Jump to content

The way ahead for Airfix


Denford

Recommended Posts

Anyone who was unable to attend the Airfix presentation at Hendon (or presumably Cosford) missed a fascinating insight into the pre-release workings of Airfix, in particular:

- They won’t add new parts to old kits (specifically new transparencies for the Halifax)

- No kit will be produced unless either:

  • There’s an extant example that can be accurately measured or LIDAR scanned, and not all can. For example, if it can move (because it’s hanging from wires) it can’t be scanned.

Or

  • There are quality engineering drawings with profiles and sections: look at the Workbench article on the B-17 for examples of what’s required. GA drawings, even of ‘Bentley Standard’ just don’t have the right information.

So alas, no reissue of the Stirling (drawings destroyed) nor the latest stealth plane even if already seen at airshows. They admitted (no names) to several subjects that they would like to produce but could never get the data and some ‘on hold’ in case further research does turn up missing information.

Other manufactures may not be so constrained, but in predicting, pleading, lobbying Airfix, these should be borne in mind.

As an aside, in the dark of the lecture theatre, I could see neither any member of the fair sex, nor anybody not yet drawing (or about to draw) their pension. Fortunately Telford gives a better outlook!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

Probably about to state the obvious, but i think if you want a kit of anything that is on display at Duxford, then your wish may come to fruition over the next 10-20 years! The recent workbench stuff is supported by photos of Duxford exhibits and the LIDAR gear has been seen around the T-33! I hope that some of the non IWM stuff is included in that as well.

For starters, Phantom FGR2, Buccaneer, Wasp, Hunter and from the private aircraft, Fury, Sea Fury FB.11 and T.20, Curtiss Hawks and as an outside bet/wish, the Beech Traveller.

They should then move on to Yeovilton and Cosford !

Arabest,

Geoff

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

Probably about to state the obvious, but i think if you want a kit of anything that is on display at Duxford, then your wish may come to fruition over the next 10-20 years!

Geoff

Does that include the B-52!?

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little concerned about this policy. There are enough popular subjects around that could and certainly should benefit from this treatment, enough to keep Airfix busy for a few years at least, but an awful lot that can't and therefore won't. It appears to be a policy for the familiar rather than the exciting. However, is it fully in place yet? Clearly it wasn't in place even a few years ago. Did they really have LIDAR or a quality set of engineering drawings for the Whitley, Do17 or the Kate? Certainly not the LIDAR - the recovered example of the Dornier no doubt helped but is not intact nor in its original state. Can we expect (or at least hope for) a small number of interesting and exotic subjects to appear before we see the results of this rather blinkered viewpoint? (At least as exotic as the Kate, anyway.)

And before ignoring the reference books in aid of the metal - remember the Bolingbroke that wasn't a true Blenheim. Or that engineering drawings can and do go through a number of issues and one set may not be enough to describe the subject you want. That's if the particular feature ever made it onto the manufacturer's master drawings - variable pitch blade propellers on Gladiators being a likely example.

Or was it just PR talk? Assuming that an IPMS audience would be full of "rivet counters", did they just set out to describe the ultimate rivet counting machine? Time will tell.

I must agree that they were right not to produce just a new set of transparencies for the Halifax - not without fixing the fuselage shape first, And the cowlings.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning Supermarine Scimitar there must be good possibilitys...

//André

Edited by Andre B
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting info. I never thought they would scan any aircraft hanging from wires, but they can come down :) With the renovation of the American Air Museum at Duxford, the hanging aircraft have all been taken down. What was up there, an Avenger, F-100, a P-51, can't remember what else at the moment.

So if they are not going to update the Halifax, new one on the way? ;)

There's a Bristol 188 at Cosford I would love to see them scan!

Edited by Tbolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While sort of sticking to this policy, the research into topics (keeping it to 1/72 aircraft) was already done by Frog years ago. To come up with a wish list that would make most of us water just look at what Frog did that has not been better (by mainstream)since ....

... or even what was planned before the demise...

Barracuda

Beaufort

Firefly (all sorts)

Lysander

Oxford

Proctor

Meteor F.8

Mirage III/V

Sea Vixen

Skua/Roc

Baltimore/Maryland

Single seat Vampire (with the transparent band on the nose for a change!)

some types from across the channel French, Italian .... Soviet?

PM

and maybe early Wessex, Whirlwind ...

PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more than happy with everything said, but Airfix has only one problem and that is not accuracy- its quality and consistency.

