Flipping Airfix Swift!

[Andy Robbins]

I think perhaps the problem with much of Airfix's stuff is that it's wonderfully designed, to Wingnut levels of precision and very tight tolerances, but the moulding technology available to them doesn't match the quality of design. Wingnut, for example, are moulded by contractors that know how to get the best from the design process. If the moulding standards don't meet those requirements, and there is, for example some warping, poor cooling, whatever, then they can forget the tolerances and fit because the mouldings make it all meaningless. When that happens, to quote Clive James, 'it destroys itself like a Bugatti lubricated with hair oil', and hence the hit and miss standards.

[sroubos]

I've built only two of the recent Airfix kits, the Spit Mk1 and the Zero and they were relatively trouble free. I have the Dornier and the Blenheim in the stash and I've heard different views on these, but you are correct that the magazines are often gushing about whatever a manufacturer throws at them. As a result I've become a bit more cautious; I skipped the FW-190 which, despite being in my area of interest, allegedly has distinct fit problems, and will be superseded anyway by Eduard's new kit.

As for the Swift, I love the looks of the plane, but too many issues have cropped up and I will certainly not pay RRP for it now, I'll pick it up when I can get it nicely discounted.

[Seahawk]

I'm wondering whether magazines are glossing over these kit faults too as I haven't seen many (if any) reviews of recent Airfix kits pointing out these problems.

I think that that's very unlikely. What I think is much more unlikely is that Airfix check over the review samples for egregious flaws before they are sent out. Sort of thing they ought to be doing before inflicting them on the poor paying public, actually. Or maybe they've made the hard-nosed judgement that the labour cost savings resulting from restricting QC outweigh the reputational damge caused by the presumably limited number of "rogues" that get through.

[AnonymousAA72]

I haven't got the Swift so can't comment on that but I'm making Airfix's 1/72 new Lightning at the moment and I'm experiencing the same thing with the intake and closing the nose around it. It seems to fit better without the cockpit but even then it's not that good a fit. I've also got a deformed nose which isn't pointy like it should be so I'm wondering whether magazines are glossing over these kit faults too as I haven't seen many (if any) reviews of recent Airfix kits pointing out these problems.

If so that's not very good. I buy magazines to read honest reviews and not just "I stuck it together and it looks good" like you say. And I notice they seem to spend far too much space talking about the decals. I want to know what the quality of the plastic is like and not the bits of paper.

Thing is, the five Airfix Lightning's I've built have none of the issues you mention......having said that I've not bought one in a few months, if you've bought yours more recently maybe the tool is wearing a bit? As all the reviews would have been done and dusted some time ago the review models may not have had these newer issues....I don't do 'reviews' but find those in magazines, anyway to be generally honest...

[spaddad]

I think perhaps the problem with much of Airfix's stuff is that it's wonderfully designed, to Wingnut levels of precision and very tight tolerances, but the moulding technology available to them doesn't match the quality of design. Wingnut, for example, are moulded by contractors that know how to get the best from the design process. If the moulding standards don't meet those requirements, and there is, for example some warping, poor cooling, whatever, then they can forget the tolerances and fit because the mouldings make it all meaningless. When that happens, to quote Clive James, 'it destroys itself like a Bugatti lubricated with hair oil', and hence the hit and miss standards.

This is what I mean by made in India. I was a maintenance engineer and development condition setter in the injection moulding industry for 15 years. I know how hard it is to maintain quality whilst simultaneously chasing optimum cycle times with modern inj. moulding m/cs, state of the art robotic handling equipment and top quality resins, manned by highly skilled and motivated personnel and presided over by equally motivated and incorruptible QA departments. I could be wrong but I somehow don't see every component mentioned above being present, consistently, in the Indian production facility. Airfix have chosen Indian manufacture for cost reasons, this could be achieved by inferior machinery, rubbish resins, semi slave labour or many other ways. Since Airfix started this I have been looking to see what else is made in India and sold in this country that I would feel comfortable buying, its a VERY short list. I realise not everyone will agree with me, indeed its almost a Britmodeller given that most won't, but I just wanted to add something to the debate, please don't hate me!

spad

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I've built only two of the recent Airfix kits, the Spit Mk1 and the Zero and they were relatively trouble free. I have the Dornier and the Blenheim in the stash and I've heard different views on these, but you are correct that the magazines are often gushing about whatever a manufacturer throws at them. As a result I've become a bit more cautious; I skipped the FW-190 which, despite being in my area of interest, allegedly has distinct fit problems, and will be superseded anyway by Eduard's new kit.

As for the Swift, I love the looks of the plane, but too many issues have cropped up and I will certainly not pay RRP for it now, I'll pick it up when I can get it nicely discounted.

The Airfix Fw190 was superseded by the 1990's Hasegawa Fw190A/F kit! Until we see what Eduard do, the Hasegawa Fw190A/F is still the best late A/F series 190 in 1/72 and I would happily pay a few £'s extra for a Hasegawa Fw190 over an Airfix one.

thanks

Mike

[Rob G]

(That said - a classic case of "if it looks wrong it probably is" - the aircraft certainly doesn't have the graceful lines of that other well known Supermarine product!)

