Selwyn Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Just got a kit delivered from Hannants. In the box was a flyer, and on it is a reference to a 1/72 Fairey Battle Mk 1 "New Tool." On Hannants website its listed as a future delivery. Can anyone confirm is it a "new tool", or is it a repop of sombody else's kit? If it is new it seems to have slipped in under the radar! Yours Hopefully Selwyn. P.S. They also list a 1/72 IAR 80, and Mk 1 Albacore as "new tools" as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Just got a kit delivered from Hannants. In the box was a flyer, and on it is a reference to a 1/72 Fairey Battle Mk 1 "New Tool." On Hannants website its listed as a future delivery. Can anyone confirm is it a "new tool", or is it a repop of sombody else's kit? If it is new it seems to have slipped in under the radar! Yours Hopefully Selwyn. P.S. They also list a 1/72 IAR 80, and Mk 1 Albacore as "new tools" as well. The Albacore came and went a number of years ago; I have one, it's not an easy kit to find in the 'states. I believe the Battle was issued a number of years ago as a target tug, but IIRC it had some inaccuracies, and the vanilla Mark I never followed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 But if it was issued before, surely they couldn't call it a new tool? unless they have modified the moulds to correct the innacuracies? Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 MPM did the standard Battle, a trainer, and the target tug. Which came out under which label I don't recall, but I do have the first two. There was considerable discussion over it's length, Paul Lloyd producing an article claiming it was considerably overlong in the rear, but I don't recall any final conclusions being reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galgos Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I don't know about a 1/72nd Special Hobby new tool but I believe SH had a close relationship with the now extinct Classic Airframes company? The latter company produced the target tug and Paul Lloyd's comprehensive and accurate article did show that it was too long at the aft end and the nose was the wrong shape. I've just completed the CA target tug but using Heritage Aviation's nose and tail correction sets. This "automatically" corrects the length of the fuselage. See the photographs below of the original and corrected lengths against Ian Huntley's drawings and the full build in the Training Types GB recently ended.Max 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyB Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 A lot depends on the age of the kit you received from Hannants as the MPM Albacore, Battle and IAR 80 were released years ago. Hth, Bill.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I shortened the bomber, but with having to sand and sand the resin parts to get them to fit in the bodged fuselage, I rather lost heart. The trainer remains unmade - and unshortened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galgos Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I shortened the bomber, but with having to sand and sand the resin parts to get them to fit in the bodged fuselage, I rather lost heart. The trainer remains unmade - and unshortened. Yep, know what you mean Graham, my incentive for finishing it was personal and very strong. Max 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Excellent job, Galgos. Meanwhile I am grinding my teeth a bit, because somehow I previously missed the news that the SH Battle is too long, and now I it's something else that I have to fix up rather than just build. Well, better that than find out too late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 The kits are not MPM according to the leaflet, they are listed as Special Hobby new moulds and are not issued yet according to hannants website. Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) Edited May 29, 2014 by Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Sorry, yes, I meant to type MPM Battle, not SH Battle, as the box on mine says MPM. Fingers crossed that the mysterious SH Battle turns out to be something both new and correct. However, with it all being the same company I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 SH is just another brand name used by MPM, and the same basic kit is sometimes issued under both names, with variations. They do seem to be playing down the MPM brand recently, but the new tooling part is the key. Let us hope, but I don't see myself buying one on the off-chance. More likely to drag out the older kit and finish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trenton guy Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 MPM/Special Hobby (two brands from the same company) have been listing a new tool Battle and and a new tool Albacore for a few year years. Presumably replacements for kits issued a while ago. I still have them in the "to do" pile. They will probably appear eventually. MPM/SH announced and then finally issued replacement P-35's which were a vast improvement over their earlier issue. Hope springs eternal. The IAR-80 would be a first for MPM/SH. An afterthought ; I hope it is clear that all these comments pertain to the "one true scale". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Both my earlier Battles are labelled MPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galgos Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 The Classic Airframes Battle TT that I modelled is 1/48th scale - 1/72nd is too small for me I'm afraid! Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Was MPM bought out by Eduard, or was it Special Hobby, or both? It's very confusing, but I would sure like to see a reissue of the Blenheim and Baltimore bombers. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Neither. MPM is a big distribution company who established a short-run production company which released kits under a number of different brand names, Karo-As being perhaps the first. MPM was initially the most common but more recently Special Hobby has been the most prolific. You could get different versions of the same kit under different brand names. Eduard is completely separate, and their products are generally a cut (or two) above the short-run companies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hemsley Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 In a related vein, I've recently become interested in digging out my MPM Battle from the stash as a result of this discussion. While I don't have a copy of the SAM plans, nor Paul Lloyd's article, I do have a copy of Ian Allen's drawings of the Battle that appeared as part of the "Warpaint" series. There's clearly some discrepancy between these and the drawings judging by some of the points mentioned here, but overall, how do you rate the Ian Allen drawings? Just wondering how closely I should follow these. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galgos Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Who were they drawn by Scott? For what it's worth the drawings showing different markings accompanying Paul Lloyd's article are by Jon Freeman to 1/72 scale. Lloyd thinks the most accurate detail drawings are those by Huntley, though Lloyd has also included his own sketches of corrections etc. Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hemsley Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 galgos... They were drawn by 'Ian Allen' for the Warpaint series of aircraft scale drawings. I know other drawings I have in that series have proven to be (more than) flawed, but it I find it depends who did them. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver66 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 New "battle" from airfix 2015? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Dapple Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 New "battle" from airfix 2015? That would make me very happy indeed - not that it makes it any more (or less) likely Cheers, Stew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don McIntyre Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 A new one in 1//48 would be the bee's knees! I remember reading somewhere that their 1/72 Battle was designed using drawings from the Fairey factory. Unfortunately, (IIRC correctly from reading about this back in the 70s) the drawings were (apparently) originally done for a mock-up and weren't the drawings for the actual, operational aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 galgos... They were drawn by 'Ian Allen' for the Warpaint series of aircraft scale drawings. Sure it's not Ian Huntley, as he is probably one of the authorities for all things Fairey ? @ Don, Ian Huntley related the story in some old issue of SAM, but probably more in the mid to late 80s. Airfix asked the Fairey PR office (though I'm not sure what Fairey did in the mid 60s) for some material on the Battle and was duely provided with drawings. Unfortunately, they were sent GA drawings that (IIRC) were a cross between P.4/34 and the Battle. When Ian came to know about that fact, he sent Airfix better material and a kind-worded reminder that if they expected something to work from, they should rather ask someone who is in the know and direct themselves immediately to the drawings office. I think the CA 1/48 Battle was based to some extent on the MAP/Argus drawing by Mr. Merrick. SMI re-ran them around 1985 with nice large photos printed accompanying the drawings that showed some areas where the drawings wer possibly not quite correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now