A. Their styrene is definitely not to current standards for mainstream manufacturer ( many short run manufacturers have better quality)

B. Their transparancies are poor-and that cannot be remedied easily.

C. Panel lines...panel lines...panel lines....probably the only mainstream manufacturer in the last few years

with devolution of surface details ( Typhoon excluded ).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little concerned about this policy. There are enough popular subjects around that could and certainly should benefit from this treatment, enough to keep Airfix busy for a few years at least, but an awful lot that can't and therefore won't. It appears to be a policy for the familiar rather than the exciting. However, is it fully in place yet? Clearly it wasn't in place even a few years ago. Did they really have LIDAR or a quality set of engineering drawings for the Whitley, Do17 or the Kate? Certainly not the LIDAR - the recovered example of the Dornier no doubt helped but is not intact nor in its original state. Can we expect (or at least hope for) a small number of interesting and exotic subjects to appear before we see the results of this rather blinkered viewpoint? (At least as exotic as the Kate, anyway.)

And before ignoring the reference books in aid of the metal - remember the Bolingbroke that wasn't a true Blenheim. Or that engineering drawings can and do go through a number of issues and one set may not be enough to describe the subject you want. That's if the particular feature ever made it onto the manufacturer's master drawings - variable pitch blade propellers on Gladiators being a likely example.

Or was it just PR talk? Assuming that an IPMS audience would be full of "rivet counters", did they just set out to describe the ultimate rivet counting machine? Time will tell.

I must agree that they were right not to produce just a new set of transparencies for the Halifax - not without fixing the fuselage shape first, And the cowlings.

Not sure what you mean about “I'm a little concerned about this policy”. Airfix must do what they think will make money, not what other modelers would like them to produce. There are plenty of other kit manufacturers who have different standards/policies viz Italeri Stirling, which can never be verified as right or wrong because there is nothing to check it against. Reading some posts, one could be forgiven for thinking that Airfix was the sole world manufacturer.

“Familiar rather than exciting”: well perhaps, but there’s nothing exciting in inaccurate kit because it’s been poorly researched or where available drawings all differ.

I did actually ask about the Whitley and Kate: the response was to the effect that for the former there was a UK source with reliable data and the fuselage was simple/not highly curved, meaning presumably that (available) data could be credibly extrapolated. For the Kate, that details came from a trustworthy source in USA. That is what I was told. I had asked about the Dornier on an earlier occasion and was told that the held information was checked against the ‘wreckage’ at Cosford. In consequence the radii at the underwing/fuselage joint were corrected.

I don’t see anything ‘blinkered’ in only working from reliable data: what worth is there in ‘interesting or exotic’ subjects if they are wrong?

Some points not in my original post:

- Early publicity allows errors to be corrected viz the Whitley nose transparency and I think the B-17 propeller pitch?

- When a subject type is selected, the actual machines with their markings etc are then chosen before serious design starts.

- If there’s an example of the particular type anywhere in the world, it will in general be visited. Most recently, ‘something’ on the West Coast of USA.

The talk didn’t strike me as a PR exercise, and I’m no rivet counter.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C. Panel lines...panel lines...panel lines....probably the only mainstream manufacturer in the last few years

with devolution of surface details ( Typhoon excluded ).

Nonsense. Aside from the fact that since the Hornby takeover there has been a steady improvement in panel lines you might consider the below.

Italeri, Sunderland is one example

Revell, B-17

Shane

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more than happy with everything said, but Airfix has only one problem and that is not accuracy- its quality and consistency.

A. Their styrene is definitely not to current standards for mainstream manufacturer ( many short run manufacturers have better quality)

B. Their transparancies are poor-and that cannot be remedied easily.

C. Panel lines...panel lines...panel lines....probably the only mainstream manufacturer in the last few years

with devolution of surface details ( Typhoon excluded ).

The Swift, Fw-190 & Typhoon have all been very nice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more than happy with everything said, but Airfix has only one problem and that is not accuracy- its quality and consistency.

A. Their styrene is definitely not to current standards for mainstream manufacturer ( many short run manufacturers have better quality)

B. Their transparancies are poor-and that cannot be remedied easily.

C. Panel lines...panel lines...panel lines....probably the only mainstream manufacturer in the last few years

with devolution of surface details ( Typhoon excluded ).

+ 1

Madcop

and CMR didn't need LIDAR for the Scimitar !

All pure commercial advertising. All depend on the guy who is behind the computer, not the machine itself. Very old story.

<<<wait and see !

Madcop

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...