Ah, another Stranraer fan! Nice to meet you, bro.

[SeaVenom]

Thing is, the five Airfix Lightning's I've built have none of the issues you mention......having said that I've not bought one in a few months, if you've bought yours more recently maybe the tool is wearing a bit? As all the reviews would have been done and dusted some time ago the review models may not have had these newer issues....I don't do 'reviews' but find those in magazines, anyway to be generally honest...

Well I've tried putting the fuselage 2 halves over the intake and after cutting the large ejector pin marks they still don't join together that well but I'll have to see what it's like when I try bringing it altogether.

[Martian]

or if you cannot get a Mach 2 Valiant, try an Airfix 1/72 TSR 2. If you can beat that, you can beat anything................................!!

Allan

Don't I just know it!

Martin

[Ray S]

Hello, I have often wondered if with magazine reviews there would be mileage in building the kit and not painting it, so you can see fit issues, amount of filler etc, rather than hearing how you paint it and then goodness knows how much wordage on how it was weathered, none of which has anything to do with the kit itself as such.

I have to say I do enjoy reading about these things and have learnt a lot so this is not a complaint about magazine reviews, but maybe just another angle to look at.

I have also done reviews for one mag in the past, and I cringe when I read them now by the way...

Cheers, Ray

[sroubos]

The Airfix Fw190 was superseded by the 1990's Hasegawa Fw190A/F kit! Until we see what Eduard do, the Hasegawa Fw190A/F is still the best late A/F series 190 in 1/72 and I would happily pay a few £'s extra for a Hasegawa Fw190 over an Airfix one.

thanks

Mike

I was referring to this kit, released last year (or was it the year before?):

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/focke-wulf-fw190-f-8-a-8-1-72.

It appears to have some annoying fit issues. Since I actually have a couple of the Hasegawa kits in the stash it's not at all an interesting kit for me when it has such issues, even though it has slightly better detail than the Hasegawa.

Eduard on the other hand have produced some of the best 72nd scale kits I have ever seen, and I'm very hopeful they will create the benchmark kit that all others will be measured against going forward.

I have also done reviews for one mag in the past, and I cringe when I read them now by the way...

When I was 13 I wrote a review for the Dutch IPMS magazine on the Academy F-117. I gave it a glowing review, never mind I hadn't actually built it, just test-fitted the fuselage halves...

When I did build it some 20 years later I was slightly relieved to find that most of the things I had written about it turned out to be correct

Edited August 24, 2015 by sroubos

[bentwaters81tfw]

made in India

Speaks volumes. I knew about their 'engineering' many years ago.

[Seahawk]

Hello, I have often wondered if with magazine reviews there would be mileage in building the kit and not painting it, so you can see fit issues, amount of filler etc, rather than hearing how you paint it and then goodness knows how much wordage on how it was weathered, none of which has anything to do with the kit itself as such.

Ray. Absolutely agree re the irrelevance of panting and weathering info in a review. However re painting, you could argue that diametrically the other way! As people have said before, it is now possible to design kits to very fine tolerances. The unpainted test shots on the Airfix stand always look fine and dandy. I suspect that a lot of the problems come when paint starts interfering with those fine tolerances. As long ago as the 1/72 Spitfire I people were saying (IIRC) that the fuselage wouldn't close properly with the interior in place. Think we are going to have to be extra careful about trimming away tiny amounts of flash and keeping location grooves clear. Which invites the question why we don't have this problem with other manufacturers....

[sroubos]

The last line says it, I'm not at all convinced 'tolerances' come into it, at least not when it comes down to a layer of paint throwing of the kit in the way that the topic starter mentions.

Yes, if you slather on the paint by brush in multiple thick layers that could create an issue, but in general you are talking microns which you'd really wouldn't notice as the amount of plastic dissolved by the cement is an order of magnitude thicker than the layer of paint.

Besides, most of us know that contact faces need to be clear of paint anyway for glue to do its job properly.

Bottom line, if there are structural fit issues with a kit, it's just sub-par engineering or production.

Edited August 24, 2015 by sroubos

[Seahawk]

I was referring to this kit, released last year (or was it the year before?):

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/focke-wulf-fw190-f-8-a-8-1-72.

It appears to have some annoying fit issues. Since I actually have a couple of the Hasegawa kits in the stash it's not at all an interesting kit for me when it has such issues, even though it has slightly better detail than the Hasegawa.

Eduard on the other hand have produced some of the best 72nd scale kits I have ever seen, and I'm very hopeful they will create the benchmark kit that all others will be measured against going forward.

Don't know about the fit issues: mine went straight back into the stash because it has the thickest wing trailing edges seen on any kit issued this century (big claim but prove me wrong!). You did well to skip it. I agree with you that the Eduard kit, when it appears, will probably wipe the floor with it just as the Eduard Bf 110 has reduced the Airfix offering to irrelevance: if you shop around, you can even get that vastly better product for less than the Airfix offering.

