1/72 - Grumman Martlet Mk.IV by Airfix - released

[Dave Fleming]

I suspect that the moulding for the Martlet parts was done at the same time as the F4F - which means probably about two years ago.

I'm not convinced the cowl is suitable for a Martlet II, it doesn't look tapered enough for a P&W cowled Wildcat. The cowl on the early Wright Martlets (I/IV) was quite different in shape (especially in plan view) with less taper (almost parallel sides)

[VMA131Marine]

Result! This was posted today by the admin on the forum on Airfix's website in response to my initial post about the Wildcat/Martlet problem:

"Many thanks for the summary VMA131Marine - this is really useful.

We have seen the discussion here, and on other forums, and the Development team are looking into it. At this stage I can't go into any details but I felt it was important to let you all know that we're aware of the discussion and will be checking the points raised."

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/forum/airfix-martlet-iv-errors/?p=2/#post-144011

[gingerbob]

See, we really should have waited until we had the kits in hand

bob

[Col.]

Nice to see Airfix are paying attention to these things and entering into discussion about it. Thanks for letting us know VMA131Marine.

Hmm that looks do-able with some thick plastic sheet and a few passes with the razor saw Gwart. If of course they get the cowl correct.

[Knight_Flyer]

I agree, it's good when a company listens to feedback from their customers. Didn't have this option many years ago, first you knew about errors with the kit was after its release. By then it was too late to do anything about it.

[charlie_c67]

This has been done for quite a while in the Rail modelling community, little surprised it's taken a while to transfer to the aircraft modelling too.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I would be EXTREMELY happy if Airfix decided to leave the current cowling prototype on the additional sprue, adding to it the correct shorter cowling (and fuselage plug). Together with the original F4F-4 parts, this would give modellers the possibility to produce (a few details aside) both the Mk.II AND the Mk.IV…!!!!!!!

Seconded!

Result! This was posted today by the admin on the forum on Airfix's website in response to my initial post about the Wildcat/Martlet problem:

WooYay!

[mhaselden]

Here's hoping Airfix can correct the issues with the Martlet MkIV. I do like the idea of an extra forward fuselage and cowling sprue to allow either a Mk II or a MkIV...that seems like an elegant solution.

I also hope Airfix is listening to the grumbles about the tail area on the 1/48th P-40. There is so much that is right about that kit, and it's clearly a popular choice with the modeling fraternity, that it would be a shame if Airfix doesn't fix such a glaring error as the mis-positioned tail wheel well.

If Airfix resolve these issues before the production runs of these kits, it will generate a huge amount of good will and demonstrate their commitment to their customers.

[dazinio]

So it seems all that had to be done was to present the evidence on the Airfix forum and they will look into it and presumably change whatever was wrong! Personally I lost the plot after the first couple of pages!!

[Dave Fleming]

I beleive they were aware of the discussion here and elsewhere

[Paul J]

I'd just like to add my thruppence worth here as the Wildcat is one of my likes. I dug out my copy of Detail ans Scale by Vurt Kinzey and took the liberty to compare the new Airfix parts with the drawings within this title and they reveal some discrepancies... IF the drawings are to be believed as accurate.

First the wings.

Underside of starboard wing. Pretty darn good outline shape except for one thing ....

The position of the aileron looks suspect. Note that at the outer edge of the aileron line in the drawing and towards the tip the width from the panel line to the aileron opening is a bit narrower compared to the kit wing.

In this view if you look at the outer edge again you can see the slight difference.

But then I added a blob of blu tack to lift the wing a tad to replicate as close as poss the dihedral. Not very accurate the way I've done it but it shows the aileron COULD be in the right position but as it is, its(the aileron) actually about a millimetre too far inboard.

Then the fuselage:

Here, I placed a straight edge up tight to the rudder post/hinge line in the drawing and up against the kit. Looking along from right to left the discrepancies start to show. Worst area is the position of the wheel bay. Sorry about the engine end, I couldn't get the camera position quite right but you can see the errors. One thing , the tiny little blister forward and below the wing root LE of the kit is certainly not in the right place so there is an issue here too.

With the straight edge still up to the hinge line on the drawing, the kit fuselage is now position to line up with the cockpit as accurately as poss. Here then, you can see other errors. The kit upper fuselage in front of the cockpit is about a mill to half mill too high too. As for the engine cowl area I couldn't get the cowl to stay put to photo graph it against the plans sadly.

The tailplane. Well, it looks like its the most accurate part of the kit.

