Jump to content

Airfix 2019


jenko

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Ratch said:

which is why Airfix now ask for proof of purchase - like Revell and Italeri have always done.

The only proof I've ever been asked for that I recall was with the current Sea fury - I was asked for the batch number. 

 

Revell have never asked me for any proof before supplying parts on the three (I think) occasions that I've had to request them.


Cheers,

Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some fair points being raised here.

I would say that in defence of the 'Retailer', perhaps they should inspect every Airfix kit prior to accepting any kit from the distributor. Going back one layer, perhaps the Distributor should inspect each kit prior to accepting them directly from Airfix? The images of Roman's B-26 are really unaccaptabale and I can imagine that not every 'Retailer' would be prepared to stock this companies products if the odds of finding defective parts is this high. I think I will ask to see what's inside the box before I buy another Airfix product from my LHS, however that's not exactly possible if a kit is ordered via mail.

 

Cheers.. Dave.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Heraldcoupe said:

The only proof I've ever been asked for that I recall was with the current Sea fury - I was asked for the batch number. 

 

Revell have never asked me for any proof before supplying parts on the three (I think) occasions that I've had to request them.


Cheers,

Bill.

I have only contacted Revell once, it was some time ago but I didn't get my replacement part because I couldn't prove where I bought it. I had a similar experience with Italeri and didn't get the part because they said they were out of stock. On the few times I've had a problem with an Airfix kit they've always delivered - quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve only built 299 +/- 10 Airfix kits but have had short shot or other QC related issues with about 7 kits  in total ranging from the missing 2 stage Merlin Sprue on the 1/48 Mosquito (probably the only reason you’d buy that kit). To cracked canopies on the new 1/48 Ju-87b to short shot fuselage 1/2s on the PRXIX Spitfire, badly warped fuselage 1/2s on the 1/24 Typhoon etc.... I’m probably just unlucky. However my luck increases exponentially when I buy Tamiya go figure...

 

Unfortunatley my experiences definitely cloud my view on Airfix QC....

 

Airfix were really great to deal with on Spares now since the change of policy far less so... 

 

I think all manufacturers have issues with kit parts from time to time. I had a Meng P-51D with a short shot fuselage 1/2. But they were really quick to resolve the issue.  

 

I think the real issue is the change of tack on spare parts at Airfix hasn’t been really communicated that well to the modelling community if at all by Airfix directly..  We’ve sort of discovered it.  They are pretty quick to tell us all sorts of news apart from some stuff like this...  Which is odd given they were for a while in a co creation mode on social media. 

 

 

Edited by Plasto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heraldcoupe said:

 

Revell have never asked me for any proof before supplying parts on the three (I think) occasions that I've had to request them.


Cheers,

Bill.

Back in pre-internet days, Revell required the instructions be sent in; some 20 or so years ago, they wanted the barcode cut from the box. No idea how they do it today. 

It‘s true the immediate responsibility is with the seller, but the seller has a seller, and ultimately the kit will return to Airfix. Unless someone down the line has excluded warranty. As the kit industry has always worked with a replacement service, there will be a reason for it - possibly some kind of filtering. However, this fails if there are „systemic“ faults like the canopy problems of the past few years when the requests are much above the number calculated. A return to the seller isn’t better either if they end up with a quarter of a run returned.

 

Anyway, if they find the money for a mould, Fury would be logical. I‘d also like a smooth wing Hunter, but the parts layout may be against this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found an Airfix F-86D Sabre from 1975 a while ago. It is well moulded and the fit of the wings and fuselage parts seems very good. Even the small parts and the only clear part are well moulded.

 

That's make me wonder what happend with Airfix and quality? What about small parts, clear parts and attatchment points? I have four new Airfix P-51D Mustangs where small parts as antennas, rudderstick and landinggear are almost destroyed because bad moulding and bad attatchment points. And I have never seen that kind of damages on the older Spifire Mk. I/II/V kits or the older P-51D/K Mustang kit.

 

Looking att the mould damages of the Maurader wich is an "old kit" made with an old mould makes one wonder what people, employees working with producing kits today feel about their work?

 

Do they feel proud and responsibility or do they not take care att all? It is only just another "toy" for a kid in an country far away...

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can work both ways though I have found. Take the Airfix 1/24 Spitfire Mk 1a. I have around 12 boxings of this kit, ranging from the Red Stripe box up to the latest Red box issue and everything in between. Now, the transparencies in most of the older boxings that I have are pretty bad. Even in the original issue, there are flaws and imperfections actually in the plastic which no amount of buffing out will clear, and this applies to nearly all the kits I have from 1970 through to the 1990s releases. The most recent Red box release that I have is a different story. The transparencies are very clear indeed and very usable. I found the same thing with the 109E. Just an observation.