[thepureness]

I'm building one at the moment, and I have to say, I've had no issues at all so far, HUD was a little annoying, Any the forward undercarriage bay and cockpit attachment left me no space for the 2g of weight to so in, but placed it elsewhere.

I even have a WIP on here for it

[Giorgio N]

I think perhaps the problem with much of Airfix's stuff is that it's wonderfully designed, to Wingnut levels of precision and very tight tolerances, but the moulding technology available to them doesn't match the quality of design. Wingnut, for example, are moulded by contractors that know how to get the best from the design process. If the moulding standards don't meet those requirements, and there is, for example some warping, poor cooling, whatever, then they can forget the tolerances and fit because the mouldings make it all meaningless. When that happens, to quote Clive James, 'it destroys itself like a Bugatti lubricated with hair oil', and hence the hit and miss standards.

This is pretty much what I think myself. I've built two copies of the same kit and found that one had no fit issue while the other had several, so it's not down to design. Production is the likeliest cause. These issues don't worry me too much as in the end I consider myself experienced enough to deal with similar matters (I've built the 1/72 Monogram A-10, I can build everything...) but I can understand how other modellers can find such issues very annoying.

Regarding the lack of mention of fit issues in the various reviews, honestly I don't give too much importance on reviews in magazines. Not only different copies of the same kit may or not show fit problems, modellers may also differ in their skills or in their perception of any issue. And then there are reviews where everything is highly recommended regardless of what the kit is like... but this is another story

[Flankerman]

Hello, I have often wondered if with magazine reviews there would be mileage in building the kit and not painting it, so you can see fit issues, amount of filler etc, rather than hearing how you paint it and then goodness knows how much wordage on how it was weathered, none of which has anything to do with the kit itself as such.

Cheers, Ray

IIRC, there was a magazine that did just that - though I can't remember its name...........

The reviews were just bullds - no paint or decals.

Due to lack of interest, it folded......

Ken

[Graham Boak]

I remember seeing that magazine, although not buying it but I don't recall there being any detail views showing where filler might be needed or indeed discussion of (for example) how the interiors fitted inside. There was at least one other magazine where criticism of the kit was not permitted because of the potential loss of freebies for reviews and more importantly advertising revenue. I think this feeling still permeates kit reviews, where obvious flaws can be too often ignored in favour of "what a good modeller I am".

There's always confusion about reviews and builds, because they have no agreed definition. I hold that a review is to bring the good and bad parts of a kit to the attention of fellow modellers. In this sense, a review doesn't even have to proceed all the way to a full finish, providing the modeller has at least attempted to fit the parts together so problems can be mentioned. (Arguably, of course, problems with the transfers is something that should appear, so there's room for discussion here.) I don't even think that a review needs be done by a particularly good modeller - if it shows up flaws in his technique so what? It might even be better if a less-talented modeller tackled it, being more likely to notice difficult points taken for granted by someone with more experience. A full build however is a display of the modelling craft, and yes that does mean discussion of weathering techniques if that's relevant to what is being presented. Understandably, most magazines don't have room for both deep reviews and master-class full builds, so we get hybrids. These can be irritating at times, but that's life.

[FalkeEins]

I'm making Airfix's 1/72 new Lightning at the moment and I'm experiencing the same thing with the intake and closing the nose around it.

mine didn't either, had to shim and fill the gap, everything else fitted fine including the canopy which was strange. I have built a lot of these new tool Airfix productions and while some of them are a bit of a wrestle the end result is invariably always quite nice

[Knight_Flyer]

Hit and miss as mentioned is the picture I am starting to form after reading comments on this forum and the internet. Probably not a good situation to be in as it's neither one or the other. If the product was consistently "miss" then presumably it would translate into poor sales and a high level of complaints. The company would then have to sit up and do something or run the risk of going out of business.

Model reviews and builds I've regarded them in the same way as magazine articles. That is based on the opinion of the person writing them. I usually try to read more than one article for a more "informed" view. Build articles I think are more difficult and I agree with Graham's mention of the modeller's experience. He or she may be very experienced and may feel some of the issues are easily overcome and not worth mentioning.

[Antoine]

I intend to get another Swift at some point, and I'll make t a WIP

Good news!

Looking forward to it, then.

[viscount806x]

(That said - a classic case of "if it looks wrong it probably is" - the aircraft certainly doesn't have the graceful lines of that other well known Supermarine product!)

I assume you mean the Walrus?

[woody37]

I think the issues with airfix are more down to production as mentioned above rather than design. I've got two Airfix Lancs (1 was review kit) with badly warped fuselages. Whilst this can be sorted due to the plastic being soft (and one being cut up to make a Lincoln), It's not something that you would expect on a main stream 21st century kit.

[IanHx]

if you slather on the paint by brush in multiple thick layers

Hey, I resemble that remark