By studying the parts with the plans I can see where some of the fuselage areas differ but its not really that easier a fix to do!

Anyway, I hope this helps a bit to the discussion of the ups and downs of the kit. Generally it seems just about passable to me.

[Knight_Flyer]

So it seems all that had to be done was to present the evidence on the Airfix forum and they will look into it and presumably change whatever was wrong! Personally I lost the plot after the first couple of pages!!

That's right, although until VMA131Marine posted their reply there may have been some uncertainty as to whether Airfix is listening.

To modellers in general, personally I still recommend if you have any concerns about the accuracy and want it considered then contact the manufacturer directly. Offer as much supporting evidence as possible however try to check it is actually an error, last thing you want is to change something that the manufacturer did in fact get right.

[Gwart]

There's no 100% reliable plans of the Wildcat,certainly nothing of the level of the Spit IX/XVI plans in the Monforton book.The general outline shape of the kit is very good but within that is where the errors arise.

Namely the spine.

[Denford]

There's no 100% reliable plans of the Wildcat,certainly nothing of the level of the Spit IX/XVI plans in the Monforton book.The general outline shape of the kit is very good but within that is where the errors arise.

Namely the spine.

For what it's worth, I spoke with the designer on the Airfix stand at Telford. The data came from the Smithsonian.

[Gwart]

A comparison shot of one of the early F4F-3 Prototypes against another prototype with the final fuselage/spine.

[occa]

A comparison shot of one of the early F4F-3 Prototypes against another prototype with the final fuselage/spine.

Good catch, it seems like Airfix used the dimensions of the (with the fatter body of the whole fuselage) early prototype.

Enigma solved ...

[Graham Boak]

There's no difference between the fuselage of these two aircraft - the XF4F-3 (if that's exactly what it is - I can't read the tail notation) above had the same lines as the production aircraft, as did the XF4F-5. I doubt if there was any difference between the fuselage diameter even if we go back to earlier iterations then the -3. The design was set to match the diameter of the single-row Cyclone, with Grumman's familiar design approach providing a maximum diameter aft of the engine - unlike most manufacturers approach. The more refined tapering nose was possible because of the smaller radius of the twin-row P&W engine, but this did not affect the fixed fuselage design other than shortening its nose to keep the overall cg in the same place.

Having seen the offending parts, I doubt that it was a properly-scaled model of the Cyclone anyway, else it wouldn't have fitted into the cowling. Thankfully we don't have to worry about that now, except as a collector's piece for someone? Perhaps making it available at an auction would increase the gaiety of the nations?

[Gwart]

Some more pics.

[Gwart]

@Graham ,

The sprue that was on show at Telford was a 3d printed part and not a tooled production piece?.

It is XF4F-3 + XF4F-5,i used -5 as it was a very clear picture showing the new contours of the Fuselage/spine that went into production, it is also a very good picture to show the difference with XF4F-3.

Only view these pictures from the seat bulkhead backwards.

[Gwart]

I don't doubt that the red lines here match each other closely,but green line?.

Remember the dingy hatch in the spine in production models.It really does look like Airfix made a prototype body on a production F-4F-4 forward fuselage from the seat bulkhead forward.

[occa]

Yes the green line clearly shows the fuselage of the early protorype was fatter.

One can deny that as long they want ...

Most likely the Smithsonian gave them the wrong plans

[VMA131Marine]

The blue lines are perfectly vertical. The red lines on the canopy are the same length. Who sees a problem?

All this shows is that it's really difficult to make quantitative comparisons between photographs

Edited November 14, 2015 by VMA131Marine

[occa]

If you cannot see the fuselage cones are quite different (not only) in the diameter in each section there where the green line is (in Gwart's pics) then I cannot help.

They are two rather different fuselage contours

One obviously needs to connect the eyes with both brain hemispheres to recognize something like this.

[Gwart]

It shows 2 completely different fuselages and spines,one which was a unique prototype and another that saw mass production.

[VMA131Marine]

It shows 2 completely different fuselages and spines,one which was a unique prototype and another that saw mass production.

No, it doesn't it shows that the images are distorted in ways that you haven't corrected for. There's distortion due to the distance the camera was from the aircraft, distortion due to the angle the camera was pointing, distortion due to the shape of the lens, distortion introduced in the printing and scanning processes. You don't have any way to correct for those things. If you want to prove the fuselages are actually different then you need to provide the Grumman engineering documents that implemented the change.