was no dedicated Researcher on the staff and some subtle differences may have been missed. For example the canopies, with their various bulges and bumps change considerably over the variants. Exhibits are not always accurately restored. I believe the Tempest at Hendon has the spinner from a Hastings, and I think the Beaufighter there was 'assembled' from parts from different machines. All genuine parts, but put together, not a totally accurate representation of any one variant. A true, dedicated Researcher will spot this: a computer designer, however good, probably will not. So, while there (others may speculate their direction) they may have been taking the opportunity to clear up some uncertainties. Others may know better but did they actually scan it or record details by other means? That said I still believe the de Havilland Heritage centre would be the best place to gather data. A new 1/72 Mosquito will surely come some day, it just has to take its chances along with the many, many other choices.
  13. Troy: thanks for the link and corrections so tactfully put. I recall the fin from 'times past', but not the wing plans now saved for future use. The under-fuselage camera ports, not that I would now doubt you, seem a little strange. The cut down fuselage would not have the full depth of the Xl and 19 and so smaller /less effective cameras? I have a vague feeling there might have been a rear fuselage tank.... I presume the ports would have been in the same place as on the above two variants. Now all that is needed is a quality 1/72 kit...
  14. And for Japan the Zero
  15. Could you be more specific? [ I have tried cut down what was becoming an unwieldy thread. To 'extract' it was my contention that Airfix would reissue the kit, with new upper wings as an Mk 18] Various sources such as 'Spitfire the History' speak of the differences between low back 14 and 18 as 'virtually indistinguishable', 'minor internal changes', 'strengthening'. Somewhere there's a mention of 'increased length': and I have a feeling that this is the comparison of the 14 with original rudder as fitted to the high back versions with the 18 all of which I imagine had enlarged rudders. An earlier post on this thread elicited that the only visible differences were minor changes on the upper wing panels. I also think that some\most 18's had underwing rocket points (perhaps retro-fitted) where as few if any 14's were so fitted.
  • Create New...