Edited by fightersweep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Yes, the idea that Airfix have (apparently) consciously adopted as a planning assumption the premise that only a financially insignificant number of customers will complain if Airfix palm off faulty or substandard products on them leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.  If such a decision has been made, they deserve to be bitten in the bottom by it.

I don't think it's a conscious decision at all. There have been issues with scheduling and planning at Hornby in general, which the CEO alludes to in the recent report:

http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/hornby/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=1477&newsid=1057137

 

Manufacturers are like sharks - they survive and thrive by moving at pace. We must keep them busy. If we don't they will look elsewhere for orders, which is what they did, further delaying production of our products.

 

After the delays in submitting orders and specifications last year, the situation was similar to trying to book a table at a restaurant at the last minute. As you might expect, most of the restaurants were unavailable, so we desperately rang around and booked the best available table we could find.

 

We then arrived late with less people in the party than we'd promised, we didn't order all of the meals, forgot to tell the kitchen how we wanted our steaks cooked, changed our mind on the side dishes and then complained when we found the restaurant was closing and there was no time for a dessert.

 

Airfix/Hornby have basically been unable to secure the services of their preferred manufacturers, to get their products made they have had to work with lesser suppliers. This is completely understandable and the report makes clear the intention to avoid this kind of situation in future. 

 

Cheers,

Bill.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with passing the buck back to the retailer, as they are legally entitled to do, is that in most cases the margins are so small that it's not worth the retailer's effort to return the models that they have to refund/replace, so its the retailer who takes the hit.  result, they choose to reduce their risk by reducing their Airfix orders.  I have it on good authority that this has happened recently with one well known national retailer (from someone in the buying department of that organisation).

 

It should be very simple to ensure that the supplier improves his QC.  The contract should contain a KPI to say that if there are more than a certain percentage of complaints from any specific batch, payment for that batch should be reduced/withheld. 

 

Anyway, we're getting off the subject.  What do we think we'll see in 2019...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

Problem with passing the buck back to the retailer, as they are legally entitled to do, is that in most cases the margins are so small that it's not worth the retailer's effort to return the models that they have to refund/replace, so its the retailer who takes the hit.  result, they choose to reduce their risk by reducing their Airfix orders.  I have it on good authority that this has happened recently with one well known national retailer (from someone in the buying department of that organisation).

 

It should be very simple to ensure that the supplier improves his QC.  The contract should contain a KPI to say that if there are more than a certain percentage of complaints from any specific batch, payment for that batch should be reduced/withheld. 

No passing of anything, that's on the statute book.

In the UK (England and Wales) the correct way to do it is:-

In a case of complaint the item is to be returned to the

place (retailer) it was purchased from.

 

If the problem is as big as is being made out, the number of returns will be that big the courier companies doing the

pick up/drop off to Hornby will be jumping up and down in glee.

 

I would strongly advise against withholding or reducing a payment, the only thing QC you'll be bothered about is a Queens Council, because the place you'll find yourself is in front of a judge, as it's a crime, something along the lines of

"obtaining goods by deception."

Pay your bill's and your fighting from a position of strength.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure Chewie wasn't referring to modellers witholding payment to Airfix or the retailer but to Airfix witholding payment to the injection-moulding faciility, though I would agree that this would be inadvisable without some provision in the contract to back this action up.

 

Nevertheless, while it is clear the issue of flawed mouldings is one Airfix need to address, I am not convinced of the scale of the problem - as a dog owner I will provide this metaphor; you do not see all the dog poo that is picked up, only the ones that are left on the pavement

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Dog Poo metaphor.

 

Problem with the poo on the pavement is when you step in it, it tends to stick in the memory and all dog owners are then fair game for your ire.... 

 

If you reduce the instances of wayward poo on the pavement then everyone treads normally and the odd dropping is seen for what it is an odd occurance..

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2018 at 9:08 AM, Heraldcoupe said:

 

That's sadly not been true for some years. I've had to wait several months to receive replacement parts for newly released kits. After a year of waiting for replacement transparencies for one of my Blenheims, they sent me a full replacement kit as there were still no spare parts available...
Currently awaiting clear parts for my Sea Fury, requested in April.

 

Cheers,

Bill.

In the pre-Hornby days, Airfix had an extensive stock of kits, including kits long out of production, that they were able to use to provide spare parts. Many people will recall dealing with the fabulous Rita who filled requests for spares and replacements. But Hornby no longer has its own warehouse space; instead they use a third party to receive kits from the moulding company, package them up, and then ship them out to retail and wholesale customers. That means they only have access to parts of kits that are in stock at the time of the request. There has been a significant downgrade in the quality of service from what we were used to, but it is also a significant cost savings to Airfix. If I were in Airfix management, I would be seriously concerned about the bad PR from these duff kits. It's hard to tell what fraction of any given kit is bad but the problems with the Sea Fury fin and cowling certainly seemed to overshadow the positives about what is otherwise a super kit. And I can go back and look at other brand new releases that had significant problems: the Swift with the ejector pin problem, cracked canopies on the 1/24 Typhoon, warped landing gear parts on the Do17Z, and other things I have probably forgotten. When taken together, these things give the impression of a company not in effective control of its supply chain. I cannot recall ever getting a Hasegawa or Tamiya kit with short shot parts. That's the standard Airfix needs to be aiming for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2018 at 3:38 PM, Plasto said:

I don’t think it matters where the product is made. The issue is Airfix kits have a higher than average chance of being delivered with a fault. If that’s down to old tools on new machines, non existent QC, factoring in a reject rate into the goods you supply is to a degree moot... If you want enthusiasts to buy your product and pay top tier prices for it then the quality of the finished goods needs to improve. It’s been poor for a number of years and it’s not seemingly improving..

 

My view if Airfix were to release anything for 2019 it would be a comprehensive quality improvement and customer support plan...

To be fair, we don't actually know the defect rate. We assume it's higher than typical because it seems to disproportionately affect the new releases and people immediately post here about it, but the Revell kits I've bought have had their share of issues, including a short shot fuselage on the recent Tornado F.3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree we don’t know how big the issue is. What we do know is that forums ( the mouthpiece of the modelling public) have a number of ‘war stories’ on Airfix quality these issues are tangible..

 

The issue then becomes what’s the perception of the problem??

 

More so if your policy for dealing with issues is now changed ( for possibly good reasons).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2018 at 11:29 PM, Uncle Dick said:

Crickey!

 

Airfix have released another winner the "Battle Damaged Marauder", that German FLAK is intense to say the least...

 

If only Hasegawa could re-release their Marauder...

 

My sympathies, am now frightened to open any new Airfix boxing as to what surprises await!

Nasty! However, I have three of the recently reissued B- 26 kits. None of them exhibit any flaws like this. I am content for Hasegawa NOT to reissue their B-26 kit though!😁. Seriously overpriced like most of their kits!! Problem is, that some issues are not apparent or visible until you start building. I had to batter my A irfix Shackleton into submission! Absolute pig of a kit. Maybe 2019 should be quality control year?😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, PhoenixII said:

I would strongly advise against withholding or reducing a payment, the only thing QC you'll be bothered about is a Queens Council, because the place you'll find yourself is in front of a judge, as it's a crime, something along the lines of

"obtaining goods by deception."

Pay your bill's and your fighting from a position of strength.

 

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.   I said:

 

On ‎17‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 20:01, Chewbacca said:

The contract should contain a KPI to say that if there are more than a certain percentage of complaints from any specific batch, payment for that batch should be reduced/withheld. 

 

I am referring to the contract between Airfix and its suppliers.

 

We do it routinely with our customers.  Some of our contracts contain a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) that states very clearly that if we fail to deliver a percentage of our deliverables on time and to the quality satisfaction of the customer, our performance payment for that deliverable period, that is an intrinsic part of the legally binding contract, will be abated by an agreed amount (again that amount is stated in the contract which we have both, supplier and customer, signed up to).  So supplier A delivers goods B to the customer.  Contract states that 90% will be paid within 30 days if goods delivered on time.  The balance of 10% will be paid after 90 days if there is less than 5% of the goods returned by, or complaints from, end customers/retailers.  It focuses the mind and improves QC.  We have never missed a quality KPI.

 

If the suppliers think that those terms and conditions are too harsh, they are at liberty to renegotiate them before they sign the contract (probably by a mitigating reduction in price anyway), or not take the contract.

 

Anyway, can we get back to our thoughts for 2019?  How about a 1/350 HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH? (and I'll take either, the current aircraft carrier or the WW1/WW2 battleship)

 

Edited by Chewbacca
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Plasto said:

I agree we don’t know how big the issue is. What we do know is that forums ( the mouthpiece of the modelling public) have a number of ‘war stories’ on Airfix quality these issues are tangible..

 

The issue then becomes what’s the perception of the problem??

 

More so if your policy for dealing with issues is now changed ( for possibly good reasons).

 

 

I agree that the perception of a problem maybe bigger than the problem itself. But that's no less of a problem. If you see what I'm saying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

How about a 1/350 HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH? (and I'll take either, the current aircraft carrier or the WW1/WW2 battleship)

Trumpeter does the battleship in WWII configuration, but a WWI version would be nice. It would be fairly easy to build the other units as well (Barham, Malaya, Warspite, Valiant) as the differences between them were not so great in WWI. The aircraft carrier would be good too but I suspect that Airfix would probably do it in 1/700 first. It would still be a decent size even in that scale - 40.5cm (16 inches) long. A 1/350 kit would be 81cm - double obviously - (31.9 inches) long and probably cost well north of 100 quid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

The aircraft carrier would be good too but I suspect that Airfix would probably do it in 1/700 first. It would still be a decent size even in that scale - 40.5cm (16 inches) long. A 1/350 kit would be 81cm - double obviously - (31.9 inches) long and probably cost well north of 100 quid.

Not sure I quite follow the logic.  Airfix have never had a presence in 1/700 (I think we can ignore the ex-Academy Titanic) yet they have tooled both the Type 45 and ILLUSTRIOUS in 1/350.  Given that one of the main purposes of the T45 is to protect the carrier, I would have thought that 1/350 would be the ideal scale to release it in.  There are several 1/350 models of the Nimitz class which is nearly 10% longer and most of the recent 1/24 aircraft have been £100+.

 

I still don't think we'll see one though, much as I would love to see it headline the launch at Telford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It dpeends on how well the T45 and Invincible sold. The fact neither are in the current catalogue (nor the 1/350th Trafalgar) suggests they were not as popular as hoped. Would a QE sell better? Possibly, but if I were Airfix I'd wait until it is operating with a fixed wing element to get maximum publicity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

It dpeends on how well the T45 and Invincible sold. The fact neither are in the current catalogue (nor the 1/350th Trafalgar) suggests they were not as popular as hoped. Would a QE sell better? Possibly, but if I were Airfix I'd wait until it is operating with a fixed wing element to get maximum publicity

 

Not being in the current range doesn't necessarily mean they weren't good sellers, Airfix have for many years had a cyclic system where a kit is available for a while and then withdrawn and then re-released once demand peaks.

 

All 3 kits still command healthy prices on evilBay which suggests there is still a demand for them even if only small. If Airfix were to tool up a QE class then they could feasibly re-release the other kits at the same time too, although I think I read that Airfix have said there are no plans for any more ships in any scale ☹️.

 

In their current financial position I personally don't think Airfix can afford to take the risk, however Trumpeter might especially as they've already done the T45 destroyers and T23 frigates and as has already been mentioned they already do US Super Carriers which are slightly bigger. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely, both were widely available at discounted prices after relatively shory catalogue runs - and the fact of no new ones since 2012 suggests not a lucrative market (The T23 would have been the logical follow on). Although 2012 was when Hornby hit problems, so perhaps that was more a factor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Hornby used to have their "Warehouse"  sales you could see what was not selling well as there were piles of certain kits at very silly prices. Illustrious was one of those. So were a lot of the "old" 1/24 range.

 

Dick 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Not sure I quite follow the logic.  Airfix have never had a presence in 1/700 (I think we can ignore the ex-Academy Titanic) yet they have tooled both the Type 45 and ILLUSTRIOUS in 1/350.  Given that one of the main purposes of the T45 is to protect the carrier, I would have thought that 1/350 would be the ideal scale to release it in.  There are several 1/350 models of the Nimitz class which is nearly 10% longer and most of the recent 1/24 aircraft have been £100+.

 

I still don't think we'll see one though, much as I would love to see it headline the launch at Telford.

I just think a 1/350 kit would represent a massive investment in tooling and if the kit was not a success ... well, Airfix can't afford to keep losing money! I think if Airfix wants to get back into doing ships then it makes sense to do it in the most popular scale, which is 1/700. There are a lot of complementary kits out there and a large range of accessories. Even so, there are a lot of subjects, particularly British warships from any era and German warships from WWI that remain unkitted in plastic and I think Airfix could make a significant contribution. Actually though, I'd like to see them partner up with a company like Flyhawk. Airfix's current mould quality can't touch Flyhawk's for detail or crispness and, for the kits to sell, they are going to have to be good. The Flyhawk 1/700 PoW is something to behold, even in just it's basic all-plastic version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...